That was succinct! Not bad. I would not put it in terms that God doesn't know something however. That makes it sound as if God is somehow deficient. Which possibility will play out hasn't been determined by the self-determining creatures which God created.

God knows everything which is knowable. That's what omniscience is; to know all things which can be known, similar to omnipotence means to be able to do anything which can be done.

Some things cannot be done. For example, God cannot force anyone to love Him, but He is still omnipotent.

Assuming the future were as you think it is, a single-threaded thing like a T.V. rerun, why do you think God would have created Lucifer to sin instead of not to sin (i.e., create a different Lucifer who wouldn't sin)? How does the fact that God, in effect, created sin make God look good? (You recognize that God did in fact do this by calling Him the "author of sin").

If God cannot know the future because it is not knowable, how, then, can He foretell the future like a rerun?

God is indirectly the author of sin. You know what I mean, don't you? Or, do you think I believe God causes FMAs to sin? If you do, then you are seriously wrong. At any rate, why God created Lucifer and Adam in spite of the fact He knew they would choose to sin is not clear in the Bible or the SOP. Here is how Sister White answered it - "... for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

AG 129
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2}

As I've pointed out many times, God does know the future. He knows it perfectly, as I've pointed out many times. As I've pointed out many times, God knows the future as it is. God cannot know the future in some way it is not. If the future is not single-thread, then God cannot know it as single-threaded. The issue is not epistemological (having to do with God's knowledge of the future), but ontological (having to do with the nature of the future; is it single-threaded or multi-threaded).

Does that help, MM?

Regarding God being the author of sin, you wrote:

What do you think the following means? "God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable."

TE: As I've pointed out many times, God knows the future as it is. God cannot know the future in some way it is not.

MM: The "nature" of the future, in God's case, is like a rerun. That's why He can tell us precisely what will happen before it happens. You believe God cannot know the future like a rerun. Therefore, you cannot believe God knows precisely what will happen before it happens.

What do you think the following means? "God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable."

Sin and death were inevitable, because God created a situation where such must come to pass. God is responsible for creating this situation.

TE: As I've pointed out many times, God knows the future as it is. God cannot know the future in some way it is not.

MM: The "nature" of the future, in God's case, is like a rerun.

The "case" doesn't matter. That is, either the future is single-threaded, and can be seen like a T.V. re-run, or it isn't. The nature of the future does not change because of one's ability to see it or not see it. It is what it is. Ignorance of truth does not change the reality of truth.

The future is precisely as God sees it to be. God perceives reality as it is. If the future were single-threaded, God would see it that way. If it's multi-threaded, then God sees it that way.

That's why He can tell us precisely what will happen before it happens.

The future could be mult-threaded, God can see that, and tell us precisely what will happen. God is not dependent upon the future being single-threaded in order to tell us about it.

You believe God cannot know the future like a rerun.

Because that's not the way the future is. Just like God cannot know a square to be a triangle.

Therefore, you cannot believe God knows precisely what will happen before it happens.

Suppose I play a note for you on the piano, and you say, "That's an A". I could say, "You must have perfect pitch. That's the only way you could know that's an A." But there are other possibilities. Maybe you saw the note I played. Maybe you were just singing a note, and knew what that note was, and could compare it to the note you were singing, and deduce what note I played.

You're assuming that the only way that God could know the future is if it were like a T.V. rerun. God is not limited in that way. The future can be more complicated than that, and God can *still* know what it is like. He is not dependent upon the future being single-threaded in order to be able to see it.

TE: Sin and death were inevitable, because God created a situation where such must come to pass. God is responsible for creating this situation.

MM: Why “must”? It implies an untruth. I assume you believe sinning and dying were impossible before God created FMAs. Thus, I also assume you believe God understood that both were at least possible after He created FMAs. In fact, He had a backup plan in place to deal with sin and death should it arise.

TE: As I've pointed out many times, God knows the future as it is. God cannot know the future in some way it is not.

MM: The "nature" of the future, in God's case, is like a rerun.

TE: The "case" doesn't matter. That is, either the future is single-threaded, and can be seen like a T.V. re-run, or it isn't.

MM: If God were a mere man, like you and me, then I would agree. But because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. Divine foreknowledge in no way means the future is set in stone and that FMAs are nothing more than mere automatons.

………………………

MM: That's why He can tell us precisely what will happen before it happens.

TE: The future could be mult-threaded, God can see that, and tell us precisely what will happen. God is not dependent upon the future being single-threaded in order to tell us about it.

MM: But that’s not what He does, is it? Instead, God tells us precisely what will happen before it happens. He doesn’t tells us “Now, this or that could happen.”

………………………..

MM: You believe God cannot know the future like a rerun.

