TE: I claim God *does* have prefect foreknowledge of the future. I claim that the future is not a single-threaded thing, comprised of just certainties, but is instead more complicated, being comprised of possibilities as well as certainties.

MM: Tom, you mean something very much different than the rest of us when you say "God has perfect knowledge of the future". We believe it means God knows in advance precisely how things will play out; whereas you believe it means God knows all of the ways it could play out but that He doesn't know in advance precisely which way it will play out.

I don't remember what you believe about prophecies which pinpoint precise details in advance. If memory serves me well, you believe such prophecies reflect details about the future which cannot, given the circumstances, play out any other way. Please correct me if I've misrepresented your view.

For example, I seem to recall you saying the unfulfilled prophecies of Rev 13 will play out exactly as described in the GC, and that the reason God knows these details in advance is because He has perfect knowledge of how the key players will behave. What I don't remember is how God knows this 2,000 years in advance. How do you explain it?

TE: I claim God *does* have prefect foreknowledge of the future. I claim that the future is not a single-threaded thing, comprised of just certainties, but is instead more complicated, being comprised of possibilities as well as certainties.

MM: Tom, you mean something very much different than the rest of us when you say "God has perfect knowledge of the future". We believe it means God knows in advance precisely how things will play out; whereas you believe it means God knows all of the ways it could play out but that He doesn't know in advance precisely which way it will play out.

What "God has perfect knowledge of the future" is that God knows the future perfectly, just as it is in reality. God's knowledge of the future corresponds perfectly to the reality of the future.

You, or others of like ilk, may be reading into the phrase what you believe the content of the future to be, but this does not belong there. That is, what we disagree about is the content of the future that God perfectly knows. But we both agree that God knows and sees that content perfectly.

I don't remember what you believe about prophecies which pinpoint precise details in advance. If memory serves me well, you believe such prophecies reflect details about the future which cannot, given the circumstances, play out any other way. Please correct me if I've misrepresented your view.

Here's a better description than I can provide of the view in general: http://www.twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/open.html

Regarding pinpointed prophecies, these can fall in different categories, so I'll cover just one.



This speaks of the Lord declaring what will happen ahead of time.



God did this to demonstrate that He was the one bringing the things to pass, and not an idol.



This brings out the Lord does that which He says He will do. One type of prophecies with pinpoint accuracy fall into this category, which is the Lord says ahead of time what He will do, and then does it. It should be easy to see that God can easily foresee what He Himself will do, regardless of whether we view the future to be open or not.


For example, I seem to recall you saying the unfulfilled prophecies of Rev 13 will play out exactly as described in the GC, and that the reason God knows these details in advance is because He has perfect knowledge of how the key players will behave. What I don't remember is how God knows this 2,000 years in advance. How do you explain it?

Let's consider first of all why the events of Rev. 13 take place.

God, from the beginning, has been working to bring sin to an end. One step, the most important step, was for Jesus Christ to come and reveal that truth about God, whom Satan had misrepresented in order to get converts to his side. Although the truth about God has been revealed by Jesus Christ, not everyone (i.e. not all human beings) are aware of this truth, or even that there is an issue. In order for Christ to come again, it is necessary that a message must be presented to the world.

As a part of the process, according to the principle "By beholding we become changed," those who adhere to the truth are changed into the same image of the One they behold, and the statement, "When His character is perfectly reproduced by His people, then Christ will come and claim them for His own (COL 69, from memory) will come to pass.

What is Satan doing while this is happening?

He's fighting against this taking place, because he knows the sooner the gospel is proclaimed, and the sooner Christ's character is reproduced in His people, the less time he will have.

How specifically does he fight against what's going on? By way of the papacy, the mark of the beast, the lamb-like beast, etc.

All of the parts are in place (the papacy, the United States, etc.), and it would not have been difficult for foresee that the new world would be discovered, that the papacy would come about and so forth. So given that these principles are known by God, (i.e., the principle players) it would not be difficult to know how Satan would work.

Regarding the specifics of how this would happen, we know that as early as the 1850's it could have happened, because that is when Ellen White began to write that Christ could have come before now. We know Christ was disappointed not to have come in the 1888 era (this is from a 1903 comment of EGW, I think the date was). Christ's coming is still future, so that right there accounts for three possible futures that God would have had to see way back from Revelation was written.

So basically, to answer your question, God could prophesy what would happen in Rev. 13 by understanding the principles involved, knowing the character of Satan, and by being able to perfectly know all the possible futures.

TE: What "God has perfect knowledge of the future" [means] is that God knows the future perfectly, just as it is in reality. God's knowledge of the future corresponds perfectly to the reality of the future.

MM: In other words, you believe God knows perfectly the many different ways the future could play out, right? And that He doesn't know in advance which one of these many ways it will play out, right?

These are good observations and questions, Den. As of yet, Tom has been unable to explain how God can know all of the future choices and outcomes available to FMAs. If God isn't sure how the future will play out, how can He know all of the possibilities? Such uncertainty infers infinite possibilities. Not even God can make a complete list of something that is unknown and infinite, limitless.

