"Christ risked all" cannot mean this. Neither can "all heaven was imperiled." EGW spoke "the risk of failure and eternal loss." "Eternal loss" is what was at stake, which agrees with "Christ risked all." There's no way it could be said that "Christ risked all," or that He risked His eternal life, if He was absolutely certain, on the basis of seeing a fixed future, that there was no chance He would fail.



I think this question is vaguely worded. What I think is that Christ risked all, and this couldn't be said if the future were fixed, for the reasons I've explained.



No we're not. I didn't say God couldn't both be single-threaded and multi-threaded, but that the future cannot be. Either it's fixed or it's not. It's either like the past in this regard, or it isn't.



Saying things like "Upsetting how things are and how things play out in real time" displays a misunderstanding of what we're discussing. This is a non-issue, as I've repeatedly explained. There's no reason to keep bringing this up.



This is because I understand what the word "future" means.





This is a non-issue.



1.We're talking about the future, not about God.
2.Logic is still logic, even if God were the subject.



This isn't an issue.



It does if "free will" is understood in the libertarian sense. Why? Because there's a logical contradiction involved. If the future is single-threaded, then only one can possibly be made, which is contradictory to the (libertarian) definition of free will.



You're not discussing the real issue at all. The real issue is that the future has certain characteristics, like a square or triangle does. A square has four sides, even for God. God cannot know a square to be a triangle.

Is the future single-threaded or multi-threaded? Whatever it really is is how God sees it.



They're not unrelated. You can't see the validity of this argument? You didn't even address the argument. You can't, because there's nothing wrong with it. Your only option is to skip it.



You're not dealing with any of the issues involved, or discussing any of the arguments.



These quotes don't have anything to do with whether the future is single-threaded or not. Neither does the quote in John.



Why don't you present some passage from Scripture saying that unfallen beings were absolutely certain Jesus would succeed? The way you are approaching this is incredible. I presented 7 arguments, and you just keep ignoring them. Anything having to do with logical arguments that I write you just ignore. Instead you ask bizarre questions that don't relate to the issue.



The Bible doesn't portray unfallen beings feeling anything. It says nothing about them. The SOP speaks about them in certain circumstances, but this is a totally irrelevant point anyway. (btw, she speaks about security in the context of unfallen beings, but, again, this is irrelevant).



Why do you think they weren't?

This has nothing to do with the subject.



According to the SOP, they weren't secure until after the cross. So, logically, if they weren't secure, it's more probable that they didn't feel perfectly safe and secure than that they did. But, again, this is irrelevant.

MM, I've pointed out moral problems, and presented 7 points; 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7a or 7b (I forget which is your and which is mine). Please address the points I made.

If you don't remember them, I can repeat them (but you can find them by looking a few posts back).

Must we interpret risk to mean something different from risk?
Do you see a difference between facing danger and risk? If there were no risk would it be "real" danger? Could it be "real" danger and not risk? Or at least not risk to the person facing the danger?

I had asked before where has Ellen White used risk in a way which may not mean risk as it means and asked for comparison of it to the Bible saying God killed Saul. For some reason you thought I was talking about Saul. I'm talking about Ellen White using risk in a way which an average person would not understand risk to be.

When I face a glass enclosed hive of bees, I am facing danger. Real danger. But as long as I don't break the glass, I have no risk. I have no fear. I have risked nothing in looking for the queen. I am at peace because I know with absolute certainty I will not be harmed.

Interesting illustration.

Kland, what is the danger you are facing?

Tom, you are convinced God is bound by your perspective of the future. You are convinced He cannot know the future like history because you believe it isn't possible. You are convinced the future cannot be known like history. I disagree. I believe He can and does know the future like history and that it doesn't mean the future is fixed or single-threaded. God is not limited by natural law. He can know a square like a triangle without destroying the squareness or triangularity of either one. You are also convinced Ellen's use of the words "risk" and "peril" obviously and unquestionably means neither the Father nor the Son knew with absolute certainty Lucifer, Adam, and Jesus would fail or succeed. I disagree.

No, I'm not. I'm convinced the future is multi-threaded and that this is how God perceives it to be. Why not represent my view accurately instead of misrepresenting it? I try to accurately represent your point of view. Why don't you extend the same courtesy?



