TV: In this scenario, since everything is history and Gods perspective has no future, God cannot judge us, He can merely look at the judgement episode on the TimeViewer-TV...

MM: In one sense, God does not judge us. We judge ourselves. God merely rewards us according to our judgment. In this sense the word “judgment” means we decide our eternal destiny and reward by how we live our lives.

Thomas: Did you just throw out the IJ doctrine?

TV: (Unless of course, you will now argue that there was a time in the distant past when God did not see all time as in the past. Then God would have been able to do something about it at that point in time when time was still full of possibilities.)

MM: God “inhabits eternity”. God does not experience time and space like we do. Past, present, and future are one. You seem to think God cannot know the future like history, like a rerun. If so, then how do you explain unconditional prophecy?

Thomas: Seem to think? I am at a loss for words, how could I be any more clear on saying that this is exactly my view?
Unconditional prophecy is such prophecy where God steps into history and makes things happen. Such as God telling Joshua that if Israel march around Jerico in such and such way, the city will fall. Well, after the people fullfill the requirements, Gods angles likely made rubble of those walls by their own hands. God says, this will happen and He knows it will happen becouse He will see to it personally.

Thomas

Only one choice, either A or B, is only possible for anybody.

For example, leaving God completely out of the equation, if I choose to do A, then how can I do B?

Choosing A is not the starting point. Choosing A or B is the starting point.

That is, free will, as traditionally defined by Armenianists (such as we SDA's) asserts that a person can choose to do either of A or B. If we take a position that only A is possible, then we need to throw that definition of free will out the window.

TE: The fuss is over free will, not God's foreknowledge. If only A can happen, as MM is insisting, then we cannot do B. We do not have the ability to do anything other than A. That has implications for free will, where we only think we can do something other than A, but can't really do it.

MM: You misrepresent the view I have embraced.

I'm not discussing your view at all. I couldn't possibly be misrepresenting a view I'm not representing at all. I'm just pointing out what the issue is.

I'm the one who brought up the issue. It's in the original post of this topic. This topic is not about your view. It's about my question, which is the contradiction I pointed out, which you refuse to address, instead talking about other things.

If you want to discuss your view, start up a topic. *Then* I can misrepresent it.

This goes along with what Isaiah says:

TE: He could only report what had been determined. An event which is not determined is not reportable.

MM: Again, this idea assumes God does not see the future like history, like a rerun.

No, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with what view one takes of how God sees the future. What makes you think this?

TE: B is an issue in free will. Free will, by Armenians, is traditionally defined as the ability to do either A or B. Now you may assert it's not an issue in regards to God's foreknowledge, but it's certainly an issue with free will.

MM: Our options are unlimited before the fact. But after the fact it isn’t an issue. Free will is an issue before the fact, not afterwards.

Yes, but according to your view, A must happen *before* the fact, because God knows it will happen *before* the fact. So before the fact, our options are limited, according to your view. Only A is possible. You've said this many times now.

(snip)

TE: For example, Ellen White wrote in the last 1850's that Christ could have come 'ere now, showing that the timing of the event is not fixed, since it could already have happened.

MM: The expression “Christ would [not could] have come ere this” does not mean God does not know the day and hour.

It means He could have come at some other time, which means the future is not fixed.

TE: It means what it says. Given a certain beginning, God knows the end. The prophecies in Deuteronomy involving the blessings and cursings are a perfect illustration of this. Go down this road, and this will happen. Go down the other road, and that will happen.

MM: Again, this idea assumes God does not know the future like history, like a rerun.

No, it doesn't assume that. It's just interpreting the words "know the end from the beginning." Regardless of God's vision of the future, the meaning of words does not change.

God doesn’t have to guess what might happen in the future. He already knows because He has already seen it play out. Whether or not He tells us is another matter. When He does choose to tell us, He tells us exactly how it played out.

TE: Of course not, because this isn't true. God knew Jesus could fail.

MM: It was you who posted God knew Jesus “would” fail.

That's preposterous! Only if I made an eggregious typo. Where did I post such a thing?

And, yes, Jesus possessed the ability to fail, but God knew He would succeed. There was never a moment of doubt in His mind.

