If you're asking if Jesus Christ could have failed, the answer is yes, as the following makes clear:



However, there appears to be a flaw in the underlying assumption of your question, which I'll clarify. Let's consider an event that is 100% certain to occur, the coming of Christ. It is not the case that the fact that this event is certain to occur implies a lack of options as there are many ways for it to happen. For example:



I think the first time she wrote something similar was in the late 1850's, meaning that Christ could have come in the 1850's. Christ would have come in the 1888 era had the message been received; we have many SOP statements saying this. One statement, in 1903 I think, says that Christ was disappointed He was not able to return.

The fact that Christ will come is certain, but not the details as to how this will happen. Hence there are many options. So even though the probability is 100% that He will come, there is no limitations of options available to FMA's (to use MM's term; Free Moral Agent).

I'm not talking about Jesus' coming, and neither was Genesis 3. God said, "He will bruise your head." That's not just Jesus coming; that's Jesus defeating Satan. God didn't say it was possible, or that it was probable; He said it was going to happen. Don't you agree?

The only possible other option is that Jesus was going to fail, as this is totally binary. Succeed or fail; there is no other option.

But you point out that the SOP says that there was a possibility of failure. We can agree there.

The problem this causes is for your position that God's knowing a certain outcome eliminates all possibilities but one. But here we see 1) God says Satan will be defeated, and 2) the SOP reveals that failure was a possible outcome. Therefore, if we accept that God is right and the SOP is right, that means that God's foreknowledge of a particular outcome does not mean that there is only one possibility.

In case I was too confusing last time, consider this.

1) We agree that the SOP says Jesus could have failed.
2) We agree that God said Jesus "shall bruise [Satan's] head."

Here's my question to you: Did God know, in Eden, that Jesus would succeed? (And when I say "know" I mean knowing for a certainty, not just knowing possibilities or probabilities.)

You were making an argument using an example. I addressed both the specific example you used, and the argument. The argument is not dependent upon the example.

The specific example has to do with Jesus succeeding in his fight against Satan. The SOP quote makes clear that Christ could have failed.

The argument you were suggesting appeared to be that if an event is 100% certain to occur then the options would be limited in this case. You appeared to be using this as a counter-argument to what I presented. Otherwise, I don't see why you would have asked the questions you did.

Your argument looked to have a flaw in its assumption, which is what I addressed in dealing with Christ's coming. I could have used any event to address this. Since I was dealing with the argument, I was under no constraints in regards to how I would address what I perceived to be a flaw.



Ok, so if there was a possibility of failure, then there was some chance Christ would succeed and some chance He would fail. So the prophecy that something would happen was not implying that the thing prophecy had to happen. You're asking the same question that was asked in Jeremiah's time. Jeremiah had prophesied negatively and the response was akin to, "If the Lord has prophesied against us, then we're doomed! There's nothing we can do." to which Jeremiah responded:



So the fact that a prophesy is made does not mean the thing prophesied must happen. Jonah's prophesy is a good example of this. When beings with free will are involved, they may choose one thing or choose another. The prophesy declares what will happen providing a given choice is made.



I see several problems with this argument. One is that the fact that something is prophesied means that God is saying the thing prophsied must occur. I've already dealt with this.

Another problem is with the statement that "God's foreknowledge of a particular outcome means that there is only one possibility" and has to do with the use of the term "outcome." An outcome can be known, yet there can be many ways to bring about this outcome. This is why I spoke of Christ's coming. It's 100% certain that Christ will come (the outcome is known), but there are many ways this can happen (so it's not correct to infer there is only one possibility in this case).

Finally it appears there is some misunderstanding in regards to what my position is. My position is centered on the nature of the future, which is that it is comprised of many possibilities with different probabilities of outcome as opposed to certainties. God's foreknowledge enters into this only indirectly. I maintain that God knows that future as it actually is, as opposed to some way it is not. So if God foreknows the future as a series of events which are certain to occur, then the future is comprised of certainties as opposed to probabilities. In this case God's foreknowledge would be a simple thing; He would simply see what will happen. OTOH if God foreknows the future in terms of events that may happen, His foreknowledge is a much more complex thing, which might be characterized as a complex of trees (I'm speaking of trees in a logical sense, not as plants).

God knew Christ could fail and that Christ could succeed. The SOP statement makes that clear. If God knew that Christ could fail, He couldn't have known as a certainty that Christ would succeed.

Just because Christ could have failed doesnt mean that God didnt know that He wouldnt fail. Thats implying foreknowledge is causative. Your saying if God knows for certain what will happen then nothing else can happen except that. But that is affirming the consequent.

Aaron

Sure it does. The only way this wouldn't be true would be if something God knows will certainly happen can not happen. Do you believe this is possible?

For example, if God knows for certainty that Obama will win the election, is it possible that God will be wrong and McCain will win?



No it's not. This is making the same mistake Arnold is, confusing inference with causation. Often one can make an inference without having any idea as to the cause. This happens all the time in science.



I'm saying that God knows things as they are. So if God knows the future as fixed, then the future is fixed (by fixed, I mean as consisting of one option). The cause is the nature of the future, not God's knowledge of it. God's knowledge of it is immaterial as a cause.

A.Future is fixed ==> only one option possible.
B.Future open ==> many options possible.

If God knows the future as fixed, then it is fixed, and there is only one option possible. If God knows the future as open, then many options are possible.

The causative agent in this is the nature of the future, not God's knowledge of it.

Is the future open, or fixed? That's the real question.

My responses to your 3 statements: Agree, agree, disagree. But before we continue with that, I want to look a bit into Gen 3:15.

You articulate an interesting understanding of Genesis 3:15. When God said, "He shall bruise your head" to Satan, you believe God was saying, "Christ could succeed"? Are you saying that Jesus bruising Satan's head wasn't a certainty?

The SOP has something to say on this:
She calls Gen 3:15 "a promise of the redemption to be wrought out through Christ." When God uttered it in Eden, was this promise of redemption a sure thing or just a possibility?

Just in case anyone is not sure how Gen 3:15 was fulfilled...

My answer is that the future is open, with many possibilities, but God knows exactly how each worm will crawl out.

I think there's something else to consider: Does every moral decision have a cause, or are some of them arbitrary and random? If there's always a cause, does God have the resources to link all the causes with their effects?