Because the future is different than history. History is single-threaded. The future is multi-threaded. God knows both history and the future as they are in truth.



The same as a triangle cannot be known like a square.



You believe God knows the future as single-threaded, or fixed, because He sees it like a re-run, or like history. These are single-threaded things. Now if God see the future as single-threaded, and knows the future as single-threaded, it stands to reason that the future is single-threaded. Otherwise we would have God seeing and knowing something different than what it really is. But reality is how God perceives it to be.



Another example is odd numbers and even numbers. These are different entities. God knows the odd numbers as they are, and even numbers as they are. It doesn't make sense to say otherwise. It's no limitation on God to say that He knows the truth.



You sort of mixed things together here. I'm convinced that Ellen's White statement that "Christ risked all" means that Christ risked all, even His eternal life. I'm convinced that "all heaven was imperiled" means that heaven was imperiled, and the cause of this was the fact that Christ risked all.

I'm convinced that if Christ was absolutely certain that He would succeed, then it could not be said that He "risked all," because if you are absolutely certain of an outcome, then you are not risking anything.

For example, say you have a 2 headed coin, and you bet someone it will come up heads. What are you risking? Nothing, because you are absolutely certain of the outcome.

I believe that Adam and Lucifer could have fallen for different reasons, not primarily because she said that Christ risked all.

Tom, you believe the future is multi-threaded and you also believe God sees it as you do. You believe God looks ahead and sees all the possible choices and outcomes but has no idea which way things will unfold; whereas I believe He looks back and knows precisely how things played out. I believe God knows the future like history and that His knowing so does not change a thing. You believe it means choices and outcomes cannot play out differently than how God saw it unfold as if His knowing so prevents it. I disagree. You believe history and the future are as different for God as it is for you and me. I disagree. I believe God has known the past, present, and future from all eternity and that His knowing so does nothing to alter or change time and space. The future is free and open to us and the fact God has known forever exactly how everything plays out His knowing so has absolutely no effect on the nature and essence of time and space.

No! I've never said this. I've said that God sees the future as it is. I can't see the future.



No, I've never said this either! We've been discussing this for years. I don't understand the difficulty in just writing back what I've said. I've never said, "God has no idea which way things will unfold." I have said that God sees all the possibilities, and that the future is comprised of possibilities.



Which would make the future fixed, just like history is.



That God knows what will happen wouldn't change anything, so that need never have been mentioned, let alone repeated so frequently, especially after having been explained that this is not an issue. That there is only one thing that can happen is the point.



No, I've never said this.



You're disagreeing with something you've said, not something I've said.



I've not said this either. I've said that the future is different than the past. I've not made a comparison between God and ourselves in so doing.



You're again disagreeing with something you yourself have said, as opposed to something I've said.



Everyone believes this. This isn't an issue. There's no need to mention this ever again in our discussion of this topic!



It's free and open to everyone, but your assertion here logically contradicts your idea that God sees the future like history. I don't know why you don't perceive this to be the case.



Of course not! However, if God knows the future to be a certain way, then that's the way it is. This is the issue, as I've been constantly repeating over and over and over again.

Tom, I commend you for exercising superhuman patience. Your walk with Jesus is evident. I am simply saying God knows the future like history and His knowing so does not make it fixed or single-threaded. Yes, things will play out accordingly. There is no chance it will unfold differently. But none of this matters so far as our ability and freedom to choose as we please. The idea that we're not truly free because we are not free to make choices that would result in different outcomes misses the point, which is God knowing the future like history has zero effect on the nature and essence of time and space. It has the same effect as if God did not exist or knew nothing at all. I realize you think this is impossible. You believe the future consists of all the possible ways things can play out. You also believe God has no idea which one of the many possibilities will play out.

Mike, may I suggest you spend some substantial time throughout the next year in reading novels of a SF or Fantasy kind. Practising imagining different kinds of universes than the one we live in might be the only way this discussion you are having with Tom could ever be resolved. (Not because so doing would necessarily make you agree with Tom, but because learning to imagen a universe that is different from our own would help you understand what Tom is talking about and therefore make you able to take an informed opinion on Toms point of view.) ((I am not here saying that Toms view entails a universe different from our own, but it certainly seems different from any universe you seem capable of grasping, wherefore learning to see fantastically imaginative universes might help you be able to understand his view also.))