My answer to this oft repeated question hasn't changed. It was worth it. The end (FMAs living happily ever after) justifies the means (creating FMAs in spite of knowing in advance they would rebel). He would establish His throne in righteousness.

Sorry for repeating the same question. I know I complain when you do that, and I wouldn't blame you for getting upset, but I'm still not understanding this as an answer to my question. It seems like it's just rephrasing my question in other words.

You write, "it was worth it." But why go through the "it" at all? That's my question.

That is, you are saying that the end that will eventually come was worth the pain that we had to go through to get there. This makes perfect sense from my standpoint, because I believe sin was not something planned or inevitable. When sin happened, then that circumstance had to be dealt with, and the universe was forced to go through the pain and suffering which sin brings with it, and in the end, we can indeed say, "it was worth it."

However, from your standpoint, it wasn't necessary at all to go through any of this pain and suffering. God could simply have chosen not to create an FMA if the result of so doing is that sin would result. So that still leaves my question, why would God choose to create an FMA knowing that sin would result in so doing? Why wouldn't He follow an algorithm like the following?

A.Should I create creature #(pick a number).
B.Will the creation of said creature result in sin?
C.If yes, skip this one, and go to the next
D.If no, go and and create the creature.

Why in the world would He ever use the following rule for C, instead of the one above?

C.Go ahead and create the creature anyway.

In regards to the point, "He would establish His throne in righteousness," don't you think this means in spite of sin? That is, in spite of sin, God will establish His throne in righteousness. It seems to be clear that's what the point of this statement is.

But this just begs the question, couldn't God establish His throne in righteousness without sin? Or was God dependent upon sin in order to establish His throne in righteousness? This seems absurd, so if we take it for granted that God was not dependent upon sin in order to establish His throne in righteousness, my question still remains.

To put it simply, saying God would establish His throne in righteousness simply lays out what God will do, even in the presence of sin. It doesn't explain why God would choose to bring sin into the universe, unless one takes the point of view that God needs sin in order to establish His throne in righteousness.

By the way, do you agree with the statement I just made here, that God chose to bring sin into the universe? My logic is that God created a being knowing that the result of doing so would certainly result in sin. Since God did not need to do that, God chose to bring sin into the universe. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, where do you see a problem in the logic?

MM: Intelligent? Or, just a good guesser? Is He intelligent enough to know exactly which one of the many possibilities He foresees will play out?

TE: That's like asking if God is powerful enough to create a rock so large He can't lift it.

MM: How can He know part of it, but not all of it?

TE: He does know all of it. There not being a certain one that plays out is part of "it".

MM: Even Jean Dixon was able to get part of it right.

TE: God has all of it right.

TE: Just to mention one thing, your view is that the future is something that has already happened. The C. S. Lewis quote spoke of the future as something that is happening.

MM: When we compare God's knowledge of the future with ours, or when we speak about both at the same time, there is sure to be some clumsy overlap of ideas. From God's perspective, as Lewis pointed out, our yesterdays and tomorrows, for God, happen simultaneously. From our perspective, though, tomorrow hasn't happened yet, whereas for God it is already happening.

TE: he biggest problem I see with this idea is that it isn't Scriptural. God speaks of Himself having acted, acting, or will act.

MM: Not Scriptural? The Bible is full of examples of God describing the future accurately. He knows the end from the beginning. He is eternal, without end or beginning. Time and space does not apply to God like they apply to us. The fact He speaks to us using terminology we are familiar with in no way means He is like us, bound by time and space.

TE: This is the part that is unscriptural, that is, your last sentence. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that suggests that His speaking to us in terminology that we are familiar with is not the way things really are.

To give some quick examples: (I think these texts are mostly from the NRSV)

a)God speaks of regretting a decision He made (Gen: 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 35; The flood and choosing Saul as king.)

b)God confronts the unexpected:





c)God expresses frustration. For example,



d)God tests people to know their character. After the test He says things like, "Now I know that you fear God" (Gen. 22:12).

e)God speaks of terms of what may or may not be.









f. God changes His mind:



Other texts expressing this idea include: Exodus 32:14; 33:1-3, 14; Deuteronomy 9:13-29; 1 Samuel 2:27-31, 1 Kings 21:21-29; 2 Chronicles 12:5-8; Jeremiah 26:2-3; Ezekiel 4:9-15; Amos 7:1-6; Jonah 3:10.

