TE: But the problem is that Eve's eating of the fruit was determined *before* she made her choice, not after.

MM: Again, there was nothing “determined” about it. God knew she would eat it because He already saw it happen.

That's what "determined" means. If it weren't determined, God couldn't see it. He can't see things that haven't been determined as things which have been determined, since that's not what they are.

TE: God sees the future the way it is. The future is different than the past. This is your fundamental assumption, and it's not correct. If it were the same as the past, we could not have free will under the libertarian definition (i.e. we can do either of A or B).

MM: God "calleth those things which be not as though they were." (Rom 4:17) From God’s perspective history and future are one and the same thing. God “inhabits eternity”. (Isa 57:15) Time and space does not apply to God in the same way it applies to FMAs.

Logic applies equally to God as well as to man. No matter how you define how God experiences space and time, it will ever be the case that if only A can happen, and not B, then B cannot happen. Therefore I cannot do either A or B, but only A.

TE: God does know the future with certainty. He knows the future as it is. Until FMA's take actions to convert possibilities into realities, possibilities are an essential characteristic of the future.

MM: This doesn’t make sense to me. You seem to be arguing that God knows the future with certainty but He doesn’t know what will happen in the future.

The future is comprised of possibilities. God knows all the possibilities. God knows the future with certainty, such as it is, comprised of possibilities.

TE: Hindsight? His knowledge of the future is foresight. "Foresight" means to look ahead.

MM: It’s both.

No, it's not. It is defined as "perception of the nature of an event after it has happened."

He knows the end from the beginning. God is God, therefore, hindsight and foresight are one and the same thing.

As explained above, this is not what knowing the end from the beginning means.

TE: He foresaw the possibility that Christ would fail, but took the risk anyway.

MM: I vehemently disagree. God did not know Jesus “would” fail. He knew Jesus would succeed. He never once doubted it. God does not doubt. He doesn't have to - He knows the end from the beginning.

You're contradicting the inspired testimony that says that God took the risk of failure and eternal loss. You're free to disagree with this if you wish, though.

TE: If God is reporting what has happened, then it's fixed. That's obvious. If it weren't fixed, then it could change, and something which God "reported" could happen differently than what He said.

MM: There is nothing “fixed” about it. It’s a done deal. It has already happened.

TE: "All heaven was imperiled for our redemption." What do you think this means?

MM: It does not mean God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed.

TE: God sees every possible outcome, and in none of the possible outcomes does affliction arise a second time.

MM: I disagree. There is only one possible outcome – the one God watched happen already. That’s why unconditional prophecy does not suggest numerous possible outcomes. God knows exactly how t is going to play out.

TE: According to this idea, God can view the future, but is powerless to do anything about it.

MM: You are assuming there is something about it that needs correcting, which implies God did not get it right the first time. God does not make mistakes.

TE: No, this assumption is not made. Nor is this assumption pertinent to the observation.

MM: Then why do you insist God is powerless to do anything about it? Why would God change anything? Is He powerless to change history? The question doesn’t even make sense.

TE: There is not such thing as B? Well if that is the case, then free will (in the sense of being able to do A or B) does not exist. Since B does not exist, I can only do A. If can only do A, then I do not have free will (if free will is defined as the ability to do A or B).

MM: Your equations assume God does not know the future like history, like watching a rerun. Reporting what has already happened does not rob us our ability and freedom to choose. It simply states the facts. It has nothing do with alternate endings. According to God's divine hindsight, there is only one ending.

TE: But the problem is that Eve's eating of the fruit was determined *before* she made her choice, not after.

MM: Again, there was nothing “determined” about it. God knew she would eat it because He already saw it happen.

TE: That's what "determined" means. If it weren't determined, God couldn't see it. He can't see things that haven't been determined as things which have been determined, since that's not what they are.

MM: Reporting the facts after the fact has nothing do with it being determined. For example, God did not determine before the fact that Eve must sin. He simply report things after the fact.

