You mean that God knows all the ways the future could have played out if the parties yet to make a decision made some different decision than God knows they will make. So you believe it is always possible for it to be known what decisions will be made. This means you believe the future to be a certain way. You believe the decision is such that a person who is intelligent enough can know always know what decisions will be made.

I disagree with this characterization of the future. I believe the future is open, not fixed.



This is an incorrect characterization of the open view. There are many certainties. What is asserted that the future does not consist *solely* of certainties.



This implies the future is fixed, being comprised entirely of certainties. If one had enough knowledge, one could know exactly what will happen in the future. I don't believe the future is fixed, but open. Even with perfect knowledge, it is open.



If the future were fixed, then only one option is possible to be exercized at a given time. This means the ability to choose a different option is only apparent, not real.

I realize this is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp. I don't know the best way to explain it, so this may be a shortcoming on my part.

Say God commissioned an angel, and had all your decisions written down in a book. Every single decision you make has a 100% probability of being exactly that which is in the book. You always only have one option that has a probability of greater than 0 of occuring.

If we understand free will to mean the ability to choose between A or B, and "ability" to mean there each of the events A and B have a probability of greater than 0 of being chosen, then such a view of the future means that free will is impossible.



Did I understand by your response that you understood my point and agreed with it? Regarding your question about there being 10 or 2 or 1 options on the list, the number of options on the list is immaterial ("options" here meaning things of which it is possible for one to do).



I wasn't stating anything about your view at all. I stated a couple of facts. One fact I was stating here is that foreseeing that something might happen is different than foreseeing that it will certainly happen. The other is that love entails risk.



You didn't answer my question. The point is that you *don't* know that you will be loved back. My question is 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?

The answer to this question is "yes," isn't it? Such an accusation would be absurd. Choosing to love someone who might not love you back is not "gambling," nor a "sin."

Therefore your characterization of my view as having God gambling and sinning is absurd.

What does this have to do with anything? The quote implies "they became more secure after the cross than they were before," which you say you are not disputing. This is the point I was wanting to establish. Why angels chose not to rebel is not material to this point.



The same comment applies to these questions. They are not material to the point I was making, which is that "they became more secure after the cross than they were before."



EGW says that without the cross the angels were no more secure than the angels were before Satan began his rebellion. Let's first establish that we agree on what the quote is saying. You also agree with my conclusion, since you say you are not disputing my logic, that "they became more secure after the cross than they were before."

Assuming we're in agreement to this point, we can go on to discuss the other things you are asking about.

Tom, I believe 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 our timeless God.

God 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.

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.

Let’s say the legitimate 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? Are people still free since God knows exactly how they will choose?

You wrote, "Now assuming that God knew for certain that sin would occur if He created Lucifer, why did He do so?" My answer is, 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}

God didn’t create FMAs “hoping”, as you seem to believe, 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.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. It seems logical to say the angels are more secure against evil because of what they witnessed at the cross than they were before Lucifer rebelled.

Are you ready to explore my questions?

1. Were angels secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled? If not, why not?

2. Were angels secure against evil after Lucifer rebelled? If not, why not?

3. Were angels secure against evil before Jesus died on the cross? If not, why not?

4. Are angels more secure against evil this side of Jesus' death and resurrection? If so, why?

5. Was the manifestation of evil necessary to secure the angels against evil? If so, why? If not, why not?

Then the future would be like the past, since a rerun is something which has already happened.



This isn't "in other words," but a completely different thought! To know the end from the beginning means exactly what it says -- from the beginning (a starting point) you know the end.



This contradicts God's revelation to us in Scripture.



If the future "did happen," then it's unalterable. It's fixed.



Of course the journalism doesn't, but the future's being unalterable would.



You should say, "the option". There's only one option to things that "did happen." Also "foresees" doesn't fit with "did happen." You wrote above, "He reports what did happen." You're not being consistent with your verb usage here. "Reports" works with "did happen," but "foresees" doesn't.



There's no "also" here. He's simply reporting on what did happen.



There's no need to make this point. This isn't the issue.



If it's a choice "they made" then it's not something they can change. This is a problem with free will, because free will implies more than one choice can be made.



Your use of the words "free" and "choose" and "option" and "freedom" is out of place here. "Legitimate" is also a poor choice of words. A much simpler and better way of putting this thought is that people cannot do things which are impossible to do. There's no issue of freedom involved here, and this point is self-evident. There's no need to make it.



