In the following passage it says A&E would have been rendered eternally secure and in perpetual favor with God and the holy angels, which implies the holy angels would have enjoyed the same, namely, eternal security and perpetual favor with God.

By the way, I came across the following quote while searching for the ones above. It plainly says Jesus knew He would succeed on the cross.

T: "Two realities" is nonsensical. There is reality, and anything is not reality. You write, "in both cases, the future is wide open," but you said before that the future has "already played out," which is obviously a contradiction to the idea that it's wide open. Which is it? Has the future "already played out"? Or is it "wide open"? It can't be both.

M: Since God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously it stands to reason that He is present with us in the present. That He also exists in the past and future at the same time does not prevent Him from coexisting with us in the present. It's just one of those many things about God we cannot comprehend, just like we cannot understand how God can be everywhere at the same time. Logic would suggest that if God is everywhere He is in essence nowhere. As God coexists with us in the present the future is wide open for Him and us. It doesn't matter that He simultaneously exists in the past and future.

T: None of what you wrote in any of this post is in any way responsive to what I wrote. Please answer my question.

M:There is nothing illogical or unreasonable about God existing in the past, present, and future simultaneously and me saying it does not affect, alter, change time and space as we know it.

God experiences time and space in ways we cannot, therefore, His reality must necessarily involve realities ours does not.

T: MM, a weakness of your view is that it has no answer for the problem of evil. That is, why evil exists. The Open View answers this question by stating that God creating beings who could love and be loved, which entails risk, and that there is no way around this risk, given the existence of love. You don't have an answer to the question of why God would choose to create a being He was certain would invent sin as opposed to one He was certain would not.

M: You're right, I cannot fully explain why God chose to create beings He knew would sin and die in the lake of fire.

T: Not "fully explain," but explain at all. You can't give any reason whatsoever for why God would do the things you suggest, which is a major weakness in your position. We should be able to give a reason for the things we believe.

M: Neither can I explain why He allowed our parents to conceive us even though He knew we would sin (He could have prevented it without violating free will).

M: The best I have found is the following passage: quote omitted by Tom.

T: This passage doesn't address my question. It addresses questions like the following: "If sin happened, could God still establish His throne in righteousness?" It doesn't address the question of why sin exists, and there are many EGW statement which contradict your idea that sin was inevitable. The idea that sin was inevitable is problematic for many reasons. I'll mention three:

1.It portrays God in a negative light. Why would a benevolent Being do something to make sin inevitable?

2.It implies that there was fault with God. God was not able to create in such a way that sin was not inevitable.

3.It gives an explanation for why sin exists. That is, the existence of sin is not a mystery. Sin exists because God set into motion a course of events to make it inevitable.

God exists in the present with us. From this point of view the future is wide open (it hasn't played out yet). This is reality.

T: Not "fully explain," but explain at all. You can't give any reason whatsoever for why God would do the things you suggest, which is a major weakness in your position. We should be able to give a reason for the things we believe.

M:I believe the passage I quoted gives a partial explanation. I understand you disagree.

M: Neither can I explain why He allowed our parents to conceive us even though He knew we would sin (He could have prevented it without violating free will).

No comment?

M: The best I have found is the following passage: quote omitted by Tom.

T: This passage doesn't address my question. It addresses questions like the following: "If sin happened, could God still establish His throne in righteousness?" It doesn't address the question of why sin exists, and there are many EGW statement which contradict your idea that sin was inevitable. The idea that sin was inevitable is problematic for many reasons. I'll mention three:

1.It portrays God in a negative light. Why would a benevolent Being do something to make sin inevitable?

2.It implies that there was fault with God. God was not able to create in such a way that sin was not inevitable.

3.It gives an explanation for why sin exists. That is, the existence of sin is not a mystery. Sin exists because God set into motion a course of events to make it inevitable.

[quote]1. Why would God create FMAs knowing some of the future possibilities involved all of them sinning and dying?

2. It implies God didn't care if some of the possible outcomes involved FMAs sinning and dying. The risk was worth it.

3. It explains why sin and death occurred, namely, because God set in motion dynamics that resulted in sin and death.

I believe the Father is a physical being, and that He is physically present everywhere at the same time. There is no such thing as non-physical being. You have yet to answer my question - Do you believe God is a physical being and that He is physically present everywhere at the same time? If so, please explain it logically. If not, what do you believe about it? And, concerning reality, I take it you disagree with my view.

This (still) doesn't address the question! You're saying that reality is that from this "point of view" the future is wide open. But "point of view" is NOT reality. Reality is NOT opinion, or point of view or perception. Reality is what is. Is the future "already played out"? Or is it "wide open"? Which? (You may choose one).

T: Not "fully explain," but explain at all. You can't give any reason whatsoever for why God would do the things you suggest, which is a major weakness in your position. We should be able to give a reason for the things we believe.

M: I believe the passage I quoted gives a partial explanation. I understand you disagree.

T: Right. The passage you quoted doesn't discuss the issue.

M: Neither can I explain why He allowed our parents to conceive us even though He knew we would sin (He could have prevented it without violating free will).

T: I don't believe it is God's character to do things which make sin inevitable.

M: The best I have found is the following passage: quote omitted by Tom.

T: This passage doesn't address my question. It addresses questions like the following: "If sin happened, could God still establish His throne in righteousness?" It doesn't address the question of why sin exists, and there are many EGW statement which contradict your idea that sin was inevitable. The idea that sin was inevitable is problematic for many reasons. I'll mention three:

1.It portrays God in a negative light. Why would a benevolent Being do something to make sin inevitable?

2.It implies that there was fault with God. God was not able to create in such a way that sin was not inevitable.

3.It gives an explanation for why sin exists. That is, the existence of sin is not a mystery. Sin exists because God set into motion a course of events to make it inevitable.

M: Why would God create FMAs knowing some of the future possibilities involved all of them sinning and dying?

T: Because love entails risk. Why would one have children knowing that this could turn out badly? Or even choose to love someone?

M: It implies God didn't care if some of the possible outcomes involved FMAs sinning and dying. The risk was worth it.

T: Love entails risk. Anytime one chooses to love, one makes the decision that it is "worth it." The alternative would be to choose not to love.

M: It explains why sin and death occurred, namely, because God set in motion dynamics that resulted in sin and death.

T: Any explanation that would make God responsible for sin or any of its results is suspect.