If being perfect excludes choise, then the irony of it all is that God as being the only perfect being around is also the only one without a free will. (As free will means the ability to choose between two or more options).

MM: Do you agree with this insight? Please explain.


MM: The "options" you refer to are merely theoretical. For the same reasons God cannot sin, He cannot seriously entertain an option that is less than right and best. Even the so-called two options I named is merely theoretical. The only option God seriously entertained was the right and best one, that is, to create FMAs and deal with the sin problem. There can only be one right and best option, which is why God chose to do what He did. The other option, not to create FMAs, was not a viable option because it was not the right and best option. The same dynamics apply to your view.


MM: Does it mean it there is a slight chance rebellion might happen?


MM: Did God also regret creating the angels that rebelled? If not, why not?

Since God regrets creating mankind, does that mean He wishes He hadn't made the decision to create them? Didn't He realize, in the beginning, there was a slight chance they might rebel? Didn't He decide to risk it anyhow because He was hoping they wouldn't rebel? Hindsight being 20/20 wouldn't it have been better if God hadn't created them?


MM: How can you believe it? Your view of God's ability (or lack thereof) to predict the future choices of FMAs does not allow you to believe it. yo wrote, "I would say God does not know *every* decision that FMAs will make in the future."


MM: How far in advance can God know what people will do in the future? Is there a range limit? For example, God knew 4000 years in advance that 1) Jesus would be nailed to a cross and that 2) He would succeed on the cross. How did God know it?

This isn't a valid argument. God's knowing or not knowing if an FMA would rebel is not dependent upon whether or not they actually rebel. You've got the cart and horse backwards here.



I don't understand why you have a view of the universe to where there is only one right and best choice at every situation. Say you're deciding on whether to wear black socks or navy blue socks. Is it necessarily the case the one choice is right and best, and the other not?



There was a slight chance that rebellion would happen, and it did.



I would imagine God felt the same way. Maybe worse, because of the possibility that Satan would lead other worlds to sin.



I don't see how you could disconnect the creation of man from the decision to create man, so yes, that's what it means.



Yes, that's what I've been saying.



God says He regretted making man. Does that answer your question? I'm not understanding if you're trying to get at something different than this.



That God doesn't know every decision FMAs will make, doesn't mean He doesn't know any.



Infinitely far.



No.



We know that Christ would have to die, as that was the only way man could be reconciled to God. Regarding the possibility that Christ would succeed, surely God would see that, as well as the possibility of failure.



Notice that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. This statement doesn't make any sense from your perspective, does it?

MM: I seem to remember you saying if God knew they were going to sin He would not have created them. So, using this logic, the fact they did sin clearly indicates He didn't know they were going to sin. Otherwise, He would not have created them. Right? Thus, the fact they chose to rebel is proof God did not know they were going to rebel.


MM: Tom, please don't switch gears on me. Not yet. We're not talking about mundane decisions, are we? I'm talking about "the" choice God made in the beginning. The only option God seriously entertained was the right and best one, that is, to create FMAs and deal with the sin problem. There can only be one right and best option, which is why God chose to do what He did. The other option, not to create FMAs, was not a viable option because it was not the right and best option. The same dynamics apply to your view.


MM: Above you said it was "not even likely" and now you're saying there was a "slight chance". What is the difference?


MM: Then why all the bluster? "(Not FMAs!, man! I've pointed this out to you several times now)." This rebuke implied you totally disagreed.


MM: You agree God, based on hindsight, now wishes He hadn't created man, that if He had it to do all over again, knowing what He knows now, He would not create man. All of this implies God made the wrong decision when He decided to crate man. Do you agree?


MM: We're talking about zillions of beings making infinite choices throughout eternity - innumerable choices. Not even God can count them. And yet you believe God can know now that not one of those countless choices will be wrong? Based on what? What is your proof that God possesses such knowledge and ability? What is the precedence?

Also, you wrote above, "God has told us that [rebellion] won't happen [again], so yes, I believe He must know this to be true, since He said it." God said so, so it must be true. Amen! But I'm surprised you are willing to go along with this answer. Normally you reject these kinds of answers, labeling it "circular". Why not this one?


MM: Above you wrote, "I would say God does not know *every* decision that FMAs will make in the future." But you don't seem to apply this to post-GC FMAs. Why not?

How can God know for all eternity all the zillions of decisions all the zillions of FMAs will make, and yet in the beginning He didn't all the limited number of decisions all the limited number of FMAs were going to make during a limited number of years (around 6000 years so far).

Regarding Sister White's "risk" comments - we definitely don't see eye to eye. You insist they mean God didn't know for sure if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. And yet you seem to believe God knew for sure He would be nailed to the cross. I disagree with your conclusion. Nowhere does she plainly say what you believe. You choose to believe it is implied. I don't. In the absence of a plainly worded passage, you cannot be so sure you're right. Saying it is implied doesn't cut it, for me.