A lot more could be said about this, but this should be sufficient to establish the point that God expresses Himself as being impacted by events as they occur in time. Or to say it another way, time is meaningful for God in a similar way that it is meaningful for us. You are suggesting this is not the case, that God expresses Himself in terminology that we can understand, but these expressions are not indicative of what is really happening.

There is no Scriptural basis for asserting this. The passages I cited (and there are many, many more; this is just a drop in the bucket) are just as much a part of Scripture as the passages which discuss God's knowledge of the future in certain terms.

The reality is that some passage present God as knowing the future in certain terms, and some present God as not knowing the future in these terms. Is this contradictory? No, not if the future is partially settled and partially not settled. That which is certain, God expresses as certain. That which is not, God expresses differently.

It is not necessary to throw away large chunks of Scripture as being rhetorical or just being a figure of speech or not presenting what really happens, simply because they do not match our pre-existing viewpoint. Indeed, if one takes uses this methodology to interpret Scripture, it's hard to see how any position taken could be refuted. Whenever there is evidence that the given position is wrong, this evidence can be written off as a figure of speech or rhetorical device, and discarded.

MM: There are two realities - God's and ours. They harmonize perfectly because God is God, He is omnipresent. The two realties do not conflict or cancel one another.

TE: Reality is, by definition, what is. What God perceives to be reality is reality. That is to say, what really is is what God knows. What we know is just an approximation. However, if there really is no such thing as a past or future, then our perception of reality is not just slightly off, but totally wrong.

MM: I would agree with you except for the fact God is not human, and we are not God.

TE: So you would agree that reality is as God perceives it to be, if He were human. But because God is not human, that means reality is different than what God perceives it to be?

MM: The radical differences between us and God necessitates two realities. It is unavoidable.

TE: There's aren't two realities. There is just reality. Reality is what is.

How one perceives reality to be does not alter reality, regardless of whether the being perceiving reality is human or not. It's difficult to conceive that one would argue that reality is different than what God perceives it to be. Given that reality is what is, then reality is what God perceives it to be.

I can make the same point without using the word "reality." I'll state it this way. What is, is what God perceives it as being. If we perceive what is differently than what God does, to the degree that our perception differs from God, our perception of what is is wrong.

To assert that there are two realities is to assert that what is exists (not merely is perceived, but exists) in two different forms.

Well, this is getting pretty philosophical. If we just stick to Scripture, we can see that there are many Scriptures that present God as experiencing reality in time, as we do.

5The LORD saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil. 6He was very sorry that he had made them, 7and he said, "I'll destroy every living creature on earth! I'll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles. I'm sorry I ever made them. (CEV)

MM: Intelligent? Or, just a good guesser? Is He intelligent enough to know exactly which one of the many possibilities He foresees will play out?

TE: But why go through the "it" at all? That's my question.

MM: If it was an option for God not to create the FMAs He knew would rebel, and only create the ones He knew wouldn't rebel - then certainly He would have opted for it. The fact He didn't is evidence such an option was not viable.

TE: As I pointed out to Rosangela, we all assume that God will not make questionable decisions. If our position leads to the logical conclusion that God made a questionable decision, then there is something wrong with our position.

Under your position, we are led, by logic, to the conclusion that God made a quesitonable decision. He chose to create FMAs that He knew would sin, when, instead of this, He could have created FMAs He knew would not sin. Since God does not make questionable decisions, there's a problem with your position.

Your assertion that the option to create FMAs is not viable, because if it were God would have chosen it, simply is an admission that there's something wrong with your position. It's obvious that God, under your perspective, could have created FMAs that wouldn't sin. He could have followed the following algorithm:

From i=1 to n, where n is the total number of creatures that could be created.

a)If the creation of creature i will result in sin coming into existence, next i.
b)Create crature.

So it's easy to see the option is viable. Since the option is viable, and God does not make questionable decisions, there's something wrong with the position you're taking.

TE: ... the universe was forced ...

