What do you mean? If God knows that I will break my leg and so this is certain to happen, then the braking of my leg is not real?

Again, you have not defined what risk is. How did He risk all, if there was no risk? What is risk?

Interesting position you've set yourself in. At what point, do you suppose, that the fallen angels, before they were fallen, went from absolutely certain God was right to either certain God was wrong, or uncertain God was right. What are the fallen angels certain or uncertain of now? What caused their condition of certainty to change? Is it possible for one who is certain to lose the certainty?

If we were to assume that God knew absolutely certain Jesus would succeed, that He knows everything, then would it follow He knew absolutely certain that Lucifer would fail? And if He knew that, why Did He create Lucifer? Is this some sort of Yin-Yang idea that God created evil so that we can "know His love" when He removes it?

That is, the risk or lack of risk is real or not.

Some rides in amusement parks create the experience of being in danger, even though strict regulations (usually) ensure that no user in fact is in danger.

It would follow that the tourist perceived experience and the reality of said experience are different.

Is it a correct observation that Rosangela is speaking on the perceived reality while Tom is speakiing on the factual reality?

It's possible. I think Tom has clarified what he was saying, but maybe it was overlooked. Perceiving danger and there actually being danger are two completely different things. Tom was talking about real danger, real risk, not imaginary.

Personally, I've never experienced being in danger at amusement parks. I had complete faith there was no danger and found most rides boring, especially when you have to wait in line 45 minutes for 20 seconds of ride. However, later I heard some parks had rides which fell off the tracks. So, I guess I may have really been in danger, but did not perceive it.

What if God knew that the bolts holding it together were working they're way loose which would cause a disastrous crash and would coincide at the same time my turn came, but overruled natural consequences so that it didn't happen, but did happen on the next turn. Did that remove risk for me? Or was my experience unlike the one after mine? Did I experience the same risk as the one before and after? Or was I somehow sheltered and did not experience it in the same way?

Risk refers to the fact Jesus took upon Himself the ability and freedom to sin, fall, and fail and that He could have sinned, fallen, and failed. As an aside, do you think risk included the possibility Satan might kill Jesus?


I was referring to unfallen angels living after the great controversy began. From that time forward they have never doubted God will win and Satan will lose. So, in what sense, before Jesus succeeded on the cross, were they in peril?

To answer your questions above, obviously it is possible to go from feeling certain to feeling uncertain. Why did one-third of the angels rebel? I suppose that's a mystery we won't understand until Jesus explains it to us in heaven.


Yes, the Godhead knew in advance, before they created anything, which angels and humans would rebel and be destroyed in the lake of fire. Why did the Godhead create them anyhow? The following passages provide an insight:

The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}

The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. 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. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. {ST, December 15, 1914 par. 3}

Here's the argument you said you agreed with:



Let X be some temptation which you overcome. Then substituting for X:

1.God is certain you will overcome some specific temptation.
2.Therefore it is certain you will overcome the specific temptation.

However, the definition of temptation is something which you might fail to overcome. Uncertainty is built into the definition of temptation. The contradiction results when uncertainty (definition of temptation) meets certainty (point 2 from the argument).

It cannot simultaneously be the case that you experience a real temptation, yet there is no chance that you might fail to it. The fact that God knows what you will do is irrelevant to this contradiction. It's just the assumption that was used to arrive at the contradiction.

That a valid argument led to a conclusion proves the assumption is false. This is a standard form of argument, a proof by contradiction.

1.Start with assumption.
2.Proceed with valid argument.
3.End with false conclusion.
4.This proves the starting assumption is false.

This is what I did. Your question about breaking your leg makes no sense. There's no question of uncertainty/certainty involved.

Risk is always real. The fact God knows the outcome in advance does not make the risk more real or less real. The chances of actually suffering loss depends on if God chooses to supernaturally intervene or not. The risk remains the same; the chances of suffering loss depends on several factors.

This is a good question to ask.

In terms of free will, there are two definitions that are most commonly used. One (called "compatibilistic," because it is compatible with determinism) says that you have free will if you are able to do that which you want to do. (it doesn't matter that you only have one choice; the important thing is that you can do what you choose to do). The other (called "incompatibilistic," because it is not compatible with determinism; also called "libertarian") says that you have free will if you can bring about either an event X or Y at a given point in time. The important thing is not that you can do what you want to do, but that you actually have the ability (not just perceived, but in reality) to choose to do either X or Y.

Traditionally SDA's, coming from an Arminian tradition, have held to the libertarian definition. Calvinists hold to the compatibilistic definition.

I have presented arguments that there is a logical contradiction to holding both the idea that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (or, to use Mike's way of putting it, that God sees the future like a re-run) and libertarian free will (free will is "factual reality" as opposed to "perceived reality").

If one takes the position that free will is "perceived reality," then there isn't a logical contradiction between this idea, and the idea that God sees the future like a rerun. Also the risk referred to would be "perceived reality," as opposed to "factual reality."

So this is a good observation. I have been taking the comments I've been quoting as "factual reality," so that when it says that "all heaven was imperiled for our redemption," I understand this to mean that an actual risk was undertaken (that is, God Himself perceived that He was taking a risk).

Even if your mind knows there is no danger, your body would still react as if you were in danger when you fall down 80 meters free fall. If you are in a car crash, but was wearing your seatbelt, your experience would be different from another person who crashed in a similar car in the same speed but who was not using seatbelt. God overruling the natural results of broken amusement park equipment would in my opinion work as a seat belt for you in terms of risk.

If someone invented a time machine and one of us could go back to Fords Theather in Washington the April 14, 1865, would Abraham Lincolns assassination be certain? Could he be saved? If someone would come in this time machine from 100 years in the future, and they brought knowledge of some major event in our near future life, would this event be as certain as presumably Lincolns death 150 years ago if we could travel there to witness it? If none of those events could in any way be changed through someone capable of travelling back through time with knowledge about it, then are not the calvinist right and the believer ever moving towards eternal redemption or eternal damnation without a real choice in the matter (but yet with an perceived choice akin to the perceived emotions one gets at a theme park)?

Ie, is salvation a theme park ride where some are sitting in the broken cart which will fall off in the 90 degree turn and others are sitting in the functioning cart which will safely arrive at the departure point once the ride is finished? All having the same perceived experience until the broken cart falls off, and none able to change the cart they have been assigned to by the theme park staff.