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

MM: Divinity cannot die. Deity did not die. Are you suggesting Sister White said if Jesus had failed He would have remained in the tomb for eternity?

TE: 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.

MM: What is the context of “A”? Does it represent what will happen in the future? If so, then what does “B” have to do with it?

TE: How is my saying that you say that only A can occur misrepresenting your view? It's just what you said!

MM: That’s not what I believe. Again, just because “A” happens, it does not mean “B” was an impossibility. Just because God reports that “A” happened, it does not mean “B” was an impossibility. That is, it does not mean we lacked the ability or freedom to choose differently.

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

MM: Again, I’m talking about what has happened, not what might happen. “A” is what happened. “B” is what could have happened, but didn’t. Thus, when talking about what did happen, “B” does not enter the discussion. When discussing things before they happen, we cannot divorce God from the discussion. Only God knows what happened before it happens.

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

MM: Divinity cannot die. Deity did not die. Are you suggesting Sister White said if Jesus had failed He would have remained in the tomb for eternity?

Yes.

TE: 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.

MM: What is the context of “A”? Does it represent what will happen in the future? If so, then what does “B” have to do with it?

The context is as explained from the very first post of this topic. Just re-read the first post.

TE: How is my saying that you say that only A can occur misrepresenting your view? It's just what you said!

MM: That’s not what I believe. Again, just because “A” happens, it does not mean “B” was an impossibility. Just because God reports that “A” happened, it does not mean “B” was an impossibility. That is, it does not mean we lacked the ability or freedom to choose differently.

This is an interesting theory, which we can discuss later, but to be clear, I didn't say you said B was an impossibility. I said you said A was a certainty, which you did say. I did not mispresent your view.

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

MM: Again, I’m talking about what has happened, not what might happen. “A” is what happened. “B” is what could have happened, but didn’t. Thus, when talking about what did happen, “B” does not enter the discussion. When discussing things before they happen, we cannot divorce God from the discussion. Only God knows what happened before it happens.

I didn't say you said anything about B. Please re-read what I said again.

At some point you might wish to deal with the original question of this topic, which has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge. It simply states that if only A can happen (your words!) and not B, then our definition of free will should address this fact. A person cannot do B (assuming A and B are mutually exclusive) if A must happen. How could this not be true?

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.

Thomas: Why? Is God lacking in freedom or in morality that He misses out on being a FMA?

TV: Did you just throw out the IJ doctrine?

MM: Nope. Why do you ask?

Thomas: Since you said God doesnt judge. And if He doesnt judge, well... bye bye judgement...

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.

Thomas: Correction, frustrated.

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.

Thomas: And I say that if in Gods perspective it has happened already, neither He nor we do anything at all but what fate has portioned out to us.

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.

Thomas: Correction, Divorcing the false image of God (who He is) presented above from this discussion makes it pointless.

I’m not having much time to follow the discussion, but what Mike is trying to say is, using the illustration of the horse race: you travel to the future and watch the horse race, and see that horse A wins the race. Since you saw that horse A wins, how can horses B, C, D or E win? In this sense we say that only horse A can win, and not horses B, C, D or E. Of course you had five possibilities (any of the horses could win the race) - but once you saw the result, the other possibilities are discarded. Unless, of course, you intervene and, for instance, break the leg of horse A, like Thomas suggested. Applying this to God: He saw that if He created Lucifer, Lucifer would sin at some specific point in time, so He could have opted for not creating Lucifer.

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

Thomas: Why? Is God lacking in freedom or in morality that He misses out on being a FMA?

Thomas is right. You need to use the designation "CFMA" to designate created free moral agents.

Why not do this? Or, better yet, create a version of Lucifer that wouldn't sin?