MM: Why? God could have opted not to create FMAs. Knowing there was a slight chance (according to your view) they would rebel meant taking a calculated risk. No one forced Him to take such a risk.

Since they did rebel, and hindsight being 20/20, do you think God regretted taking the risk?

TE: In Gen. 6 we read:

5The LORD saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil. 6He was very sorry that he had made them, 7and he said, "I'll destroy every living creature on earth! I'll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles. I'm sorry I ever made them. (CEV)

MM: Or, was it worth it? Or, do you agree with me that not creating them was not even an option, that even if He had known it in advance He still would have gone through with it, because it was worth it?

TE: God says He was sorry He created man. Based on what God said, the answer to your question must be no. God would not create beings knowing they would sin.

TE: So that still leaves my question, why would God choose to create an FMA knowing that sin would result in so doing?

MM: See my first response above.

TE: I don't see that you answered my question. You just said if there were some other option that were better, then God would have done that. But you didn't answer the question I asked in your first reponse. So far the only thing I've seen that even comes close to answering the question is "it was worth it." But given that God could have created FMAs that He knew wouldn't sin instead of FMAs that He knew would sin, that still leaves my question unanswered, because the "worth it" part was unnecessary.

TE: In regards to the point, "He would establish His throne in righteousness," don't you think this means in spite of sin?

MM: Yes, in spite of sin.

TE: Ok, so we agree on what this means. Good.

TE: [1] Since God did not need to do that, [2] God chose to bring sin into the universe.

MM: I addressed [1] in my first response above. Regarding [2], in the beginning God's options were two - 1) to create FMAs and deal with the sin problem, or 2) not create FMAs and not deal with the sin problem. God chose the first option.

TE: It doesn't appear to me that you addressed 1). You pretty much just said if God could have done something better, than He would have, which doesn't address the question. Regarding 2, why not just skip creating the FMAs that the result of creating them would result in sin? Then you would have FMAs and not sin, and no problem to take care of.

TE: The article spoke of the future being partially fixed and partially open. I think that's an excellent way of putting it, and thinking about it. There are certain things that are certain, for a variety of reasons. One reason could be because God actively influences it. Another could be because regarding the question in point, the character has been set (e.g. Peter will deny Christ; the 144,000 will be faithful unto death, etc.).

These are a couple of reasons, but not exhaustive, as to how there can be certain elements of the future which are fixed. God sees the juxtaposition of the fixed elements and yet to be determined elements.

MM: These ideas imply God is merely a really good guesser. There are so many other variables that come into play which would offset His ability to know with any kind of certainty how the future will play out.

TE: God is omniscient. His ability to know what will happen is not in the least bit offset by the complexity of things due to these variables you have mentioned. But what you're mentioning here shows how the Open View requires God to be much more intelligent than the idea that there is just one future which God sees. It (the Open View) requires that God manage all the complexity in inherent in these variables.

MM: Intelligent? Or, just a good guesser? Is He intelligent enough to know exactly which one of the many possibilities He foresees will play out?

TE: That's like asking if God is powerful enough to create a rock so large He can't lift it.

MM: No it isn't. Your example is silly, whereas my question is based on our ongoing discussion. The point is, intelligence has nothing to do with it. The reason God knows precisely which way the future will play out, instead of just the many different ways it could play out, is because He possesses the gift of omnipresence.

TE: It looks like you're kind of wandering about a bit here. Here's what I was responding to: “Intelligent? Or, just a good guesser? Is He intelligent enough to know exactly which one of the many possibilities He foresees will play out?”

Here you ask if God is "intelligent" enough to know which possibility will come about. In your most recent post, you say God knows what will happen because He is omnipresent. If you think God knows what will happen because He is omnipresent, then why are you asking me about His intelligence?

Btw, my example was not silly, but was right to the point. You were asking me if God was intelligent enough to know something which cannot be known. I responded to you by asking if He was powerful enough to do something which can't be done. The same issue is involved in both your question and my example.

MM: It's still unclear to me, then, what you mean by part of the future is open and part is fixed as it relates to His active participation. Please explain.