This isn't an issue of freedom. Here's an example. It's not possible for you to sprout wings and fly. Nor can you be a hippopotamus. This isn't an issue of freedom. The fact that God sees only one option on the list (MM = human being) is irrelevant to our discussion.



This just speaks of God's not being deterred by something He knew could happen. This doesn't answer my question, which is why God would create Lucifer if it was certain Lucifer would sin. This isn't actually what I asked, but it's a better way of phrasing it. God could have just as easily created a being who was certain not to sin, given your view of things. Why would God prefer to create a universe with sin to one without?



This doesn't fit with the evidence. For example, the description in EW 126, 127 of what was happening in heaven when man sinned. Or the following:



Nor this:



If God simply "reports" on what already "did happen," then He would not have reported that heaven was "imperiled." That makes no sense.



This is easily proven false. Here's one way. God could have created Gabriel and not other FMAs. Then there would (extremely likely) have been no sin problem to deal with.

God is timeless. He is not stuck in our future while we are living in the present. God "inhabits eternity." Isa 57:15. The verb tense merely reflects whether God is speaking about something from a past, present, or future perspective.


Free will does not empower people to change the choices they have already made. People are free to choose from a list of legitimate options, but once their choice is made they are not free to turn back time and choose a different option. God's timelessness has no bearing on people living in time. Our time is unaffected by God's timelessness. Time ticks on unmindful of man or God.


The reason I specified "legitimate options" was to avoid absurd examples. Of course being a hippo is not an option. It doesn't appear on the list I'm referring to. Everything on my list is a legitimate option. Now, when the list is only one option long is the person truly free since God knows which option they will choose? Hopefully we can both agree knowing in this case does not rob them of their freedom and ability to choose as they please.


Are you assuming this was an option? Please post an inspired quote to support this assumption. Thank you.


Again, such language doesn't prove God is bound by the same time and space constraints we are. It merely reflects the perspective from which He happens to be reporting from at the time. The "risk" was real in point of time. But God is timeless, therefore, from the perspective of looking back at it, the risk of failure did not play out. Instead, Jesus was successful. God's timelessness does not in the least alter our time bound reality. It changes nothing.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. It seems logical to say the angels are more secure against evil than they were before Lucifer rebelled because of what they witnessed at the cross.

Are you ready to explore my questions?

1. Were angels secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled? If not, why not?

2. Were angels secure against evil after Lucifer rebelled? If not, why not?

3. Were angels secure against evil before Jesus died on the cross? If not, why not?

4. Are angels more secure against evil this side of Jesus' death and resurrection? If so, why?

5. Was the manifestation of evil necessary to secure the angels against evil? If so, why? If not, why not?

That's what I said, isn't it? If they are more secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled because of what they witnessed at the cross, then before they witnessed the cross they were less secure than before they witnessed it.



They were less secure because they hadn't seen the cross.



They were less secure because they hadn't seen the cross.



They were less secure because they hadn't seen the cross.



Yes, because they've seen the cross.



No. What the cross demonstrated could have been demonstrated in some other way without evil having to exist. We don't know how God would have accomplished this, since that's not what happened, but it's absurd to think that God is dependent upon evil in order to secure the universe.

Tom, the angels who lived prior to Lucifer's rebellion were as acquainted with God's love and glory as FMAs could be. So much so that there was nothing else God could do to recommend His love once they decided to rebel. What Jesus demonstrated on the cross would not have prevented the angels from rebelling if it had been revealed to them before they rebelled. Otherwise, God certainly would have revealed it in an attempt to circumvent rebellion. The fact it wasn't revealed beforehand is evidence of this conclusion.

Since it would not have prevented angels from rebelling, why do you think it makes the loyal angels more secure against rebelling? Again, the love of God was more than sufficient to motivate and empower the loyal angels to side with Jesus, to not side with Satan and rebel against God. The fact they didn't side with Satan is evidence of this conclusion.

Since there was nothing more God do that He hadn't already done to recommend His love to the angels it means there was nothing more God could do. The cross did not, therefore, add something that wasn't already well known to the angels. If God had withheld some revelation of Himself that could have prevented angels from rebelling then God is guilty of a grievous sin, a serious sin of omission.

"Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him." {DA 761.5}

PS - Did you overlook post #102530 above on this thread?