Kland, I believe both the Father and the Son knew with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed on the cross. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear about it.

There wasn't any risk if it was certain He would succeed. This is self-contradictory.



Your making self-contradictory statements doesn't disprove human logic.



This is self-contradictory as well. Well, you're admitting this, by writing that is "contradicts," and by claiming that it "disproves human logic." So your asserting that you believe something which is contrary to logic.

There's not much to discuss once we get to this point. I don't know how else to argue other than on the basis of human logic.

I find it interesting that, when meeting the obstacle that you believe something which is illogical, rather than admitting error, you assert instead that instead of your having been disproven, it's human logic that's been disproven!

Risk is a human word and it describes a human experience. From our point of view a temptation involves uncertainty. From God’s point of view, it involves a choice in view of a peril, a choice He knows beforehand.

“God knows the end from the beginning. He knew, before the birth of Jacob and Esau, just what characters they would both develop. He knew that Esau would not have a heart to obey Him. He answered the troubled prayer of Rebekah and informed her that she would have two children, and the elder should serve the younger. He presented the future history of her two sons before her, that they would be two nations, the one greater than the other, and the elder should serve the younger.” {SR 87.1}

A character is developed through choices. If God knew the characters they would both develop, it’s because He knew which choices they would make.


Again, chance is a human word. In a temptation, the peril is real (Satan’s arguments), the anguish is real, the suffering is real, the test is real, and the final choice, with its consequences, is real. So there is no way the temptation isn’t real.


When Ellen White refers to God and Christ before the incarnation, she says that Christ came, and God permitted Him to come, in order to meet a risk here on earth. She refers to the conflict with Satan, to the peril and suffering Christ would face here. She refers to the test He would go through and to His choices, which would have infinite and eternal consequences. The only human word that could describe all this is “risk.”

Tom, I'm surprised you place so much value on human logic for understanding and explaining the mysterious and supernatural aspects of God.

PS - Tom, do you understand the following insight - In the same way reading a history book does not alter the way things played out in real time, so too, the fact God knows the future like history does not alter the way things play out in real time.

That is, if God knows the future like history does the logic hold water? I realize you totally reject the idea; but all I'm asking is if it were true does it hold water?

Of course, all the words we use are human words. However, there's nothing in the definition of risk that suggests it necessarily has anything to do with human experience. Any being which can suffer loss can experience risk.



The point of view doesn't matter! What matters is the chance of failure.



Why is this important? If it were not a human word, what difference would that make?



If there's no chance of failure, it's not real.



If there is no possibility of yielding, temptation is no temptation.



"Risk" means "the possibility of loss." God sent Christ at the risk of failure and eternal loss. She even defines the "loss" as "eternal loss," so we could be sure to understand just what it was that God risked.

The important point is that it was possible that Christ could have failed. The risk that God took was the risk that Christ would fail. If it were not possible for Christ to have failed, there would have been no risk involved, and Christ's temptations would not have been real. They would have been "no temptation."



He she makes the point that "Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss." She ties the risk to His leaving heaven and coming to earth. The clear thought being portrayed is that Jesus took a risk when He left heaven to come to earth. He did this during the time He was omniscient. Christ made the choice to come to earth, knowing the risk that was involved, and it is the recognition of this fact that she says will cause us to "cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, 'Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.'"



This tells us that Christ "risked all." It tells us that "heaven itself was imperiled." To say that heaven was imperiled means that there was a risk of its being lost. That's utterly impossible under the assumptions you are holding, isn't it?

What I said was if you assert you believe something which is illogical, there's not much to discuss. All I can say is OK, that's your choice. But because I choose not to believe things which are contrary to human logic, I don't think you are justified as characterizing this as my "placing so much value on human logic ..."

The SOP tells us



God appeals to our reason. If logic were unimportant, why the exhortation to make sure our arguments are wholly sound? This hardly sounds like an endorsement of the idea that we should believe things which are contrary to human logic.



This is assuming that the future is like the past. The whole time, for the years we have been discussing this, I have been disputing this idea. The future is fundamentally different from the past!

The past does not consist of possibilities, but only of certainties. The future is not like that. Possibilities are a part of the reality of the future.



What logic are you talking about? Oh, I think I see your question. Your question is if it is logical to assert that IF God knows the future as if it were the past, then as reading about history does not alter the way things played out in real time, if God's knowing the future would not alter the way things played out in real time. The easy answer to this would be no, God's knowledge of things wouldn't alter how things played out, but I doubt this is correct because, at a minimum, surely it would impact God's own actions.

At any rate, this isn't the issue I've been raising or discussing. My point has been that if God is certain that a thing will happen, then that thing will certainly happen. And if the a thing will certainly happen, it's not possible for anyone, or anything (even God) to alter that. This has implications when we speak of risk, or free will (using the libertarian definition).

Certain there was no risk, but there was risk???


I recall a Star Trek show with a robot which believed everything it was told. Kirk said to it, I am lying to you.
It got into an endless loop and self destructed.

Is that what you are trying to do to me?

A lot of times in these discussions what is missed is that the issue is really not regarding God's omniscience but regarding the character of the future. Is it single-threaded or multi-threaded? If it is single-threaded, then it's easy to understand how God could have exhaustive definite foreknowledge. That would follow directly from the fact that He is omniscient.

It would be just like MM has been saying, that God sees the future as if it already happened, like a TV rerun. However, there are difficulties with this view.

First of all, it would mean that we are not self-determining creatures. We would have the *illusion* that our decisions make a difference, as far as impacting the future is concerned (there's no doubt that we *feel* as if our decisions make a difference), but it would only be an illusion. The reality would be that the future is already as fixed as the past, but it's shrouded from our view, although opened to God's.

Second, it would raise the question as to why God would create a creature that He was certain would sin. There's really no answer to this. Some say that if He didn't create Lucifer/Satan, that would be violating his free will, but that's ridiculous since a creature who doesn't exist doesn't have free will. Another argument is that God wanted evil to exist so that His goodness could be manifest, but that has implications which are negative as well. What it would come down to is that God preferred a universe that had sin in it to one that didn't.

Now if we take the point of view that the future is multi-threaded (i.e., truly comprised of possibilities, that don't become realities until self-determining creatures make them such), then these difficulties go away. It's immediately clear that we really are self-determining creatures, and that our perception of having free will and being able to impact the future is not merely an illusion. Also we understand that God did not prefer a universe with sin, but that sin came about contrary to His will, and was not something which was certain to occur.

And another ones arise. How is it that God knew, before their birth, the choices Esau and Jacob would make? How is it that God knew the choices that Judas would make? How is it that God knew that Jesus wouldn't fail? If the Bible prophecies have an x% possibility of becoming true and a y% possibility of not becoming true, how can we trust prophecies? How can omniscience be defined in terms of estimation of probabilities and mathematical ability (IOW, how can omniscience about the future be defined as ignorance about how things will play out)?