TE: I noticed in some reading I'm doing that the author uses the word "settled" instead of "fixed," which I think may be a better choice of words, so I'll try that. The future is partially settled and partially not settled. By settled, that means that these settled parts of the future are definitively known. They can be known for different reasons, one of which is that God decides to take an action. Say God decides He will create the earth, and tells the angels about it. God foresaw what He would do, and this future that God foresaw was settled.

TE: There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that suggests that His speaking to us in terminology that we are familiar with is not the way things really are.

MM: Wow! Thank you for posting such a thorough study.

TE: I'm glad you appreciated it. I wanted to do more, but was pressed for time. But at least it provides a framework for a discussion.

MM: It is fascinating how God chooses to communicate, the words and ideas He shares. However, I am not convinced that He never uses terms and titles for the sole purpose of relating to us in a way we can understand, or in a way that does not reflect the way things really are.

TE: What you are saying here is how those who hold the traditional view always respond. This response is forced, because Scriptures clearly states that God regrets decisions, changes His mind, considers the future to be maybe this or maybe that, to name just a couple of things, which are contrary to the traditional view. So the only alternative, if one wishes to keep the view, is to throw out these Scriptures which present a contrary idea.

However, the basis for throwing out these texts is philosophical, not Scriptural. There is nothing in the Scriptural texts themselves which suggest that God is not communicating something He really thinks or feels. Nowhere does God communicate to us the idea that He is speaking of things that aren't really true, to communicate to us in language that we can understand, to make some other point.

For example, when God expresses regret that Israel did not choose to follow Him, the natural reading of Scripture is that God felt regret because Israel did not choose to follow Him. There is nothing in the Scripture text to suggest otherwise. But the philosophical belief that God sees the future in a certain way would force one to come to the conclusion that the text does not really mean what it says, and that God did not really feel regret, because according to the phiolosophy, it's not possible for God to feel regret. How could God feel regret for something He always knew He was going to do, for example. Even though the Scripture says this, the philosophy does not allow it.

MM: However, I am not convinced that He never uses [certain] terms and titles for the sole purpose of relating to us in a way we can understand, or in a way that does not reflect the way things really are. For example, consider the following passages:

PP 106
The Lord declares that when He looks upon the bow, He will remember His covenant. This does not imply that He would ever forget; but He speaks to us in our own language, that we may better understand Him. {PP 106.2}

This passage implies that God does indeed employ certain terms and titles so that we can better understand Him, but which do not reflect His reality.

Genesis
3:9, 11 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou? … Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

And this passage makes it clear that God employs language which does not reflect His reality. God knew right where Adam was, and He knew he had eaten the forbidden fruit.

TE: In Genesis, it is obvious that God is asking Adam and Eve a question for the purpose of eliciting a response from them. God wanted to communicate to them that He wasn't angry at them, and the easiest convey this was to speak to them.

However, in the Scriptures I cited, God is not doing something like this. For example, when He communicates frustration, the clear reading of the text is that God feels frustrated. If He doesn't really feel frustrated, but is actually just communicating something to us in language we can understand, how does God really feel?

MM: Here’s what makes perfect sense to me. God is omniscient and omnipresent, therefore, He knows exactly which way the future will play out. The fact things resulted in a GC is evidence there was no way around it; otherwise He would have done things differently. I realize you believe this logic is faulty, but on this we shall have to disagree.

MM: I assume quoting this text in answer to my question means you believe God regretted creating FMAs.

However, according to your view, God thought the risk was worth it. So, why would He regret creating them?

MM: But He was willing to create them hoping they wouldn’t rebel? And then regret it afterwards because they chose to rebel? This doesn’t make sense to me, Tom.

MM: Tom, it appears you have rejected my answer, which is - Here’s what makes perfect sense to me. God is omniscient and omnipresent, therefore, He knows exactly which way the future will play out. The fact things resulted in a GC is evidence there was no way around it; otherwise He would have done things differently.

MM: You rejected my answer to [1]. And, your suggestion regarding [2] was not a viable option; otherwise God would have opted for it. God is perfect, therefore, what He did was right. The fact FMAs ended up rebelling, in spite of the fact He knew they would, does not detract from the fact that what He did was right. Again, He is perfect, therefore, everything He does is perfect. There is only one perfect way. There cannot be two or more perfect ways.