TE: Because that's not the way the future is. Just like God cannot know a square to be a triangle.

MM: Again, if God were a mere man, then I would agree. But God is God, therefore, He sees the future like a rerun. In so saying, I am talking about God, not necessarily the future. God is not bound by time and space. You believe God can be everywhere at the same time, therefore, you should have no problem believing He knows the future like a rerun.

……………………….

MM: Therefore, you cannot believe God knows precisely what will happen before it happens.

TE: You're assuming that the only way that God could know the future is if it were like a T.V. rerun. God is not limited in that way. The future can be more complicated than that, and God can *still* know what it is like. He is not dependent upon the future being single-threaded in order to be able to see it.

MM: God sees the future like a rerun, therefore, He can tell us precisely what will happen before it happens. In fact, from God’s perspective it has already happened. In this sense, hindsight and foreknowledge are one and the same things.

For God, the past and the future are similar. He also experiences it with us according to our time and space continuum. God sees the future exactly the way it will play out, not as a series of limitless options and possibilities. Unconditional prophecy is proof that God knows exactly how things will play out.

TE: Sin and death were inevitable, because God created a situation where such must come to pass. God is responsible for creating this situation.

MM: Why “must”? It implies an untruth.

You wrote that sin and death were inevitable. To say that something is inevitable, and to say it must happen is to say the same thing in other words. I agree this implies an untruth.

I assume you believe sinning and dying were impossible before God created FMAs. Thus, I also assume you believe God understood that both were at least possible after He created FMAs. In fact, He had a backup plan in place to deal with sin and death should it arise.

Yes, I agree with this.

TE: As I've pointed out many times, God knows the future as it is. God cannot know the future in some way it is not.

MM: The "nature" of the future, in God's case, is like a rerun.

TE: The "case" doesn't matter. That is, either the future is single-threaded, and can be seen like a T.V. re-run, or it isn't.

MM: If God were a mere man, like you and me, then I would agree. But because God is God He sees the future like a rerun. Divine foreknowledge in no way means the future is set in stone and that FMAs are nothing more than mere automatons.

MM, do you understand the difference bewteen epistemological and ontological? You keep making epsitemological arguments, and I keep explaining the problem is ontological, but you don't seem to be getting this. In short, God's knowledge of the future doesn't change its essence or nature. The future has a manner of existing, a way of being, an essence, a nature, which is independent of anyone's knowledge of it. Do you understand this concept?

………………………

MM: That's why He can tell us precisely what will happen before it happens.

TE: The future could be mult-threaded, God can see that, and tell us precisely what will happen. God is not dependent upon the future being single-threaded in order to tell us about it.

MM: But that’s not what He does, is it? Instead, God tells us precisely what will happen before it happens. He doesn’t tells us “Now, this or that could happen.”

He does present alternatives. For example, with Moses He said, perhaps they will believe when they see this sign, but if not, do this one next. With the Israelites He presented them with two possibilities, one if they obeyed, and one if they didn't. When they wanted a king, He told them what would happen if they took a king, or if they didn't. When they complained that they couldn't change things once God had issued a prophecy, God explained to them that He was like a potter and they like the pot, and that He chould change what He was going to do, and the prophecy did not need to occur, if they changed their behavior. The Bible is filled with examples like this.
………………………..

MM: You believe God cannot know the future like a rerun.

TE: Because that's not the way the future is. Just like God cannot know a square to be a triangle.

MM: Again, if God were a mere man, then I would agree.

If God were a man, you would agree that the future is not single-threaded. But since God is not a man, you believe the future is different than it would be if He were not a man. That doesn't really make sense, does it? The way a thing is seen doesn't change its essence, does it?

For example, before quantum mechanics, atoms were understood differently than they are now. But what atoms are like didn't change because some property about them was discovered. Things are the way they are, regardless of what we know about them.

But God is God, therefore, He sees the future like a rerun.

This isn't good logic. Good logic would be, "But God is God, therefore, He sees the future as it is in reality." God can only see the future like a rerun if it really is like a rerun. God perceives things as they are in reality.

In so saying, I am talking about God, not necessarily the future. God is not bound by time and space. You believe God can be everywhere at the same time, therefore, you should have no problem believing He knows the future like a rerun.

I could believe that if the future really were like a rerun. I believe God sees the future as it really is.

……………………….

MM: Therefore, you cannot believe God knows precisely what will happen before it happens.

TE: You're assuming that the only way that God could know the future is if it were like a T.V. rerun. God is not limited in that way. The future can be more complicated than that, and God can *still* know what it is like. He is not dependent upon the future being single-threaded in order to be able to see it.

MM: God sees the future like a rerun, therefore, He can tell us precisely what will happen before it happens. In fact, from God’s perspective it has already happened. In this sense, hindsight and foreknowledge are one and the same things.