The other thing that Tom is wrestling with right now is - What were the factors that enabled God to know, in the beginning, that perfect and sinless FMAs might choose to rebel, whereas, in the end, God knows that perfect and sinless FMAs will never choose to rebel. What were the factors that enabled Him to know, in the beginning, rebellion might happen, and what are the factors that will enable Him to know, in the end, rebellion will never happen again. In both cases, God is dealing with perfect and sinless FMAs.

These are good observations and questions, Den. As of yet, Tom has been unable to explain how God can know all of the future choices and outcomes available to FMAs.

God is omniscient. He sees everything that can happen. This seems to me to be very easy to understand. I've explained this many times.

If God isn't sure how the future will play out, how can He know all of the possibilities? Such uncertainty infers infinite possibilities.

Not infinite. A large number, but way smaller than infinity.

Not even God can make a complete list of something that is unknown and infinite, limitless.

It's not even close to limitless or infinite. Even if it were infinite, that wouldn't necessarily be unknowable to God (for example, there are infinite sets that are countable), but that's a different subject. But, to reiterate, the number of possibilities would be finite.

The other thing that Tom is wrestling with right now is - What were the factors that enabled God to know, in the beginning, that perfect and sinless FMAs might choose to rebel, whereas, in the end, God knows that perfect and sinless FMAs will never choose to rebel.

I'm not wrestling with this. I've explained several times now that God sees all the possible futures. The possible futures before included the possibility of sin. But now, after the Great Controversy has played out, the universe has been secured from sin. This seems to me to be very easy to understand, not at all something I'm "wrestling" with.

What were the factors that enabled Him to know, in the beginning, rebellion might happen, and what are the factors that will enable Him to know, in the end, rebellion will never happen again. In both cases, God is dealing with perfect and sinless FMAs.

I've explained this quite a few times, now, MM. I really don't understand why you are wrestling with this.

What enables God to see what will happen is His omniscience. As to why there was a possibility for sin when creation started, and there won't be after the judgment, in between these two events was the cross, the perfect revelation of God by Jesus Christ, in short, the Great Controversy. So it's not at all surprising that the before and after should be different. Indeed, it would be surprising if this difference didn't exist.

TE: What "God has perfect knowledge of the future" [means] is that God knows the future perfectly, just as it is in reality. God's knowledge of the future corresponds perfectly to the reality of the future.

MM: In other words, you believe God knows perfectly the many different ways the future could play out, right? And that He doesn't know in advance which one of these many ways it will play out, right?

It's not quite that simple, but that's the basic idea. One reason it's not this simple is because God is involved in the future. He won't violate anyone's free will, but, even with that constraint, there is a great deal that God can do to influence the future to be as He wants it to be. So it's not like God simply stands idly by and watches what will happen.

If God knew which future would play out in every circumstance, that would be exactly equivalent to what you believe. In this case, there wouldn't be any possible futures. There would just be the future. This future would be certain to occur. This idea leads to the problems I've pointed out in the past (e.g. violating the idea of libertarian free will, of risk, of heaven being in peril, why God chose to create Lucifer, etc.)

To say that God has no clue as to what will happen in the future,

I never said this.

but can only know that "if this choice is made, then this will happen; but if a different choice, then something else will happen" ... doesn't exactly convey the idea of "perfect knowledge of the future", does it?!

I think you're right. To say that God has no clue as to what will happen would not convey the idea of "perfect knowledge of the future." But then, I've never said that.

It also begs the question, which Tom persistently ignores: If God cannot know the future because it does not yet exist, and no one can know something that does not exist, then how did God know that Peter would deny Christ three times that very night?!

You should be more careful, much more careful, in how you characterize things. Please! You've only written two paragraphs, and there's already two mischaracterizations. First of all, I never said God had no clue as to the future, and secondly, I never, even once, ignored how God could know what Peter would do. Each and every time this question has been asked, I've answer the question. In fact, I spent several paragraphs answering the question. Just because you don't like an explanation, or disagree with it, in no way means that I have "ingnored" the question.

First of all, while knowing ones character may indicate that he would deny Christ if given the chance, it cannot tell you exactly when nor tell you exactly how many times.

Peter would have continued to deny Christ, over and over again. Isn't that obvious? All that was needed was an opportunity, of which there is no reason God should have any difficulty foreseeing.

If we assume that God knew Peter would want to be near Christ, yet not openly associate with Him, then from there it is simple to infer how Peter would react if pointedly questioned.

Tom brushes this off and says that the point is that God knew Peter would deny Him ... but then why would Christ say how many times Peter would deny Him?!

He did this for Peter's sake, so Peter would recognize what he did, and be led to repent, which is what happened.

Second of all, if Tom's claim is true that God cannot know exactly what will happen in the future, because until the person actually makes the choice, nothing exists to know, then how could God have absolutely known that Peter would deny Christ?!