TE: Logic applies equally to God as well as to man. No matter how you define how God experiences space and time, it will ever be the case that if only A can happen, and not B, then B cannot happen. Therefore I cannot do either A or B, but only A.

MM: Again, hindsight is not concerned with what could have happened, it simply reports what did happen. “B” does not even enter the equation. It’s not an issue.

TE: The future is comprised of possibilities. God knows all the possibilities. God knows the future with certainty, such as it is, comprised of possibilities.

MM: How is it any better than a bunch of smart people predicting the future? Or, Satan predicting the future? Based on this idea, God cannot truly foretell the future. Unconditional prophecy, instead of being one, would consist of several possible outcomes. But that’s not how it is. God prophesies only one outcome.

TE: As explained above, this is not what knowing the end from the beginning means.

MM: Sure it is. It means God knows the end. It doesn’t mean He only knows the beginning. The starting point is the end. He knows everything in between.

TE: You're contradicting the inspired testimony that says that God took the risk of failure and eternal loss.

MM: Nowhere does it say God knew Jesus “would” fail. The expression “at the risk of failure and eternal loss” does not mean God knew Jesus “would” fail. God knew Jesus would succeed.

DA 49
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

MM: If Jesus had failed, the “path of life” would not have been made sure for our little ones. If Jesus had failed, everyone would be lost, including Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, and all the holy angels. And God would be the biggest loser for allowing 4,000 years of sin and suffering for naught.

TE: If God is reporting what has happened, then it's fixed. That's obvious. If it weren't fixed, then it could change, and something which God "reported" could happen differently than what He said.

MM: There is nothing “fixed” about it. It’s a done deal. It has already happened.

It's amazing that you can contradict yourself so emphatically in such a small number of words. "There's nothing 'fixed' about it. It's a done deal." Incredible.

TE: "All heaven was imperiled for our redemption." What do you think this means?

MM: It does not mean God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed.

Could it mean what it says? If so, how? According to your theory, "it was a done deal." Heaven, according to your theory, could hardly have been in any danger, correct?

TE: God sees every possible outcome, and in none of the possible outcomes does affliction arise a second time.

MM: I disagree.

There's no need to point this out. I can figure this out.

There is only one possible outcome – the one God watched happen already.

You asked me a question. I answered it.

That’s why unconditional prophecy does not suggest numerous possible outcomes. God knows exactly how t is going to play out.

If there's only one possible outcome, there's no risk, or peril, or ability to choose more than one option.

TE: According to this idea, God can view the future, but is powerless to do anything about it.

MM: You are assuming there is something about it that needs correcting, which implies God did not get it right the first time. God does not make mistakes.

TE: No, this assumption is not made. Nor is this assumption pertinent to the observation.

MM: Then why do you insist God is powerless to do anything about it?

I'm not "insisting" upon this. Just pointing out (actually John did, and correctly so) that this follows logically from your viewpoint. This is even recognized by those who hold your viewpoint. It's a recognized effect of your premise. For example:



Why would God change anything? Is He powerless to change history? The question doesn’t even make sense.

Perhaps reading the above explanation will help.

TE: There is not such thing as B? Well if that is the case, then free will (in the sense of being able to do A or B) does not exist. Since B does not exist, I can only do A. If can only do A, then I do not have free will (if free will is defined as the ability to do A or B).

MM: Your equations assume God does not know the future like history, like watching a rerun. Reporting what has already happened does not rob us our ability and freedom to choose. It simply states the facts. It has nothing do with alternate endings. According to God's divine hindsight, there is one ending.

You are not addressing what I wrote. You are agreeing with the premise that only A can happen. You accept that. Now all that remains is to accept the very obvious statement that if A must happen, then B can't. Therefore any definition of free will should be logically consistent with your premise. Here it is, point by point:

a.A must happen.
b.Therefore B cannot happen.
c.Our definition of free will should be logically consistent with these facts.

It's difficult to disagree with this.

TE: But the problem is that Eve's eating of the fruit was determined *before* she made her choice, not after.