For God, the past and the future are similar. He also experiences it with us according to our time and space continuum. God sees the future exactly the way it will play out, not as a series of limitless options and possibilities. Unconditional prophecy is proof that God knows exactly how things will play out.

If the future were like a rerun, then He could not have told us that He sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. He could not have told us that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. This just doesn't make any sense. You have made no attempt to make any sense out of this. All you've done is suggest that words like "risk," must mean something different than they normally mean. This tack would allow one to reinterpret any inspired statement. We just interpret words like "sin," "repent," "risk," whatever disagrees with our believe to have some other meaning which does agree with our belief.

You really don't see a problem with this approach?

TE: You wrote that sin and death were inevitable. To say that something is inevitable, and to say it must happen is to say the same thing in other words. I agree this implies an untruth.

MM: The word “must” implies more than inevitable. I would use the word “will” in the place of “must”. God foresaw the fall of Lucifer and Adam but it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose.

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

TE: “In fact, He had a backup plan in place to deal with sin and death should it arise.” Yes, I agree with this.

MM: But that’s not how Sister White describes it. Instead, she wrote, “He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency.” She even wrote, “…yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose.” Her meaning is clear; God knew Lucifer and Adam would sin die before He created them, but He chose to create them anyhow. There is nothing uncertain about it. God did not create them hoping they would not sin and die. He knew perfectly well that they would sin and die.

TE: MM, do you understand the difference bewteen epistemological and ontological? You keep making epsitemological arguments, and I keep explaining the problem is ontological, but you don't seem to be getting this. In short, God's knowledge of the future doesn't change its essence or nature. The future has a manner of existing, a way of being, an essence, a nature, which is independent of anyone's knowledge of it. Do you understand this concept?

MM: The future is only the “future” from our perspective. From God’s perspective the future is also the past. So when we talk about God’s foreknowledge of the future we’re actually talking about the past and not necessarily the future. As such, the essence of the future is not compromised. From our perspective, the future is what it is.

TE: “God tells us precisely what will happen before it happens. He doesn’t tells us ‘Now, this or that could happen.’” He does present alternatives. For example, with Moses He said, perhaps they will believe when they see this sign, but if not, do this one next. With the Israelites He presented them with two possibilities, one if they obeyed, and one if they didn't. When they wanted a king, He told them what would happen if they took a king, or if they didn't. When they complained that they couldn't change things once God had issued a prophecy, God explained to them that He was like a potter and they like the pot, and that He chould change what He was going to do, and the prophecy did not need to occur, if they changed their behavior. The Bible is filled with examples like this.

MM: None of the examples you provided prove God did not know in advance exactly how things would play out. Telling them the outcomes of different decisions does not imply God was not sure how things would turn out. He knew precisely what would happen before it happened. Even in the case of Nineveh, God knew exactly how they would respond, which is why He worded things the way He did. It had the desired effect.

TE: “But God is God, therefore, He sees the future like a rerun.” This isn't good logic. Good logic would be, "But God is God, therefore, He sees the future as it is in reality." God can only see the future like a rerun if it really is like a rerun. God perceives things as they are in reality.

MM: Again, since God has already watched the future play out, He knows the future like the past. Thus, from God’s perspective the future and the past are essentially the same. In reality, then, we are talking about the past and not the future.

TE: If the future were like a rerun, then He could not have told us that He sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. He could not have told us that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. This just doesn't make any sense. You have made no attempt to make any sense out of this. All you've done is suggest that words like "risk," must mean something different than they normally mean.

MM: Tom, I believe you are misapplying the “risk” concept Sister White employed. You keep insisting that “risk” emphatically means God does not know in advance exactly how things will play out. You do this in spite of the fact Sister White does not. You justify yourself by insisting it is a logical conclusion.

But in light of the fact the Bible and the SOP nowhere teaches God does not know in advance how things will play out is positive proof against your “logical” conclusion. Logic is no match for the truth. The absence of plain statements teaching that God does not know in advance how things will lay out speaks loudly against your “logical” conclusion. You do not have a leg to stand on if all you have is “logical” conclusions. You need a plain Thus saith the Lord.

TE: You wrote that sin and death were inevitable. To say that something is inevitable, and to say it must happen is to say the same thing in other words. I agree this implies an untruth.

MM: The word “must” implies more than inevitable. I would use the word “will” in the place of “must”. God foresaw the fall of Lucifer and Adam but it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose.

Inevitable means "incapable of being avoided or evaded" (Webster). So let me put it this way. Sin and death we something incapable of being avoided or evaded. God (according to you) was responsible for creating this situation.

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

TE: “In fact, He had a backup plan in place to deal with sin and death should it arise.” Yes, I agree with this.