TE: Of course not. "Risk" means uncertainty. Your mixing risk with "would" is misusing the word "risk." He knew He could succeed. Hence the use of the word "risk."

MM: Again, risk does not mean God was uncertain as to the outcome.

Risk means precisely an uncertainty as to an outcome.

Risk means Jesus possessed the ability to fail, which He did not possess before His incarnation.

This is incorrect. "Risk" has nothing to do with abilities to perform actions. It has to do with certainty and uncertainty.

But God knew Jesus would succeed. He did not doubt it, not even for a nanosecond.

TE: You're right that if Jesus had failed, then these bad things would have happened. God had faith in His Son.

MM: Amen! Faith disallows doubt. God did not doubt. He knew Jesus would succeed. That’s why He said so numerous times throughout the OT and NT. Nowhere in the Bible is God portrayed as not knowing if Jesus would fail or succeed.

Only if the Bible does not agree with Ellen White's statement.



TE: This risk explains why it was such a difficult decision for God to send Christ to save us.

MM: I believe what made it hard for God to approve the plan of salvation is His intense, perfect love for Jesus and FMAs. He loves everyone equally. And the thought of allowing Jesus to suffer on the cross or allowing us to die caused Him unbelievable anguish. There was no risk. Both were inevitable.

You say "there was no risk." Ellen White says, "Remember, Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.(COL 196)" Two different views. We can choose what we wish to believe.

Read my post again.

By saying in my post, "Only one choice, either A or B, is only possible for anybody" I did begin at the starting point, therefore, unless you have a closed mind, I am expecting a different reply from you.

TV: Did I just read you saying that Jesus is not a Free Moral Agent? Or that God is not a Free Moral Agent?

MM: The abbreviation “FMAs” applies to created beings.

TV: Did you just throw out the IJ doctrine?

MM: Nope. Why do you ask?

TV: Seem to think? I am at a loss for words, how could I be any more clear on saying that this is exactly my view?

MM: I am sorry it offended you.

TV: Unconditional prophecy is such prophecy where God steps into history and makes things happen.

MM: Yes, God makes sure things go His way. But how does He know FMAs will do it? That’s the part we disagree on. I believe He knows it because, based on the fact He sees the future like a rerun, He has watched it happen already.

a) The future is a "done deal."
b) The future is not fixed.

MM: This equation does not factor in God’s divine ability to see the future like history, like a rerun. Nobody is accusing God of “fixing” things simply because He knows the future like history, like a rerun.

a) There was a risk involved in sending Christ. (I'm assuming you agree with this, since that's what Ellen White wrote).
b) There was no chance that Christ would fail.

MM: Again, Jesus possessed the ability to sin and die, which He didn’t before His incarnation. The “risk” Sister White wrote about does not include Jesus failing and dying eternally. Divinity cannot die.

5BC 1113
"I am the resurrection, and the life." He who had said, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again," came forth from the grave to life that was in Himself. Humanity died: divinity did not die. In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. He declares that He has life in Himself to quicken whom He will. {5BC 1113.6}

a) There is only one option, A.
b) In spite of this there is risk, peril, and the ability to choose between more options than A.

MM: Again, this formula divorces God from the equation.

TE: I quoted from a source dealing with basic theology. What it stated is well known, and has been recognized for a long time. It's simply stating what the logical consequences are of the idea you are espousing.

MM: I do not agree with your quote. It does not represent what I believe.

TE: This doesn't have anything to do with God's foreknowledge. It A must happen, and B can't, then we should have a definition of free will which takes this into account.

MM: Divorcing God from this discussion makes it pointless. There is no context upon which to discuss the future. Nobody, but God, knows the future. Saying “A” will happen and “B” cannot happen is meaningless unless we factor in God’s ability to see the future like history, like a rerun.

TE: The fuss is over free will, not God's foreknowledge. If only TE: If only A can happen, as MM is insisting, then we cannot do B. We do not have the ability to do anything other than A. That has implications for free will, where we only think we can do something other than A, but can't really do it.

MM: You misrepresent the view I have embraced.

TE: I'm not discussing your view at all. I couldn't possibly be misrepresenting a view I'm not representing at all.

MM: "If only A can happen, as MM is insisting, then we cannot do B." This misrepresents the view I have embraced.