I'm glad you looked at the article. Thanks.

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.





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.

I meant omnipresence, not omniscience. God is omnipresent, therefore, for God, the future does not exist. Yesterday and tomorrow are, for God, now and always. As such, it doesn't affect our freedom or ability to choose. Nor does it affect the nature of our future. The future is what it is - a thing that belongs to our time and space continuum. The fact God is omnipresent does not destroy or alter our future, our time line.

You would accept the premise that reality is what God perceives it to be, wouldn't you? If this is the case, then if God perceives there to be no future, or past, but only now, then in reality there is no future or past, only now. If this is what reality is, then our perception that there are such things as a past, present, and future are wrong.

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: 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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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'm interested in your response to the following question. Why would God create a being He was certain would sin?

Intelligent? Or, just a good guesser? Is He intelligent enough to know exactly which one of the many possibilities He foresees will play out? How can He know part of it, but not all of it? Even Jean Dixon was able to get part of it right.


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.


I would agree with you except for the fact God is not human, and we are not God. The radical differences between us and God necessitates two realities. It is unavoidable.

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.

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 12
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

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?

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



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



God has all of it right.



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.




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?



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.