DF: Rosangela asked for an explanation of an excellent EGW quote that she quoted in her last post here. I am interested in Tom's and whoever else's explanation also of what that quote is saying in relation to this topic.

MM: I believe it demonstrates God’s divine ability to see the future like history. He knows exactly how things will play out because He has already watched them play out. The following quotes demonstrate the same truth:

DA 22
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. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
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}

TMK 18
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. {TMK 18.2}

This is an interesting conversation! I'd like to get back to the point I was making before, which Thomas and John have been echoing using other words. So far I think everyone has agreed with the following point:

a)If God knows that A will happen, and not B, then A will happen and not B.

If we call Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit A, then God knew *before He created Eve* that the event of her eating the fruit would happen. God knew that the event of her not eating the fruit would not happen.

So the question is, how could Eve have eaten of the fruit?

The key point that think is being missed here is that God knew Eve wouldn't eat of the apple BEFORE she made her choice. That means that the event that Eve would eat of the fruit was DETERMINED BEFORE Eve made her choice.

And this is the problem. If the event of Eve's eating the fruit was determined before she made her "choice," then she didn't determine the event. She could not have not eaten of the fruit, because that was an event which could not happen.

This is why, to be logically consistent, one must use a definition of free will that does not imply that a person can actually do A or B. A definition that a person could have done B if (s)he wanted to, but God knew (s)he wouldn't, is logically consistent.

But to assert that both the following are true, is logically impossible:

a)It was certain that Eve would eat of the forbidden fruit
b)Eve could have either eaten of the fruit or not.

I can feel someone saying, "Eve could have chosen not to eat of the fruit, but if that had been the case, God would have known that." But the problem is that Eve's eating of the fruit was determined *before* she made her choice, not after.

As Thomas put it:



or as John succinctly put it:

Regarding the quote Rosangela provided, here are some quotes which provide a balancing perspective:







Regarding the question if God knows if we will be saved, He didn't even know if Christ would be saved! And God had a lot more reason to believe in what He would choose than us.

The fact is that God gives us the power to determine our future, and until we do so, the future is undetermined. God cannot see as determined something which is undetermined; that would be seeing something wrong. God sees things the way they are.

The above quotes point out that God undertook a risk in sending Christ, as did Christ (who also had perfect foreknowledge). So evidently perfect foreknowledge and risk are not mutually exclusive. However, risk and a certain outcome is.

We can either say:

a)God was 100% certain that Christ would be successful.

or

b)God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

But not both.

We can either say:

a)Christ was 100% certain that He would be successful.

or

b)Christ risked all for our redemption.

But not both.

Regarding the quote Rosangela mentioned, the future is comprised of certain elements which are determined, and others which are undetermined. That is, to some extent it is fixed, and to some extent it is comprised of possibilities. Also there is the point that God works in human history, so He can bring out things that He wants to accomplish (although He will not counteract His own principles to do so, such as violating free will).

So God was able to see the character that Esau and Jacob would develop, which is not surprising, since God knows everything. God knew every chromosome of Jacob and Esau. He knew the character of their parents. He knew the upbringing they would have. He knew how their parents would treat them. Remember that God is unlimited in intelligence. God's understanding of the future is based upon His unlimited intelligence and knowledge.

Regarding Christ the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the following quote has been helpful for me:



"Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy." Had sin not created the need, the remedy would still have been available, just as our body's ability to heal itself exists regardless of whether the need arises.

Christ, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, is a statement regarding God's character, not the inevitability of sin. It was never God's plan, design, or intent that sin would arise. Sin was not inevitable (or even likely).

It's nice that God allows us to make those choices that He knows that we will make, but what about the choices He knows we won't make?

The problem is we can't do something God knows we won't do. So it's not a real choice. It's a theoretical choice, not an actual one.

Say God knows on Monday I will take the quick, non-scenic route to work instead of the longer scenic route. Do I have the ability to take the scenic route? No, because if I took the scenic route then when God knew I would do would be wrong, and God can't be wrong. So I don't really have the ability to take the other route. My "choice" is theoretical, not actual. I can't actually do anything different than what God knows I will do.

It's not that I can't, but that I won't.

Look at the premises which are being proposed here:

A- God knows everything
B- God doesn't know if I will be saved or lost, because if He knew, my salvation or perdition would be fixed

A and B are mutually exclusive and, therefore, contradictory. Does God know everything or doesn't He? If He doesn't, the word "ominiscient" can't be applied to Him.

Tom, either our personal future is fixed or it isn't. Your statement that it is partly fixed does not make sense to me. My position is that God's foreknowledge of my future doesn't in any way fix it; my future is fixed by my choices.

Besides, could you please explain how God can know beforehand the character a person will develop? First, not even identical twins develop the same character, although they share the same genetic inheritance and the same upbringing. Second, our character is affected by the Holy Spirit's action, therefore, for someone to know what kind of character I will develop, he will have to know how I will respond to the Holy Spirit's working in my life (which, of course, is determined by my choice). And third, if God knew the character a person would develop, the person's character would be fixed, according to your position, and so would be his salvation or perdition, which are determined by the character.

Tom:I can't actually do anything different than what God knows I will do.

Rosangela:It's not that I can't, but that I won't.

Look at the premises which are being proposed here:

A- God knows everything
B- God doesn't know if I will be saved or lost, because if He knew, my salvation or perdition would be fixed

A and B are mutually exclusive and, therefore, contradictory. Does God know everything or doesn't He? If He doesn't, the word "ominiscient" can't be applied to Him.

Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it? If He can't, then the word "omnipotent" can't be applied to Him. Your argument is equivalent to this one. You're proposing that God must be able to do something which is logically impossible.

Actually, the question of whether or not it is logically impossible is the whole issue. Is it possible for God to see a future as fixed which is not fixed? If the answer to this is "no," then your argument morphs into the can God make a rock so big He can't life it one.

Tom, either our personal future is fixed or it isn't. Your statement that it is partly fixed does not make sense to me. My position is that God's foreknowledge of my future doesn't in any way fix it; my future is fixed by my choices.

That our future is partly fixed and partly not makes perfect sense. In toto, our future is not fixed, so in regards to either it's fixed or it isn't, the answer is that it isn't. But that doesn't mean that certain parts of it aren't determinable.

For example, certain aspects of our personalities are fixed in stone. We are to a certain exent limited by our genetics and our environment. Within those limitations we have the ability to make choices.

If the future is not fixed, it cannot be known as fixed. It can be known, but not as fixed, if it is not fixed.

If we assume God can foresee you doing a certain fixed thing, then that means there is a fixed thing that exists for God to foresee. He can't foresee something which doesn't exist as fixed that is not fixed.

Anyway, I think this is a more difficult way to look at things than the way I've been trying to present it. People keep scooting off the point I've made. Noone has addressed it, so I'll try again.

Here's the easy way to see it.

Let's suppose that God can foresee a certain thing happening, an event A. So God sees that A will happen, and not B. It follows from this that A will happen, and not B. So far everyone has agreed to this. This means that, before I even have a chance to make a decision, it is known that A will happen and not B. A is 100% certain to happen.

Given this is the case, there is no chance I can do B. Now if I can't do B, it's evident that I don't have free will, if free will is defined as the ability for me to do either A or B. Furthermore, it's also clear that I did not determine whether or not I would do A or B because it was determined before I had an opportunity to make a choice.

Besides, could you please explain how God can know beforehand the character a person will develop? First, not even identical twins develop the same character, although they share the same genetic inheritance and the same upbringing. Second, our character is affected by the Holy Spirit's action, therefore, for someone to know what kind of character I will develop, he will have to know how I will respond to the Holy Spirit's working in my life (which, of course, is determined by my choice). And third, if God knew the character a person would develop, the person's character would be fixed, according to your position, and so would be his salvation or perdition, which are determined by the character.

I agree that in the sense of being saved or not saved it would not make sense to say that this could be foreknown.

As I said before, our genetics and upbringing have a lot to do with what our character will be. Now God knows all things. He is not limited in intelligence or knowledge. Given this is the case, there is much that can be known about one's character. That shouldn't be a difficult thing to accept.

In the example of identical twins, just to point out an easy example of how one could know about character which would be developed, one twin is older than the other. This leads him or her to be treated differently than the other. This has an impact on the character, or personality, that this twin will develop as opposed to the other.

Another example of something which could be foreknown about how twins could develop is that they form patterns of behavior even in the womb. That's something that could be known by a Being with infinite knowledge and intelligence, which is bound to have an impact on future development.

There may be factors related to genetics which we don't understand, but which God understands, which have to do with how one's personality or character will develop. This seems extremely likely to me. That is, there may be reasons that twins would develop differently that God knows about that we haven't discovered yet.

So those are a few possibilities.

This way of approaching the issue seems less clear cut to me than the other. That is, what I've been pointing out is that either it's the case that in the future event A is certain to happen, or it's the case that either of A or B can happen. What's being proposed is a logically inconsistent system whereby on the one hand A is certain to happen, but on the other hand, either A or B could happen.

That is, if we accept the proposition that if God knows that A will happen, then A must happen, then it cannot be the case that I could do either of A or B. This should be obvious. Either A is certain to happen, or it isn't. If it is, then B can't happen. If B can't happen, then I can't do it. Changing "can't" to "won't" doesn't change the logical impossibility of my being able to do something which can't possibly happen. If it can't happen, I can't do it.

Tom,
Several things here before I stop participating on this thread.
#1 you said: This is why, to be logically consistent,

Logically consistent according to who? Who makes the rules? You or God?

#2. one must use a definition of free will that does not imply that a person can actually do A or B.

No one has to do anything at all, thats why its called "faith"


#3 A definition that a person could have done B if (s)he wanted to, but God knew (s)he wouldn't, is logically consistent.

Perhaps according to you.


I am saying this from the perspective of a Christian.
#1 What does it do for me in my walk with Christ, absolutely nothing.
#2 How does it strengthen my faith, it doesn't.
#3How does it help me to achieve in knowing more about God, it doesn't.
In fact I find more harm being done by trying to use man made logic to figure out God when the Bible is filled with gems about His knowledge, Wisdom, and how He is, and the fulfilled prophecies about The Messiah, Jesus Christ and His soon return.

It is man and their flawed ideas that cause so many problems we find today in religion, even within our own denomination.
Some people enjoy this stuff for glorifying in the flesh, its quite obvious.
I find it discouraging and counterproductive to growing in Christ, seriously. Nothing wrong with asking questions, but then again I guess its the motive for the questions, which you clearly state and believe that God doesn't know the future. Bold words for someone who decays slowly each and everyday.
There are things I have read on forums that make me ask myself "With what authority do they question God in such a manner". Stuff I wouldn't share with anyone, but would admonish them and suggest, to keep on praying, walk by Faith in Christ, and he will lead you, and never take your eyes off of Him. Everything else is vanity.
Thats my 25¢
God Bless,
Will

This says that Adam could have written Genesis by dictation from God. Noone could have deviated from it anyways.