Jean Dixon doesn't see anything happening. God sees the totality of the future. It's the difference between infinity and 0.



God didn't create the nuclear bomb. Satan did. Satan is the author of sin and all its results, not God.



Why wouldn't we be? How does God's seeing what will happen affect our freedom?

If God foresaw only one thing happening, *that* would affect our freedom, because God could only foresee the possibility of exactly one thing happening if only one thing could possibly happen, and if only one thing can possibly happen, then there is only one option available. This I understand. But I don't understand how our options would be limited under the scenario of your question.



Your question assumes there is something God does not foresee, which is not the case.



He wouldn't be.



Your question assumes there is something God does not foresee, which is not the case.



If you take the timing of an event into consideration, clearly Revelation can play out in more than one way. Indeed, Christ should have come during the 1890's, so things could have played out then. However, the general pattern was known.

It's not possible for God to "get anything wrong," but people can do what they please. Your questions sound similar to those asked in regards to prophecies of Jeremiah. God answers:



The people had been complaining that if God had prophesied against them, then there was nothing they could do about it. But God explained "if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it." So God changes His mind according to our decisions. This doesn't mean that God "got it wrong," but that His prophecies were heeded.

A perfect example of this is Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, but it wasn't. God did not "get it wrong," but the people repented, so the event prophesied did not happen.

I reject your hypothesis because that would make God responsible for setting into motion a course of events which could only result in sin. I don't believe God this. I believe God set into motion a course of events which could have resulted in sin or not. Under your hypothesis, sin had to occur. You say that chance is eliminated, so, under your view, God created things in such a way that sin was certain to occur. Under this scenario, God would be responsible for the existence of sin.

Also this is contrary to the following:



Certainly if God set into motion a course of events which could only result in sin, it's easy to give a reason for its presence.





Please note the underlined portion. Also please stick to what was written. For example, she did not say the angels were created insecure.



I was quoting the passage referenced. I disagree with your characterization of it. She is not saying the angels were created insecure. Again, it seems to me you are confusing "not being secure" with "insecure."



Here's the quote:



This is dealing with Satan's rebellion, so your question about what the angels were unsure of before the rebellion doesn't apply.

How do you know the Devil doesn't show Jean Dixon certain aspects of the future?

Is he incapable of showing her the future?

If God knows all the ways the future might play out, but doesn't know which way it will play out - what good is His knowledge? What does it matter if God can think of more ways the future might play out than the Devil can think of - neither one of them, according to you, knows exactly how it will play out.

For example, if God can think of an infinity of ways and the Devil can only of an infinity minus a few million, in the end neither one is any better off since neither one knows how it will play out. What good does it do to know a zillion ways it didn't turn out? God is just as clueless as the Devil as to which way it will play out.


But God created Lucifer, who became Satan, the ultimate bomb. And, according to you, God knew there as was a possibility he would explode and destroy millions of lives - and yet God was willing to run the risk, was willing to gamble, and He lost big time.


You didn't answer my question. What does it matter if God foresees one or an infinity ways the future might play out, so far as our freedom and ability to choose is concerned? How does God's knowing affect our freedom and ability to choose as we please?


Again, what does it matter so far as our freedom and ability to choose as we please is concerned? Whether God foresees one way or an infinity of ways doesn't rob us of our freedom and ability to choose as we please. His knowing ahead of time which way we will choose does not rob us of our freedom or ability to choose.


Is it possible, then, that God will change His mind in the future so far as the prophecies of the Revelation are concerned? Or, will the USA do the very things God says she will? If so, does His foreknowledge rob her of her freedom and ability to choose another way?

Under your scenario God was hoping the chance of FMAs sinning and rebellion wouldn't happen. He ran the risk, He took a gamble - and He lost.

Here's a question: Do you think God would have created FMAs if He knew for certain they would sin and rebel, and that Jesus would have to die to redeem them?

If you answer no, then please answer why, according to your view, He was willing to run the risk, why He was willing to gamble? Is hoping it wouldn't happen better than knowing it would, so far as deciding to create them?

Also, how does God's knowing in advance that Lucifer would rebel explain why he rebelled? Knowing he would sin did not make him sin, did it? Did knowing he might sin make him sin?


"Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."

You seem to be using this insight to prove the angels were not secure against evil befall the fall of Satan. In what sense do you think they were secure or not secure?

If Lucifer had not rebelled, in what sense were the angels not secure against evil? Why weren't they secure?


What is the difference between insecure and not secure?


That's my point - the quote doesn't address my question. So, again, please post a quote that says the angels were not secure against evil before the fall of Lucifer.

What was it about Lucifer's accusations, that is, what was it about God's character and about His law that the "confused" angels were unsure about 1) before the fall of Satan, 2) during his rebellion in heaven, and 3) after he was cast down to earth (before mankind was created)?

MM, if you're going to ask questions like this, please set some sort of foundation.



As good as any other knowledge He has. His knowledge doesn't have to be according to how you think things are to have value.