This is circular logic, which I avoid.



Why do you think there can only be one right and best choice? Why can't there be more than one choice, all of which are equally valid? If the choice being suggested is a stupid choice, shouldn't that lead one to question whether the suggested choice was actually one that was made?

There's no reason to assume God only had one viable option available to Him. You've spoken of mundane decisions, like the color of one's socks. Your statement wasn't qualified in any way. You just said that God doesn't have any options, because He always makes the best decision. Should this be qualified to not include mundane decisions? Do you even think God makes mundane decisions? I'm not switching gears here. I'm trying to point out to you that there's no reason your assumption has to be true that God does not have options. What is the evidence for this idea? If mundane decisions don't count, how do you know what decisions are mundane and which aren't? If mundane decisions can be excluded from your declaration that God does not have options, why not non-mundane ones?



I don't understand your thinking here, or your question.



Because that's not what the text says! Accuracy is important in discussing these things, MM. You should be accurate in quoting Scripture, and quoting others.



No, MM. This is wrong reasoning.

Did you understand the die scenario? If someone offers you 50/50 on the proposition that a fair die will come up 1, and you take him up on it, and it comes up 1, did you make a bad decision? It sounds like you might say "yes," but that's faulty logic. A decision does not become a bad decision after the fact. The evaluation of a decision has to be made based on the information available at the time the decision was made.




Not only could God count them, it would be trivially easy for Him to do so. I think part of the problem you're having here is treating God as if He were a man, something like you or I. *We* could not count these things. The scenario I'm suggesting would be far to complicated for us. But it's simplicity itself for God.



God is omniscient. Just look at creation. It's obvious to me that for a being that could create the universe, knowing what choices that could possibly be made by creatures He created would be very easy.



Because I'm not assuming something I'm trying to prove. If God tells us something is true that is not conditional, He must know it is true, correct? This nothing circular here. Just reasoning in a straight line. Before you can say something is such and so, you have to know it is such and so.



God can foresee all the possible decisions an FMA can make. If none of those possibilities are sin, He can rule out sin. He doesn't have to know which of the non-sin possibilities the FMA will opt for to rule out sin as a possibility.

That shouldn't be difficult to see.



That's what she wrote. God sent His son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. If there's no chance of failure, there's no risk. If the phrase "risk of failure" does not make it clear that there was a risk of failure, what would? What language could she have used to make it more clear that there was a risk of failure than "risk of failure"?



I'm not sure what you are referring to here. God knew Jesus would have to die in order for man to be reconciled. Why would this be difficult to know?



She says Christ was sent at the "risk of failure." There is nothing I an inferring here. She clearly states it.

She also says that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. I'm not inferring anything here either. This is a clear statement, and one which couldn't possibly be true if your perspective of the future were true, because if God has always been certain that heaven would never be under any danger due to our redemption, then He could not very well have said it was imperiled, could He?



The statements presented here are not inferences. God sent His Son at the "risk of failure." "All heaven was imperiled for our redemption."

These are plainly worded.

MM: We're talking about zillions of beings making infinite choices throughout eternity - innumerable choices. Not even God can count them.


Not only does He count them but He also acts with His own free will decisions while still leaving room for all our other decisions to remain free. He acts from within allowing all other wills and works with them. One example would be using Joseph's brothers evil to provide food during the famine. He didnt will the evil He just acted also and brought good out of it.

Aaron

So sinning will not be a possible decision in eternity?

Tom, once again I'm done. Thanx for the discussion. We are never going to agree on the foreknowledge of God. I will never believe God does not know the future like a rerun. He is not bound by our time and space continuum. He is omnipresent, therefore, He is omniscient. He knows the end from the beginning because our yesterdays and tomorrows are, for God, now and always.

God does not make mistakes. He does not make decisions He later learns to regret. He says and does everything for a purpose. We may not understand certain sayings and doings until we get to heaven. God foresaw the GC and chose to create FMAs anyhow. He is perfect, therefore, His decision to create them was perfect.

If He had it to do all over again, He wouldn't change a thing. His options were, and would always be, two, 1) Create FMAs and deal with the GC, and 2) Not create FMAs and not deal with the GC. He chose the one and only right and best option. The other option was never even considered, thus, it exists only in theory.

There's no difference in our two views as far as this question is concerned. Sin is a possible decision in the sense that an FMA is physically able to sin, but God has foreseen that this decision will not be made.

By "two" do you mean "one"?



If this is the case, then don't you mean God had one choice?

1) Create FMAs and deal with the GC