MM: But that’s not how Sister White describes it. Instead, she wrote, “He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency.” She even wrote, “…yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose.” Her meaning is clear; God knew Lucifer and Adam would sin die before He created them, but He chose to create them anyhow. There is nothing uncertain about it. God did not create them hoping they would not sin and die. He knew perfectly well that they would sin and die.

MM, you can't just cherry pick quotes. To know the truth regarding a certain subject, ALL the quotes need to be taken into account. She tells us that Christ took the risk of failure and eternal loss. She tells us that Christ risked all, that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. When Waggoner said that Christ could not have failed, she corrected him. She wrote that Christ "could have sinned. He could have fallen." You need to take these statements into account when interpreting the DA quote or any other quotes.

TE: MM, do you understand the difference between epistemological and ontological? You keep making epistemological arguments, and I keep explaining the problem is ontological, but you don't seem to be getting this. In short, God's knowledge of the future doesn't change its essence or nature. The future has a manner of existing, a way of being, an essence, a nature, which is independent of anyone's knowledge of it. Do you understand this concept?

MM: The future is only the “future” from our perspective. From God’s perspective the future is also the past. So when we talk about God’s foreknowledge of the future we’re actually talking about the past and not necessarily the future. As such, the essence of the future is not compromised. From our perspective, the future is what it is.

It sounds like the answer is "no," you don't understand the concept. It seems like we're spinning our wheels here. I've tried explaining it; I don't know what else to say. The basic point is that one's perspective of a thing does not change the essence of it.

TE: “God tells us precisely what will happen before it happens. He doesn’t tells us ‘Now, this or that could happen.’” He does present alternatives. For example, with Moses He said, perhaps they will believe when they see this sign, but if not, do this one next. With the Israelites He presented them with two possibilities, one if they obeyed, and one if they didn't. When they wanted a king, He told them what would happen if they took a king, or if they didn't. When they complained that they couldn't change things once God had issued a prophecy, God explained to them that He was like a potter and they like the pot, and that He chould change what He was going to do, and the prophecy did not need to occur, if they changed their behavior. The Bible is filled with examples like this.

MM: None of the examples you provided prove God did not know in advance exactly how things would play out.

MM, you wrote, "He doesn’t tells us, 'Now, this or that could happen.'” I provided many example to disprove your assertion. Now you're making some other assertion. Why not recognize that your original assertion was false? *Then* go on an make some other assertion.

Telling them the outcomes of different decisions does not imply God was not sure how things would turn out. He knew precisely what would happen before it happened. Even in the case of Nineveh, God knew exactly how they would respond, which is why He worded things the way He did. It had the desired effect.

TE: “But God is God, therefore, He sees the future like a rerun.” This isn't good logic. Good logic would be, "But God is God, therefore, He sees the future as it is in reality." God can only see the future like a rerun if it really is like a rerun. God perceives things as they are in reality.

MM: Again, since God has already watched the future play out, He knows the future like the past. Thus, from God’s perspective the future and the past are essentially the same. In reality, then, we are talking about the past and not the future.

Again, one's perspective of a thing does not change the thing itself.

TE: If the future were like a rerun, then He could not have told us that He sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. He could not have told us that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. This just doesn't make any sense. You have made no attempt to make any sense out of this. All you've done is suggest that words like "risk," must mean something different than they normally mean.

MM: Tom, I believe you are misapplying the “risk” concept Sister White employed. You keep insisting that “risk” emphatically means God does not know in advance exactly how things will play out. You do this in spite of the fact Sister White does not. You justify yourself by insisting it is a logical conclusion.

But in light of the fact the Bible and the SOP nowhere teaches God does not know in advance how things will play out is positive proof against your “logical” conclusion. Logic is no match for the truth. The absence of plain statements teaching that God does not know in advance how things will lay out speaks loudly against your “logical” conclusion. You do not have a leg to stand on if all you have is “logical” conclusions. You need a plain Thus saith the Lord.

MM, if you don't understand what "risk" means, just look it up! Here: (Webster)

1 : possibility of loss or injury : PERIL
2 : someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard
3 a : the chance of loss or the perils to the subject matter of an insurance contract; also : the degree of probability of such loss b : a person or thing that is a specified hazard to an insurer <a poor risk for insurance> c : an insurance hazard from a specified cause or source <war risk>
4 : the chance that an investment (as a stock or commodity) will lose value

Tom,

Even if I know that I will jump into the water to save someone and will not be drowned, my risk in jumping is defined by how near I was to being drowned, how close I was to dying, how desperately I fought with the water. You can speak all you want that because I knew I wouldn’t die I took no risk in jumping, I faced no peril, but my close call with death tells a different story.