If by "how each worm will crawl out" you mean what the result of any given choice would be is, I agree. I would change the "but" to "and."

The idea that every choice has a cause is one of the tenants of Calvinism. The idea is if we just knew more, say as much as God did, we would know exactly what each person will do.

But the will is truly free. Choices are not pre-determined.

Obviously if Christ could fail it wasn't a certainty. The statements you quoted bring out that what was given was a "Gospel promise." Not a certainty, but a promise, which God gave because of the faith He had in His Son, a faith which proved by what happened.

But could Christ have failed? Absolutely.







What do we see here? A risk was assumed. Heaven was imperiled.

Risk implies uncertainty. Webster's primary definition of risk:



If the possibility of loss or failure is 0, then and only then is there certainty of success.

It is neither obvious nor true. Anyway, that's my belief.

But let's say that your premise is true. That means that when God promised, "He shall bruise your head," Adam couldn't be 100% sure that God was going to be able to pull it off. It seems that's what you believe. Am I right?

What I mean is that God knows which option will be chosen among the infinite possibilities. Do you agree with that?

Whether or not it is Calvinism has no impact as far as I'm concerned.

Do I understand you correctly that you believe some moral decisions have no cause, and are just arbitrary and random? IOW, when Person A is given a choice between two options with moral impact, it is possible that God's knowledge of that person's character will not give Him enough insight to know which way he will choose?


Foreknowledge <> pre-determined.

If my son was given a choice between riding his scooter and putting a stick in his eye, I know which he will choose without pre-determining his choice or restricting his will. It's all about how well I know my son.

God knows His children.

Even though you are not concerned, it does have an impact.



In "The Freedom of the Will" Jonathon n Edwards brilliantly argues for determinism, the idea that there is a cause behind every thought or decision made. Although brilliantly argued, I disagree with his thesis. In order for his thesis to be false, it is only necessary for some thought or decision by somebody to not be explained by a cause. Lucifer's decision to sin is one such decision. Therefore his theory is false.

I wouldn't use the words you chose, "arbitrary and random," because these words imply a lack of decision making. Actually "arbitrary" is OK, if one understands it as "individual discretion," but "random" gives a wrong idea. I think simply stating that this was a decision made for which no reason (or cause) can be given is sufficient.



Yes. Consider Lucifer. What would God's insight into his character have told him? Lucifer was perfect. God's insight into his character would have told him he would could continue to love and honor Him, just as he did when created and for no one knows how long after that.



I meant pre-determined, not foreknown. Pre-determined means determined ahead of time. They are not determined until they are made.



Of course I'm aware of this, which is why I've been being careful (as careful as I can be) with my phrasing. I didn't say that no cause can be given, but that not every cause can be given.

I've been married for over 16 years and no my wife very well, but she still surprises me when I ask her what she wants to do. I'll ask her questions like "Do you want to do (whatever)" thinking there's maybe a 1% or 5% she'll say "yes," and she'll jump right on it. Other times I think for sure she'd like to do something, and she has no interest.

On the other hand, there are other things where I know what she'll say. For example, I wrote:



I don't believe this is true. Even I knew my wife as well as God does, I believe she could still do things that would surprise me.

Sure it is. This is easy to show. If Christ could fail, then the probability He would succeed is some number less than 1. If it was certain that Christ would succeed, the probability He would succeed was exactly 1.



I believe Christ could have failed.



Let's take God out of the question for a moment, because I don't see the issue as being an epistemological one but an ontological one. I'll try to explain what I mean by analogy.

Let's consider the theory of quantum mechanics. Say it's true that the location of a sub-atomic partical can only be described probabilistically, that it cannot be known with certainty where that partical will be. The fact the location of the partical cannot be known is not a limitation on the intelligence of physicists. They discovered the reality of the situation. If it could be known where a partical would go, then that would mean their understanding of reality was wrong.

Let's consider the future now. I'm asserting that the future is open. If it could be known exactly what will happen to each "particle" (a particle here is representing a decision a being with free will makes, where the decision is one that could go in different ways) then my assertion regarding the future would be false. The future would not be open. It would be fixed. It would be apparently open to beings with limited knowledge, but a being with more knowledge would perceive the future in its true condition, as fixed.

Therefore if God sees the future as fixed (which is what His knowing where every "particle" is means -- I'm using "means" here as in a definition, that this is simply an alternate definition of "fixed future") then that's the way the future is -- it's fixed!

In other words, the following two things cannot both be true:

A.The future is open.
B.God perceives the future as fixed.

To answer your question, the answer is "no," because that would be knowing where every "particle" is, which would be asserting that the future is not open but fixed.

I'm not disputing her statement or your logic. I'm trying to understand it. "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."

You seem to be saying this quote teaches angels were not secure against evil 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 them to side with God, to resist rebelling, to remain loyal, submissive, and obedient? What safeguarded them against falling with Lucifer?

In what sense are they more secure against evil than they were before Jesus died on the cross? Were they at risk of falling after Satan rebelled and before Jesus died? I'm talking about the loyal angels.

Knowing how the future will certainly play out doesn’t prevent God from knowing all the ways it could have turned out. The view I hold includes all of the above, whereas the view you hold does not include God knowing how the future will certainly play out. I see that as a problem for God. God’s reality, according to the view you are advocating, involves Him not knowing how the future will certainly play out, which means as He looks ahead He sees numerous possibilities but no certainties. The future, from this perspective, offers options but not answers.


Again, God foresees all the options. It’s just that He also happens to know which option will play out. None of the aspects of God’s knowledge or foreknowledge robs FMAs of their ability or freedom to choose as they please. They are free to choose and God is free to report 1) the choice they made, 2) the immediate outcome of their choice, and 3) the ripple effect of said outcome to the end of time. Remember, for God the future is like watching a rerun. He knows the “end” from the beginning. In other words, our future is history from God’s timeless, eternal perspective. Our rules of time do not apply to a timeless God. He doesn’t guess what might happen in the future; instead, He reports what did happen. Such journalism in no way robs FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please.


A person’s place in history has a bearing on this point. If you were to ask a person living 500 years ago this type of question and gave as an example, walking on the moon, what answer would you expect?

At any rate, I agree with you that God knows all the legitimate options, even the ones that wouldn’t have seemed legitimate to people living 500 years ago. But in so saying aren’t you agreeing with me that nobody can think of an option God doesn’t know about?

For the sake of discussion, let’s say those options are 10. We both agree God knows they will choose one of those options. They are not free to choose an option not listed. Such freedom is impossible. The same things could be said if the list contained 2 options. But what if the legitimate options were 1? Then what? Do the same things apply?


You are misstating the view I have been sharing. God doesn’t foresee what “might” happen; instead, He reports what did happen.


For the same reason He created A&E in spite of knowing they were going to sin. “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.” {AG 129.2}


Not if it wasn’t a gamble. If I knew they would certainly not love me in return it would break my heart but it wouldn’t prevent me from loving them. God is not the gambler your view makes Him out to be. Gambling is a sin. God didn’t create FMAs “hoping” they wouldn’t sin.

He knew it would happen, and He knew precisely which ones would sin and die in the lake of fire, and which ones would sin and be saved from dying in the lake of fire.

His options were limited to two: 1) create FMAs and deal with the sin problem, and 2) not to create them. He willingly chose the first option.