Einstein.

...



Because they don't know God in a salvific sense. It is not mental knowledge that saves.

...



God, love.

...



They still had free will. They chose not to rebel.

...



No, that's not what DA 764 says. I'll requote it:





Yes, they didn't know the cross yet, so they had confused ideas, things to learn. After Christ came, they saw the truth (see the DA 764 quote above). They then realized that the destruction of the wicked is not due to an act of power on God's part, but the inevitable result of sin. After the cross, God can permit the wicked to reap what they have sown, and no seed of doubt will be left behind, because the angels, thanks to the cross, will be thinking about these things correctly.

TE: Einstein.

MM: In what way does Einstein's past and God's past differ? Does Einstein "inhabit eternity" the same as God? What is the "past" like for a Being who is timeless and eternal?

...

TE: Because they don't know God in a salvific sense. It is not mental knowledge that saves.

MM: Did they learn anything about God they didn't know before they rebelled? If so, what? Please explain.

Also, did the holy angels learn anything about God they didn't know before they choose to side with God when the other angels rebelled?

Did the holy angels acquire salvific knowledge of God when Jesus died on the cross? If so, please explain what you mean.

...

TE: God, love.

MM: Was God's love, as revealed before Lucifer rebelled, sufficient to motivate angels not rebel? If so, why did two-thirds of them rebel?

Could God have revealed more than what He did to motivate the angels not to rebel? Or, had He revealed everything He could possibly reveal to motivate them not to rebel?

...

TE: Yes, they didn't know the cross yet, so they had confused ideas, things to learn.

MM: Could it be said of the angels before the cross what Jesus said of the disciples before the cross?

Luke
9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.

How did holy angels fail to learn this lesson after watching God for 4,000 years manage the GC?

Einstein had a kindergarten teacher. God didn't.



Does being eternal change the past?



How would a finite being be able to answer the question of what anything is like to God?



Why are you asking this?



Yes. The chapter "It Is Finished" discusses this, to name one spot.



No.

I came across this quote:

Satan, the chief of the fallen angels, once had an exalted position in heaven. He was next in honor to Christ. The knowledge which he, as well as the angels who fell with him, had of the character of God, of His goodness, His mercy, wisdom, and excellent glory, made their guilt unpardonable. {4BC 1163.2}

There was no possible hope for the redemption of those who had witnessed and enjoyed the inexpressible glory of heaven, and had seen the terrible majesty of God, and, in presence of all this glory, had rebelled against Him. There were no new and wonderful exhibitions of God's exalted power that could impress them so deeply as those they had already experienced. If they could rebel in the very presence of glory inexpressible, they could not be placed in a more favorable condition to be proved. There was no reserve force of power, nor were there any greater heights and depths of infinite glory to overpower their jealous doubts and rebellious murmuring (Redemption: The Temptation of Christ, pp. 18, 19). {4BC 1163.3}

What in particular do you have in mind?


You seem to think God cannot know the future with certainty. Why not? He is, after all, timeless. Do you agree God "inhabits eternity", that He lives outside of our time and space continuum, that He is in our past, present, and future simultaneously, that He is in our future looking back at our future in the way we look back on our history?

Much of the chapter deals with what the angels learned. Over half of it.



I disagree with this statement. At least, it's not accurate, in terms of what I believe.

Here's what I believe.

1.The future is not fixed but open.
2.God knows and perceived the future as not fixed by open.



Because the future is open, not fixed.



It doesn't matter, because the issue involves the future, not God. The problem with your view is you want to simultaneously affirm that the future is open but that God's knowledge of it is fixed.



I believe the past is ontologically different than the future, not just epistemologically different. This really sums up our different right here.

IOW, the future is not the same as the past, even for God. They are fundamentally different in nature. What's the difference? The past consists of events which are fixed and unalterable, things which have already happened. The future consists of things yet to happen, which have not happened yet, which are not fixed. These are different for God as well as for us.

What's the difference between God and us regarding the future? The difference is that God sees the future perfectly, including all of it's possibilities. Everything that can happen God sees.

"Everything that can happen" is what the future looks like. Not "everything that will happen." That's another way of stating our difference. Your view is that there is such a thing as "everything that will happen," that this is what the future really is, and this is what God sees.

I disagree with this. I believe "everything that can happen" is what the future is, and that this is what God sees.

Regarding God inhabiting eternity, I believe this means the same thing as saying that God is eternal.

That God is not limited by time must be true since God created it. However, that does not imply that God does not experience time, or that God does not exist in time. All of Scripture denies the idea you are expressing. There are thousands upon thousands of expressions where God communicates to us as a Being who experiences things in time, as we do.

