? This doesn't seem to make much sense.



No, I was making you aware of why your statement was false. Your argument is that if God can't see the future like a re-run, then He can't plan for it. But you don't see the future like a re-run, yet you can plan for it. So your argument is false.



As I've explained many times, I believe God's knowledge is perfect. What I disagree with you is in regards to WHAT God sees, NOT how well He sees it.

You've written things in the past that make me believe you've understood what I've said, so I don't understand your statement here, which sounds as if you're not understanding what I've written.



MM, even you have an idea how the future will play out, and you're intelligence can't even be compared to God's. Why would you think God would have no idea how the future will play out, just because it's Open?



God can't know the future like history because the future is not like history. The future is different from the past. Just as you are different than me, and God cannot know you as me because you are not me, so God cannot know the future like the past, because the future is not the past.



I wrote "if you say" in front of this. I then described two positions of free will, the compatibilistic one (also called "deterministic") and the imcompatibilistic one (also called "libertarian"). This one, that you're quoting, is the first one.



If you take the incompatibilistic, or deterministic, definition, then there isn't a logical contradiction is what I said.



???

No. Please re-read what I wrote.



God explained how prophecy works in Jer. 18. There's no explanation of prophecy working as you're thinking.



Why would it?



No, they're not infinite. They're finite. There's a lot of possibilities, but not an infinite number. Not even close.



What do you mean? Of course there is. One can make a few assumptions and calculate it easily. Just off the top of my head, I'm sure it's many times less than a quadrillion.



There's not an infinite number. There's a finite number.



Your assumption that the number of possibilities is infinite is false.

The best we can do is guess how things might play out. But we are incapable of knowing with absolute certainty precisely how it will play out. We do not possess the ability or power to know the future like history. Besides, your example is based on preexisting facts. God has known from eternity precisely how it will play out. He has known it for thousands of years before the existence of the papacy and the USA.


It’s the way God is, therefore, it is. Knowing the future like history in no way alters its nature or essence because God is who He is. God can do things and know things without altering reality. We can too when He reveals it to us.


No, according to your view you need to say, God knows what the future might be one minute from now, and He knows what it might be 6,000 years from now.


None of the “risk” passages you posted mean God was unsure Jesus would succeed. Nowhere in the Bible does God say anything to this effect.

We could if we were as smart as God.



That wouldn't be necessary. Being as smart as God would be enough. Even half as smart would do.



Not if we accept inspiration as it reads.



He had known of the possibility, and again, this wouldn't be difficult to foresee. Everything that has happened is logical.



The issue has nothing at all to do with the way God is, but only with how the future is. Our disagreement is regarding the future, not God. We both agree that God is omniscient, and knows the future perfectly. We disagree in regards to what that future is like.



It presupposed the future is a certain way.



God cannot know reality to be different than it is. It's what reality is that we differ on. I believe reality is that the future is Open, whereas you perceive it to be like the past.



We could be confused into thinking this, but the future is not like the past.



No! This is wrong! It's important to understand this point!

God knows *precisely* what the future is like one minute from now, and 6,000 years from now. Your phrasing "God knows what the future might be" is supposing that the future is single-threaded; that is "is" one given thing. But this is the whole problem. It's NOT one given thing. It consists of possibilities.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

Pardon the shouting, but I want to make clear this point. The future IS the combination of possibilities. It's not one given thing.

I know you don't agree with this, but I want you to at least understand the point of view with which you're disagreeing.



Could Christ have sinned? Does the Bible teach this? If you answer "yes," then Christ could have failed, and the Bible teaches this. If Christ could have failed, then God must have known this.

You do not believe God is capable of “knowing with absolute certainty precisely how it will play out”.


Inspiration says nothing about your example being based on preexisting facts.


God has known from eternity precisely how it will play out.


What God the future is like for God is what I’m talking about. You cannot say without qualification that God “knows the future perfectly” for the simple reason you do not believe He knows precisely which one of the many possibilities will play out.


Your view assumes the future is greater than God, that God cannot know the future like history because it would destroy its nature and essence. Why do you think God lacks the power or ability to know the future like history without destroying its nature and essence?


You believe it is possible to know the many ways the future could play out but that it is impossible to know which one of these many ways will play out. This is what you mean when you say God knows the future perfectly. I disagree. I believe not only does God know all the way it could play out He also knows precisely which one will play out. Not because He’s a good guesser but because He knows the future like history. God is, as it were, a time traveler.


Again, you haven’t posted a biblical passage where God says anything to the effect, “I’m not certain Jesus will succeed.” Why?

Also, where in the Bible does it say anything to the effect, “He could have sinned”?

And, do you think “He could have sinned” means God was unsure Jesus would succeed?

Ah, here was the quotes I was looking for:

Those who claim that it was not possible for Christ to sin, cannot believe that He really took upon Himself human nature. But was not Christ actually tempted, not only by Satan in the wilderness, but all through His life, from childhood to manhood? In all points He was tempted as we are, and because He successfully resisted temptation under every form, He gave man the perfect example, and through the ample provision Christ has made, we may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption which is in the world through lust.” (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929).

“Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity.” (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929)


“The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. Man cannot overcome Satan’s temptations without divine power to combine with his instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ; He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God’s holy law, and in this way He is our example. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God’s power to help in every emergency. Man is, through faith, to be a partaker in the divine nature, and to overcome every temptation wherewith he is beset.” (Ellen White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 7, page 929

“When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was in His heart. But He rested not in the possession of almighty power. It was not as the “Master of earth and sea and sky” that He reposed in quiet. That power He had laid down, and He says, “I can of Mine own self do nothing.” John 5:30. He trusted in the Father’s might. It was in faith—faith in God’s love and care—that Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm was the power of God.” (Ellen White, Desire of Ages, page 336)

He took on Himself a nature fully human so He could face sin as we do and be our example on how sin could be overcome, and yet carried a even heavier burden than us when it came Him sinning. As being still fully divine He was tempted by Satan to use it of Himself and not trust fully on the Father.

Absolutely! Thank you, Jesus.

Yes, Jesus pioneered Christlikeness for us, and for winning the great controversy.

There's a reason other churches appear to assert that Jesus could not sin..., a deep-rooted reason: what would have happened to Jesus' divinity, and the Father's, if Jesus had sinned once becoming a man?

It's not just an examination of Christ's humanity that explains why some think Jesus could not have sinned, on this earth. The impact on God, when seen as a trinity, is more the issue.

Now, I thank God that Jesus' merits save me from sin & death, and that he overcame sin in the flesh! Still, had Jesus sinned, then, hypothetically, the Father would have lost his Son..., and the trinity would no longer a trinity. To avoid that potential of the risk of Jesus sinning, the possibility is excluded: Jesus could not sin. Our scholars haven't published this point, yet, to the best of my knowledge.

Non-trinitarians do not have this limitation on Jesus' risk, strictly speaking, since loss of his glory with his Father would not deprive his Father of retaining glory as God. Otherwise, for trinitarians, what kind of God would remain were the trinity to be reduced to 'two'?

This is still on topic, isn't it.

Interesting point. How would God have prevented Jesus from sinning? What impact would it have had on the great controversy if God had intervened and prevented Jesus from sinning in order to save the Godhead? Save the Godhead and lose FMAs - doesn't sound so good.

In one sense the Father did "prevent" Jesus from sinning. It was by fully trusting the Father and uniting His human will with the Father's will that Christ in His humanity was able to resist sin.
But this was not an "intervention" by the Father contrary to the will of Christ. Christ could have chosen to assert his own human will and gone contrary to the will of God (sinned)

Good thoughts. I agree.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.