Knowing possibilities and knowing realities are two very different things. I married my husband. This is past. In case he dies in the future, I may marry or not marry again. The first is a reality, the second is a possibility. The reality (a past choice) is clear. The possibility - my choice between the two options - is unclear (of course I know the two options; what I don't know is which one will become a reality). So, no, I don't agree that the past and the future can be equally clear to God in the view you are defending.

Clarity of viewing and uncertainty of occurring are two different things. I gave the chess master example for MM. A chess master can see future possibilities as clearly as the current board position. God is not dependent upon seeing just one thing in order to see it clearly.

Another example of this would be the past. Suppose something different had happened in the past, such as Israel accepting Christ instead of rejecting Him. God can see as clearly what would have been the case had that happened as what actually did happen, even though in the one case realities are involved and in the other they aren't.


And again, if God does not know the future as a reality, it's unfair for Him to allow someone to die unsaved (unless that person has committed the unpardonable sin), because He doesn't know whether or not this person would repent and accept Him in the future.

God knows the character of people when they die. The judgment will show that God has judged them accurately. He doesn't arbitrarily decree them saved or lost. The books of heaven will explain why God has judge one to be a goat or a sheep, and their subsequent actions will validate God's judgment.

MM, I'm sorry, but I can't respond to your post. It's too fragmented. I'd have to go back, and get the context of what I originally wrote, and piece it back together, and that would just take too long. If you want to include what you originally posted, my comment to that, and then your question or comment, that would give me enough context to respond.

What I see happening is you make some statement, and I provide a response to your statement, and then you quote my response without your original statement, and make some comment or assertion about it completely devoid of the context of what I was originally responding to.

I can clearly see my possibilities - marrying or not marrying. What I don't know is which one will become a reality. Therefore, possibilities and realities are two completely different things, and so are the past and the future in this respect.


This is obvious. What He doesn't know, according to your view, is if the character of that person will change in the future or not. How many criminals do you know that were converted?

That's interesting. I talked about that in SS the other day, in the context of God creating the universe knowing about the possibility of sin, and designing things such that they will respond accordingly in case sin does arise.

But if I'm understanding you correctly, this analogy is not completely accurate. A computer program is deterministic - if you run it with exactly the same initial conditions and inputs, the output will always be the same; it is completely predictable. You are saying that God made the universe such that it is inherently unpredictable in some aspects. Is that right?

It would depend upon what you mean by "unpredictable."

If, in my analogy, the inputs were given by creatures with free will, I think the analogy holds. I don't which combination of inputs which be chosen, but I know the result of every possible combination. Similarly, nothing can happen which God has not foreseen.

A chess master can see future possibilities as clearly as the current board position.

I can clearly see my possibilities - marrying or not marrying. What I don't know is which one will become a reality. Therefore, possibilities and realities are two completely different things, and so are the past and the future in this respect.

The concept Ellen White was addressing in the quotes you cited was the clarity with which God sees the future. She was not intending to present a different idea than the other places where she said that Christ could have fallen, that heaven itself was imperiled, that God sent His Son at risk, etc.

What I was pointing out is that the future can be clearly seen, regardless of whether it is a reality or a possibility. See either paradigm, a single-threaded future, or multi-threaded future, could be seen with equal clarity by God.

Quote:
God knows the character of people when they die.

This is obvious. What He doesn't know, according to your view, is if the character of that person will change in the future or not. How many criminals do you know that were converted?

I don't know why you would assert that God doesn't know, according to my view, that the character of the person will not change after the resurrection. I hold the view I hold, and I'm not asserting that.

According to Ellen White, one's character does not change after death. If she is correct, even I, who have no special powers to see the future, can tell you that the person will not change after death.

Of course, I know this truth because God has revealed it, and it begs the question how God knows. When Ellen White explains the principle, she makes no mention of God's foreknowledge to explain it. God may know this truth apart from His foreknowledge. It is not necessarily the case that God can only know things about the future because He can foresee things.

Maybe I'm still confused.

Let's take out the variability of inputs. Given the SAME inputs, do the results always come out the same?

For a well-designed computer program, the answer is Yes. For the universe, what's the answer?

I guess it depends upon what you define as "inputs" (it won't let me double smiley, so I'm doing a sandwich).

I'm not really being facetious here. My initial answer would be that the same inputs in give the same inputs out, but I really would need to know more about what you have in mind.


Tom

I am waiting for you to explain what EGW said in the quote in relation to the past, present, and future.

Daryl, I've been addressing that for three pages now. God sees the past, present and future with equal clarity.

What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?