For example:

Tom,

God always knew that Im about to right this and His knowledge is dependant on my writing this. This has nothing to do with His knowledge causing me to write this. I think your having a time issue with this. We will never understand how He does it any more then we will understand the Trinity or how He has no beginning. I dont think that God foresaw that only one option was available on whether I would write this. He saw that many options were available including writing it or not yet He still knew which option I would choose. Otherwise we have selective determinism in cases where God decides to make things happen like Peter denying Christ or Josiah being named Josiah. What your doing when you say things like "If God foresees that only one option is available, then only one option is available, because God foresees things as they really are." Is like me saying God foresees that Aaron has free will (many options) and God foresees what choices Aaron will make" I dont think we can use human logic in this case because God isnt human and isnt restricted to our time. Do you believe that once He created time that He was then restricted to it? Somehow God perfectly foreknows the significantly free choices of us all. And since "God foresees things as they really are" then my premise must be correct. Also how do we know there is NOT a probability greater than 0 that some other option will be chosen? Prove that God's foreknowledge means that there is no other option available for the person making the decision. All we can go on is revelation. And it seems to me that the Bible tells us that we have free will and that God does know the future.

Aaron

God always knew that it was possible you would right what you did, as He sees all things. But you have free will, and you could have chosen not to write what you did. God saw that too. Both your writing and not writing, like Schrodinger's cat, as the future is fixed, comprised of events that will certainly take place, but is comprised of a tree of possibilities.

Until you make your choice, it is not certain to occur.



No, I'm not having an issue with this. The issue is not epistemological but ontological. He has not to do with the knowledge of God, but with the nature of the future.

Look at it this way. What was the possibility that you would write? Pick some arbitrary number. Say there was a 50% chance you would write something. You could have chosen to write or not to write, and it was equally probable you would do either. I maintain that this is what God saw, that there was a 50% chance you would write something, and a 50% chance that you wouldn't.

Now let's suppose you are correct, and that God knew there was a 100% chance you would write something. Let's say God commissioned an angel to write down in a book what you would write.

Now here's a question. What's the probability you would write something? 100%, right? How do we know that? Because that you would write, even what you would write, has been written down in a book. If you didn't write, then an angel would have to erase what he wrote, which would mean that God had been wrong in His knowledge. But that's impossible! God's knowledge is perfect. Therefore if God knows you will write, then it is 100% you will write.

Previously we postulated that there was a 50% chance you would write something. This is a contradiction. Therefore one of our assumptions has been wrong. Either the original assumption that there was a 50% chance that you would write something is wrong, or the assumption that God knew with certainty that you would write something is wrong.

Please note there's no issue of causation here. This is not an argument based on God's knowledge causing anything to happen.



Right! Otherwise we have what you call "selective determinism" which is better known as "free will." This is exactly the point!



If we can't use human logic, we're rather limited in our ability to discuss this. I can concur with your prerogative to produce an argument not based on logic, but beyond this, there's not much to discuss, is there?



You're just assuming your premise, and then asserting it "must" be correct, because your assuming it's true.

Let's start with the premise that God sees the future it really is. Then if God sees not what may happen but what will happen, then the future is determined, and not open, and we have no "selective determinism" at all. The future is already determined, because that is how God sees it. If the future is determined, then it's not not determined, or open. To put it another way, if it is already determined before we have acted, then it is not we who determined it by our actions.



Because that would result in God's being wrong in His knowledge. It would mean that something that God was 100% certain would happen didn't happen.



OK.

Assume some other option, other than A, is available for a person making a decision. Then the probability that not A will happen is greater than 0%.

If God's foreknowledge is such that He knows with certainty that something will happen, then the probability of A is 100%. Otherwise we would be led to the absurdity of God's knowing with certainty that something will happen and the thing not happening, with God's being wrong.

Given the probability of A is 100%, then the probability of not A is 0%. This is a contradiction. Hence, given each of the subsequent assumptions and conclusions are valid, the original assumption that there was some other option available is false.

There's the proof.



He does know the future, but not as determined. Because revelation teaches us God knows the future does not mean the future must be determined. God could know it as undetermined, or, more accurately stated, partially determined. In fact, we know this to be the case but revelation.

To name just one, from the SOP, it has been revealed that heaven was imperiled for our redemption. If God had always known from eternity that heaven would never be in any danger, then her statement is false.

It makes sense to me that the determined part of God’s knowledge is where He gets directly involved through revelation.

Ellen makes many statements that project God taking risks. Risks are impossible if things are determined.

Also there are places in the Bible that suggest that God wishes He would have done things differently. That would also be an impossibility if the future is 100% known.

God is sovereign, but isn’t freedom where God shares that sovereignty with us. He creates us free which means nothing more or less than being free from His control. That doesn’t mean that we can control the natural consequences of cause and effect.

scott

Yes, that's right Scott. God is revealed as doing the following:

1.Taking risks
2.Regretting decisions
3.Speaking in terms of the possible with regards to the future
4.Changing His mind regarding decisions He had pronounced
5.Having things happen He didn't expect would happen

Also there are problems of character involved, such as how a good and loving God would create a being like Lucifer/Satan knowing all that would happen if He did so.