I do not understand all the fuss here about the foreknowledge of God.

Whether or not the future is like a history book to Him doesn't matter, as the future definitely is NOT like a history book to us, therefore, we do not know that God's history book said we had to choose A over B or B over A, therefore, the choice we make, be it A or B, remains our choice.

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.

I decided to comment a bit further on this, to clarify. What you're saying is that it doesn't really matter what things are really like, only what they appear to be like. In our experience of the future, it's not like a history book. Therefore we have a choice.

But this isn't correct. We *don't* really have the ability to do B. We only *think* we do. God's history book version is the real one. Our foggy, incomplete view is a misrepresentation of reality, based on our lack of knowledge and intelligence. It we only knew more we could see that we really can't do B, but we are duped into believing we can because of our ignorance.

This isn't a very attractive universe to be living in. It's as someone said (maybe Thomas(?)), like the Matrix.

TE: 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.

MM: I am speaking from God’s perspective. Explaining historical facts has nothing to do with “fixing” it.

TE: 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?

MM: Again, it does not mean God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed. Even if Jesus had failed He would not have been lost eternally. The “eternal loss” applies to FMAs.

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

MM: I disagree.

TE: 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.

MM: Again, you are assuming God would want to change things, which implies He didn’t get it right. God doesn’t make mistakes. He doesn’t have to correct mistakes. Neither does it imply He is powerless. God does everything right.

TE: 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.

MM: Again, this idea assumes God does not know the future like history, like a rerun. It assumes God knows what He wants to happen and then forces it to happen. But knowing the end from the beginning allows Him to explain what happened after the fact. Thus, whether or not alternate endings were possible has nothing to do with it. It’s not an issue.

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.

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.

TE: 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.

MM: It doesn’t matter to me if God can think of more possibilities than smart people. What gives me comfort is that God knows the future like history, like a rerun.

TE: 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).

MM: Not true. God knows the day and the hour. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

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.

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

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.

JB: If God were to let the future go according to knowledge, he would not be righteous; nor would righteousness ever be established. It is indeed in judgment that God affects the future to bring forth righteousness.

MM: Are we discussing the same issues? I am talking about God knowing the future like history, like a rerun, and then telling us what happened. The information He shares with us includes His righteous involvement. Everything God does is right and righteous.

JB: Therefore the future is not fixed, nor can it be viewed in any TV, because God has left some things in "hope".

MM: I disagree. God does not “hope” things will turn out right. He knows exactly how it ends. And He made sure it ended right.

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.

TV: … all time in His perspective is past, then under these circumstances, Yes, God would be powerless to change history.

MM: Again, there is no need to change it. God got it right. He doesn’t make mistakes.

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?

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.

TE: 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?

MM: Again, it does not mean God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed. Even if Jesus had failed He would not have been lost eternally. The “eternal loss” applies to FMAs.

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

MM, from my perspective you have a perspective which is just full of logical contradictions. For example, you assert:

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

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.

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.

I don't know what I can do other than point out these contradictions.

In regards to this comment:



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.

Finally I've asked this several times:



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. Anything you could possibly say about God's foreknowledge (or frogs or tulips) would not alter this.

No matter what God knows about the future, or what choice I am going to make, be it A or B, my choice remains my choice.

If only A is possible, you can only choose A.