MM: Again, there was nothing “determined” about it. God knew she would eat it because He already saw it happen.

TE: That's what "determined" means. If it weren't determined, God couldn't see it. He can't see things that haven't been determined as things which have been determined, since that's not what they are.

MM: Reporting the facts after the fact has nothing do with it being determined.

That's what "determined" means.

For example, God did not determine before the fact that Eve must sin. He simply report things after the fact.

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

TE: Logic applies equally to God as well as to man. No matter how you define how God experiences space and time, it will ever be the case that if only A can happen, and not B, then B cannot happen. Therefore I cannot do either A or B, but only A.

MM: Again, hindsight is not concerned with what could have happened, it simply reports what did happen. “B” does not even enter the equation. It’s not an issue.

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.

TE: The future is comprised of possibilities. God knows all the possibilities. God knows the future with certainty, such as it is, comprised of possibilities.

MM: How is it any better than a bunch of smart people predicting the future?

Because God is infinite in intelligence and knowledge. You can't compare a "bunch of smart people" to God.

Or, Satan predicting the future?

Or Satan. He's also a finite being.

Based on this idea, God cannot truly foretell the future.

This simply isn't true. Here's a simple example. If you roll a die, there are six possibilities. You can say, with certainty, that a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 will be rolled. God can do this same sort of thing with quintillions of possibilities, or however many there are. He is just as sure of these possibilities as you are about the 6 of the die.

Unconditional prophecy, instead of being one, would consist of several possible outcomes. But that’s not how it is. God prophesies only one outcome.

It depends upon what you're talking about. Let's consider the coming of Christ, for example. If you consider the outcome of the event that Christ will come, then there's only one possible outcome. Christ will come again. That's certain. But as to *when* Christ will come, that's open (i.e. not determined). 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. God foresaw that possibility, as well as the possibility that Christ could have come in the 1888 era, had the message He sent been accepted, and other possible times as well.

TE: As explained above, this is not what knowing the end from the beginning means.

MM: Sure it is. It means God knows the end. It doesn’t mean He only knows the beginning. The starting point is the end. He knows everything in between.

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.

TE: You're contradicting the inspired testimony that says that God took the risk of failure and eternal loss.

MM: Nowhere does it say God knew Jesus “would” fail.

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

The expression “at the risk of failure and eternal loss” does not mean God knew Jesus “would” fail.

Of course not. "Risk" means uncertainty. Your mixing risk with "would" is misusing the word "risk."

God knew Jesus would succeed.

He knew He could succeed. Hence the use of the word "risk."

DA 49
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

MM: If Jesus had failed, the “path of life” would not have been made sure for our little ones. If Jesus had failed, everyone would be lost, including Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, and all the holy angels. And God would be the biggest loser for allowing 4,000 years of sin and suffering for naught.

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

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

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...

TE: No, this assumption is not made. Nor is this assumption pertinent to the observation.

MM: Then why do you insist God is powerless to do anything about it? Why would God change anything? Is He powerless to change history? The question doesn’t even make sense.

Thomas: God would have to operate inside history to be able to change it. If God is outside of time and experiences eternity as something which has already happened (which you have argued here extensively) then He cannot change it. Noticing your argument that God would not change the past (becourse God already done it right), and that all time in His perspective is past, then under these circumstances, Yes, God would be powerless to change history. (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.)

Mike, why do you limmit God in this manner?
------------------
MM: Your equations assume God does not know the future like history, like watching a rerun.

Thomas: Exactly!

MM: Reporting what has already happened does not rob us our ability and freedom to choose. It simply states the facts. It has nothing do with alternate endings. According to God's divine hindsight, there is only one ending.

Thomas: ....

There is a hymn in Sweden which says, paraphrasing, we live in a prison built by our own fear. Well, the view which has been presented here suggests that God exists in a prison built by His own foreknowledge. That there truly is a future is indeed a blessing. Anything less than a future where the "B" choise exists would be merely a straitjacket.

Nicely explained. Very good point.