MM, this didn't even come close to doing what I asked. I asked you if you understood my point, and if you did so, to please repeat it in your own words. Please do what I asked.

Regarding your questions and points:

1.If the end of human history has "come and gone," then obviously the future is settled. This is so obvious I don't see why it should need to be explained. Just consider what the words "come and gone" and "settled" mean.

2.It's not that God knows that the time has already played out that makes it the case that the future is settled, but that time has already played out. It's not the knowledge of the fact that is the issue, but the fact itself. The fact (according to you) is that time has already played out. That fact means the future is settled.

3.You wrote:



I have to agree with kland's point that this is a bit annoying. I must have stated the reverse of this over a hundred times to you, at least over a dozen in the past week.

To repeat once more, it's not that God knows the future to be like history that causes it to be settled (as if it weren't already) but that if that's what God knows the future to be (i.e., like history), then that's what the future is (like history).



4.Just think of what you're asking. This is like asking if our decisions can cause the past to be different than what it was. Do you think that's possible? That is, can we make decisions that result in an outcome different than one that in reality has already happened?

5.If the reality is that time has already played out, then the past, present and future are settled. That's what "played out" means. "Played out" = "settled."

I disagree. I believe time is sequential. First comes the past, then the present, then the future. These are not simultaneous, but sequential.



This wasn't what was asked, although it's not a bad question.



Again, not what was asked.



This is a little closer, but still not what was asked.



This is just saying that God created beings will free will. Anyone might choose to sin, and death is the result of that choice. I'm maintaining that this was not inevitable. Your position is that sin was inevitable. You've said exactly this.

What I'm asking, and you're not addressing, is that if God acted in such a way that He was certain that sin would be the result of His actions, how is He not responsible? God could have acted in some other way, which He would be certain would not have resulted in sin instead. That would have been better, unless there's something about sin which is better than righteousness.



It's not possible to create beings with free will that are certain not to sin. Why would you think this would be possible? (given my perspective; from your perspective, of course, that would be possible, and, indeed, one wonders why God wouldn't have done the very thing you are asking). "Free will" means the ability to reject love. If God could create beings He would certain could not sin, He would be creating robots, not beings with free will.

Actually, I quoted the second time you used the word “make”, which, as you can see above, is not in quotations. Nevertheless, since you’re now saying it is significant I’ll address it as such. I take it you believe history is single-threaded, therefore, the future must necessarily be single-threaded if God knows the future like history. However, your view assumes God is limited to experiencing time in the same sequential way we do. I, on the other hand, believe God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously, which means all of the above is open and multi-threaded, the beginning and the end and everything in between are happening simultaneously. This, in part, explains why and how Jesus is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” It also answers why and how God knows the future like history.


See comment above.


So, do you believe God knows all the different ways the future can play out but doesn't know precisely which one will play out?


Again, your view limits God, whereas my view acknowledges God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously, which means He experiences time sequentially like we do while simultaneously experiencing the past and the future.


Unless, of course, God surpasses your ability to comprehend Him. You seem to be saying it is impossible for God to exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously without it meaning the future is single-threaded and without it meaning it is impossible for us to make choices that impact the future (i.e. result in a different outcome).

Ellen addresses this point in the following passages:


Although it is true God created beings He knew would sin and die, He did not create them to sin and die. He is not responsible for the fact they chose to sin. He created them perfectly holy and sinless. Yes, He could have chosen not to create them without interfering with free will. “Yet it did not deter him from carrying out his eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish his throne in righteousness.” He also could have chosen only to create those whom He knew would not sin without violating free will or turning them into robots.

By the way, do you think God had no idea Lucifer and Adam would sin?


Unless, of course, God surpasses your ability to comprehend Him. The only reason why we know the past, present, and future exist simultaneously is because God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously. This fact, as you have vehemently affirmed, in no way means the future is fixed or settled. Time plays out just as it always does. The fact time, as it relates to human history, is in reality finished makes no difference so far as how we experience time right now, which is also reality. It is not an illusion or perceived reality.

We are limited in our ability to experience time, that is, we can only experience time in the present tense. The choices we make now impact the future (which essentially begins the instant we make the choice). We cannot go back in time and make a different choice, although technically we can change our mind the instant we make a choice and thereby thwart what might have happened, or we can repent and receive forgiveness and radically change the outcome.

Are you suggesting God knows thousands of possible "day and hour" dates, but He doesn't know precisely which one it will be? "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Regarding the exact "day and hour" Ellen wrote:


I hear you saying these kinds of passages, of which there are many, must be interpreted to mean God does not know the precise day and hour Jesus will return.

Yes.



This makes know difference to the point that if history is single-threaded, and the future is like history, then it is also single-threaded.



This is wrong. Everything would be single-threaded, the beginning and the end and everything in between which is happening simultaneously. This is obvious, MM. You're basically saying everything is like the present to God. Is the present single-threaded or multi-threaded? It's single-threaded, because only one thing can be happening.