MM: I, for one, am not throwing our Scripture to bolster an idea not supported in Scripture. Here’s what I posted (quoted above):

“I am not convinced that He never uses [certain] terms and titles for the sole purpose of relating to us in a way we can understand, or in a way that does not reflect the way things really are.”

On the opposite side of this coin, I agree with you that there are times when God does use certain terms and titles to express exactly what He thinks and feels. Did God “regret” the fact the children of Israel did not follow Him? Yes, of course. But not for the reasons you seem to be suggesting, namely, that He didn’t see it coming, or that the chances of it happening were slight. In this case, I believe God conveys "regret" because that is how humans, who do not know the future, would think and feel. He is simply relating to us in a way we can understand.

You stated above, "How could God feel regret for something He always knew He was going to do, for example." I believe God dealt with such feelings in the beginning, when He was deciding whether or not to create FMAs. And He has been coping with them ever since His decision to go through with it. But it is not "regret" as we know it.

By the way, how do you know what God was trying to convey in Eden? The language He employed does not reflect it. The words He used make it clear God did not know where Adam was or if he had eaten the forbidden fruit.

TE: The article spoke of the future being partially Mountain Manfixed and partially open. I think that's an excellent way of putting it, and thinking about it. There are certain things that are certain, for a variety of reasons. One reason could be because God actively influences it. Another could be because regarding the question in point, the character has been set (e.g. Peter will deny Christ; the 144,000 will be faithful unto death, etc.).

These are a couple of reasons, but not exhaustive, as to how there can be certain elements of the future which are fixed. God sees the juxtaposition of the fixed elements and yet to be determined elements.

MM: These ideas imply God is merely a really good guesser. There are so many other variables that come into play which would offset His ability to know with any kind of certainty how the future will play out.

TE: God is omniscient. His ability to know what will happen is not in the least bit offset by the complexity of things due to these variables you have mentioned. But what you're mentioning here shows how the Open View requires God to be much more intelligent than the idea that there is just one future which God sees. It (the Open View) requires that God manage all the complexity in inherent in these variables.

MM: Intelligent? Or, just a good guesser? Is He intelligent enough to know exactly which one of the many possibilities He foresees will play out?

TE: That's like asking if God is powerful enough to create a rock so large He can't lift it.

MM: No it isn't. Your example is silly, whereas my question is based on our ongoing discussion. The point is, intelligence has nothing to do with it. The reason God knows precisely which way the future will play out, instead of just the many different ways it could play out, is because He possesses the gift of omnipresence.

TE: It looks like you're kind of wandering about a bit here. Here's what I was responding to: “Intelligent? Or, just a good guesser? Is He intelligent enough to know exactly which one of the many possibilities He foresees will play out?”

Here you ask if God is "intelligent" enough to know which possibility will come about. In your most recent post, you say God knows what will happen because He is omnipresent. If you think God knows what will happen because He is omnipresent, then why are you asking me about His intelligence?

Btw, my example was not silly, but was right to the point. You were asking me if God was intelligent enough to know something which cannot be known. I responded to you by asking if He was powerful enough to do something which can't be done. The same issue is involved in both your question and my example.

MM: However, I am not convinced that He never uses [certain] terms and titles for the sole purpose of relating to us in a way we can understand, or in a way that does not reflect the way things really are. For example, consider the following passages:

PP 106
The Lord declares that when He looks upon the bow, He will remember His covenant. This does not imply that He would ever forget; but He speaks to us in our own language, that we may better understand Him. {PP 106.2}

This passage implies that God does indeed employ certain terms and titles so that we can better understand Him, but which do not reflect His reality.

Genesis
3:9, 11 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou? … Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

And this passage makes it clear that God employs language which does not reflect His reality. God knew right where Adam was, and He knew he had eaten the forbidden fruit.

TE: In Genesis, it is obvious that God is asking Adam and Eve a question for the purpose of eliciting a response from them. God wanted to communicate to them that He wasn't angry at them, and the easiest convey this was to speak to them.

However, in the Scriptures I cited, God is not doing something like this. For example, when He communicates frustration, the clear reading of the text is that God feels frustrated. If He doesn't really feel frustrated, but is actually just communicating something to us in language we can understand, how does God really feel?