If it doesn't matter, why are you bringing it up?



God is not "clueless." This is rather an irreverant way of putting things. If you can frame your question in a more respectful way, I'll respond.

God created Lucifer, who was not a bomb at all. Lucifer, not God, is responsible for Satan coming into being.

You have characterized sin occuring as a negative thing, like a bomb exploding. In my view, there was a small chance this negative event could occur. Under your view, it was certain. Can you explain to me how it is better to have God responsible for sin, 100% certain that this negative event would occur, as opposed to His being responsibile for His creating beings with free will who might sin?

Regarding your question if God would have been willing to create FMA's if He was certain they would rebel, I don't think this is possible. That is, FMA's have free will, which means they can choose either to sin or not sin. Why would an FMA choose to sin? I don't see how this question can be answered, even by God. Can you answer it? If there's no reason for an FMA to sin, how could God foresee that it would certainly happen?

If God foresaw the certainty of sin, that would imply a fault on His part, as well as making Him responsible for the existence of sin.



They weren't. They fell.



They were not secure in the sense that they fell.



The were not secure in the sense that they might fall.



For the reasons pointed out by the quote.

Regarding the difference between insecure and not secure, insecure means:



This isn't what is being spoken of. "Not secure" means not being secure. "Secure" is in reference to falling. Why they became secure after the cross is explained by the quote.

Regading the confusion of the angels, this is explained in this quote:

5BC 1132
The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. {5BC 1132.8}

Tom, you seem to be saying this quote teaches angels were not secure against falling before Lucifer rebelled. If this is what you believe the quote means, why, then, did two-thirds of the angels choose not to rebel?

What enabled the angels to side with God, to resist rebelling, to remain loyal, submissive, and obedient? What was their source of strength and loyalty and obedience and submission? What safeguarded them against falling in the first place?

The thing that enabled the angels to remain loyal in the first place, and the thing that enabled them to remain loyal before Jesus died on the cross, is that thing insufficient to empower them nowadays to continue being loyal and obedient and submissive and secure against falling?

How are the loyal angels more secure against falling this side of Lucifer's rebellion, this side of Christ's death on the cross? What changed at the cross that made the loyal angels more secure against falling than they were before the cross?

Tom, if God can think of all the ways the future can play out, what good does it do Him since, according to the view you hold to, He doesn't know how it will play out. What good does it do to know all the ways it didn't turn out?

If, as you assert, God doesn't know exactly how the future will play out, how is He any better off than the Devil, who also doesn't know exactly how the future will play out?

And, if God's knowing all the ways the future can play out doesn't rob FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please, why would it be any different if He knew which way the future will play out? Knowing all the ways limits the choices available to FMAs. Thus, they are not truly free to choose a way God has not thought of, right?

Or, do you believe FMAs are free to choose a way God has not thought of?


If God chose to create FMAs based on the idea that there was only a "small chance" rebellion would occur, in other words, if the chance of rebellion was greater He wouldn't have created them, then God gambled and lost. Gambling is a sin.


Back at you. How could God foresee that it might happen, that there was a "small chance" it might happen?


This applies with more force to the view you espouse. God gambled that FMAs wouldn't rebel. He created them hoping they wouldn't rebel. He gambled and lost. Gambling is a sin. Sin, sinners, and rebellion exist because God gambled and lost. According to the view you believe in, God is guilty of gambling and losing, guilty of doing the very thing that resulted in the emergence of sin, sinners, rebellion, and death.

I don't see the difficult in understanding this quote. I'm not saying anything different than the quote is saying. The quote says, "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan." This is all I'm saying. Nothing different than this.

If without the cross the angels would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the cross it must follow that they became more secure after the cross than they were before. Wouldn't you agree that this is a sound application of logic?

God simply knows the future as it is. It's not a matter of doing Him good. He knows reality as it is, not as it isn't. According to your view, there's only one thing that can happen in the future, which is that which God sees will happen. You don't see a problem with this?



Because what robs an FMA of their ability to choose is the number of options they have, not what God foresees. The problem with God foreseeing one option is that this means they only have one option. It's the one option that is the problem, not the foreseeing of it.



No, this is wrong. It doesn't.



No. God foresees every possible option. The only limitation is that which is possible. You could say that they are "limited" to only choosing possible options. That is, they cannot choose impossible options. But that's not limiting, is it? For example, God has foreseen that you cannot sprout wings like a bird and fly to the moon. Has your freedom to do so been limited because God has foreseen this?



Foreseeing that it might happen is a much different thing than foreseeing it would certainly happen. God created beings that could love and be loved, and doing so means they had to have free will, which means they might choose not to love. Love always has this risk.

Now assuming that God knew for certain that sin would occur if He created Lucifer, why did He do so?



Not if one understands the nature of free will.



MM, have you ever loved someone and not had that person return your love? Wouldn't it be absurd of me to accuse you of gambling and sinning because you loved someone who chose not to love you back?