The starting point here is "I choose to do A." Clearly if you choose to do A, you can't choose B. The starting point of my question is before choosing A.

What I'm pointing out, which is very simple, is that if A must happen, then, to be logically consistent, a definition of free will must reflect that reality. You agree with that, don't you?

Here is another way of saying it.

I have two choices to make, either choice A, or choice B.

I, of my own freewill, choose to do choice A.

God in His foreknowledge enters into the picture knowing that I will choose choice A instead of choice B, even before I made the choice, however, I was still the one who could either choose A or B. God knew, however, beforehand, that I would choose A over B. My freedom of choice wasn't compromised. If I had chosen choice B, which I could have done, then God in his foreknowledge would have known that I would have chosen B instead of A.

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.

This doesn't matter. It's like saying "This book is white." "This book is not white." This is a contraction, even if you factor in God's divine ability to see the future like history. Similarly "the future is a done deal" "the futue is not fixed (i.e., NOT a done deal)" is a contradiction.

Nobody is accusing God of “fixing” things simply because He knows the future like history, like a rerun.

Correct. No one is accusing God of fixing things. This isn't being discussed, but it's a correct observation.

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.

Not under discussion.

The “risk” Sister White wrote about does not include Jesus failing and dying eternally.

She wrote, "At the risk of failure and eternal life." This includes, I believe, the risk of eternal life.

Divinity cannot die.

She speaks of the stone never being rolled away from the tomb, as I recall.

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.

Again, this has nothing to do with things.

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.

The quote is not dealing with what you believe, but with the results of what you believe. It talks about seeing the future like history, which IS what you believe, and then what the consequences of such a belief are.

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.

This response is like my asking you the question, "Is it true that the density of prime numbers does not change and numbers increase?" with "Divorcing God from this discussion is pointless."

The question of whether the fact that an event A must happen implies that must do A does not require a discussion of God's foreknowledge. You just don't want to discuss it, perhaps because you don't like the obvious conclusion, which is that if we must do A, then we don't have the ability to do B.

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.

I've asked you several times if the fact that God knows with 100% certainty that A will occur means that A will occur. You even went to so far as to say there is no other option; there is only A. How is my saying that you say that only A can occur misrepresenting your view? It's just what you said!

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.

This is just what you said.



If there is no such thing as B, then only A can happen, right? How is this misrepresenting your view?

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: 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?

MM: God does not “determine” the future. He simply reports what has happened. He knows the future like history, like a rerun.

TE: 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.

MM: “A” cannot happen “before” the fact. “A” happens when it happens. “A” doesn’t happen “because” God knows it will happen. God reports “A” happened because He watched it happen.

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

MM: I disagree.

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

MM: Here’s what you wrote - “He foresaw the possibility that Christ would fail, but took the risk anyway.” (85288)

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

MM: Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. The prophecies repeatedly say He would succeed. Many other prophecies are based on the fact He would succeed.

Daryl, here's my question. If only A can happen, then you can't do B, right? Given that it's true that only A can happen, any definition of free will, to be accurate, should reflect this fact, shouldn't it?

There's no need to introduce God's foreknowledge into things to answer this question.

What comes first, Daryl, you're choosing A or B, or God's foreknowledge of that fact?

Good job, Daryl.

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?

Here’s what you wrote - “He foresaw the possibility that Christ would fail, but took the risk anyway.” (85288)

You don't understand that there's a difference between "God knew Jesus would fail" and "God foresaw the possibility that Christ would fail"? That's hard to believe.

MM, I can't follow your post. You don't include the context of a lot of the comments, and don't mark off where one idea starts and another ends. That is, I don't know where the conversations start and end.

For example, on the previous post, I had to go back to get the comment from you "It was you who posted God knew Jesus 'would' fail". That should be included in your post, as my comment "That's preposterous. Only if I made an egregious typo. Where did I post such a thing?" doesn't have any context.