It can explain these things, but does so in a way that the past, present, and future are single-threaded. Another way to see that this is so is to ask the question, when God looks into the past, what does He see? He sees what happened, right? The ONE thing that happened. That's single-threaded. Similarly, under your view, when God looks to the future (which you say is Him looking backwards, because to God the future has already happened), what does He see? He likewise would see the ONE thing that "happened." That's single-threaded.



It depends upon the circumstances. The future is comprised of some things which are settled, and some which aren't. Of the things which aren't, God sees all the possibilities. God could only know which of these would occur if one of these possibilities was a certainty and all of the other "possibilities" were in reality "impossibilities."



I was speaking in terms of your view. I pointed out that if God were experiencing every moment in time as if it were the present, then there would be nothing sequential for God. I asked you to think this through. This should be very easy to see if you think it through. Every moment is the present = Nothing is sequential.

To state it another way, things can only happen sequentially if one experiences something things before other things, which cannot be the case if one experiences all things simultaneously.



No, this is simple logic. It's not dependent upon ability to comprehend God in the slightest. The logic is simple:

1.God knows things as they are.
2.Therefore if God knows the future to be fixed, then it is fixed.

This is in no way dependent upon my or any one else's ability to comprehend God.



What I'm saying right now, in the piece that you are responding to, are the two points I just stated above.

Regarding your points here, you are claiming I am saying:

1.If God exists in the past, present and future simultaneously, then the future must be single-threaded.

2.If God exists in the past, present and future simultaneously, then we do not have the ability to make choices that impact the future.

Regarding the first statement, God cannot exist in the future if the future is multi-threaded, unless you believe this means that God's existence in the future is multi-threaded as well, sort of like existing in parallel universes. Is this your thought?

Regarding 2., if you think that God exists in the future in a multi-threaded sense, like in parallel universes, then it would be possible for our decisions to impact the future. If you believe that God exists in a single future, then that would imply that future is single-threaded, of course, and if the future is single-threaded then clearly we can't do anything to make it multi-threaded.

No, she didn't. That is, she didn't address the point I was making. In other passages she speaks in hypothetical voice. These would have to be considered as well. That is, she speaks of God's plans in case Adam sinned. She never presents sin as being inevitable. That's your idea.



This last sentence is a bit confusing. You're saying that God could have chosen not to create the being who would sin, and that doing so would not have interfered with their free will? If this is what you're saying, I agree with this. And, indeed, this is what God would have done, unless sin has some advantage over righteousness.



So you're saying that God needed sin in order to establish His throne in righteousness? If this isn't what you're saying, why wouldn't God simply establish His throne in righteousness without sin existing? What's the advantage of sin?



Why do you think I think this? I've been very clear in what I believe, and have stated such many, many times. It's very perplexing how you could ask something like this.

What I've said is that God knew of the possibility that Lucifer and Adam would sin, and the same is true of all the other beings that He created. All the beings He created had the possibility of sinning. This is all I've said. I've never said God had no idea that Lucifer or Adam would sin. I don't see how you could get from what I actually said to your question. What were you thinking?



No, MM, this is the same error. There is an *ontological* issue (i.e., an issue having to do with how things are, with reality). My *comprehension* of things (e.g., my comprehension of God) is an *epistemological* issue. I'm saying the epistemological issue doesn't matter; it's not the relevant thing. It's the ontological issue which matters.

To say the same thing more simply, it's "just the facts." What are the facts? Whatever God knows is a fact. This is not true of me, so my comprehension of God may be wrong, but regardless of whether or not it is, it would still be the case that what God knows to be facts are indeed facts.



No, I've not affirmed this at all, vehemently or otherwise. Where did you get this idea from? In another post you said:



so when you wrote this post you understood I was saying the reverse of what you're now saying I am vehemently affirming. What happened?



You're contradicting yourself. You assert: Time is in reality finished.

If time is in reality finished, then our perception that it is not in reality finished is wrong, an illusion, a perceived reality which is false.



If this is true, then your statement that time is in reality finished is false. That is, if our perception that time is in reality not finished is not an illusion or perceived reality, then it must be the case that time is in reality not finished. So we have:

1.Time is in reality finished.
2.Time is in reality not finished.

These are mutually exclusive.



If time is in reality finished, nothing we can do can alter anything related to that. That should be clear to see.

Regarding #128192, I've already responded to these questions several times. Let me ask, is it possible to hasten the coming of Christ? If so, then there is no set date.

Then you must also conclude Ellen is a false prophet. Why? Because she unequivocally says the exact "day and hour" is set, has been appointed, and that God hasn't revealed it to us yet but that He will during the outpouring of the seven last plagues.

No, you must believe she is a false prophet. Why? Because she unequivocally says that the coming of Christ can be hastened, and that Christ could have come "'ere now."

Actually, this is a silly response, which I hope you can see by my also using it. There's a simple alternative to you believing Ellen White is a false prophet, which is that you have a different way of interpreting what she wrote than I do, right? Just because you perceive something differently than I do doesn't make you a heretic.