There are two ways. One is by knowing Peter. There are things I am absolutely certain my wife will do in certain situations, because I know her. This is without having any special knowledge of the future at all, let alone perfect.

Secondly God sees every possible future. If every possible future has Peter denying Christ twice before the cock crows three times, or whatever the scenario was, then it is simplicity itself for Him to foretell what will happen.

The choice had not yet been made, and according to Tom's comments earlier, there is no future to know because Peter's choice to deny or not deny Christ had not yet been made!

It looks to me like you are misunderstanding something I said here. There is no *certain* future until the free will choice is made. That doesn't mean there isn't any future at all.

Also, again, the free will choice may be the same for all the possible scenarios (e.g. Peter always denies Christ), so even though the choice is a free will choice, it can still be known. It's not in every case that a free will choice cannot be known definitively; it's only when the being with the free will will possibly choose to do one thing, and possibly another. If the free will being will always choose to do the same thing, of course that can be definitively known.)

Tom is trying to have it both ways.

This statement is based on a false premise.

Thirdly, Tom comments that if the future is fixed, then free will is out the window, because if there is only one possible future that must play out that way, then the person cannot but make those choices.

This is true, isn't it? If something is certain to happen, it's not possible for someone to do something different than what will certainly happen, is it?

But when Tom tries to explain how God knew Peter would deny Christ, he suggested that perhaps there was a trillion possible futures, in all of which Peter denies Christ.

Right.

My question to this is (another that Tom refused to answer):

Please stop doing this! I haven't "refused" to answer any question. Not a single one. If you think so, please point one out, and unless I simply overlooked something you wrote, I can guarantee that after your question you will find an answer.

I take pains to quote everything you write, just like I'm doing here, and address every issue you raise point by point, so please don't accuse me of "refusing" to answer your questions.

What difference is there between there being only one fixed future in which Peter denies Christ, and a trillion possible futures and all trillion of them have Peter denying Christ?!!!

In one case there is one possible thing that can happen, and in the other, a trillion possible things. You're only dealing with one detail, which is whether Peter would deny Christ. But there are many other things going on while this is happening, all throughout the world. Millions or billions of people were making decisions. What they would or could do would create many different possible scenarios.

In either case, Peter is doomed to deny Christ with no option (i.e. free will) to stand for Christ instead of denying Him.

He was only "doomed" to do so because he had made choices to set his character to be such that it was.

Tom is trying to have it both ways: 1) God cannot know the future because it has not yet been actualized ... He can only know what can possibly happen,

You're using the phrase "the future" differently than I am. For you, "the future" means that one scenario that will play out. For me, "the future" means collectively all the possible scenarios that could play out. So God, by seeing everything possible scenario, is in so doing precisely seeing the future, because that's what the future is (all the possible scenarios).

This is something I've been pointing out, which is that our difference of opinion is not in regards to God's ability to see what will happen, but in regards to what the content of the future is. You perceive the future to be what will actually happen. I believe this is inaccurate. I believe the future actually is the union of all the possible scenarios that can happen.

This agrees with physics, by the way. (for example, what will happen to a sub-atomic particle is described along the lines of what I'm describing).

and 2) God knew the future absolutely that Peter would deny Christ (despite Peter not having made that decision yet) because He knew Peter's character.

Not only that, but God also saw every possible future, and in all of them Peter denied Christ.

It is self contradictory. Either God knows the future, or He only knows what could happen (i.e. the possible futures) ... it cannot be both.

Again, you seem to be equating one specific detail, which is that Peter would deny Christ, to the entirety of the future. But this is just one issue.

Here's another example. Say there is a person who is addicted to smoking. Say you have the ability to see every possible future. You see that in the next 24 hours there is nothing that would lead to the smoker possibly quitting (like being exposed to a stop smoking plan, or dying). You see a zillion different futures. In every different future, the smoker smokes. So you know that this person will smoke tomorrow.

Does this mean you know exactly what will happen tomorrow? No. But do you know this person will smoke? Yes.

For another explanation of these concepts, you might wish to look at http://www.twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/open.html

I don't think the possibilities are necessarily infinite (at least between now and His second coming), but certainly extremely numerous. I think God does certainly know all of the possibilities.

But wait ... since we'll be living for all of eternity (infinite time), and we'll be making choices every day of eternity, we would therefore have infinite choices.

So, perhaps you are right, MM.

No, this is wrong. At any given point in the future, there will only have been a finite number of choices available. You are saying that because there is an infinite amount of time, there are an infinite number of choices. But this argument is just as applicable to your position as mine. That is, infinity times one is infinity, just as much as infinity times any other finite number (this finite number being a finite number of individuals making a finite number of choices). Do you see this?

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
The other thing that Tom is wrestling with right now is - What were the factors that enabled God to know, in the beginning, that perfect and sinless FMAs might choose to rebel, whereas, in the end, God knows that perfect and sinless FMAs will never choose to rebel. What were the factors that enabled Him to know, in the beginning, rebellion might happen, and what are the factors that will enable Him to know, in the end, rebellion will never happen again. In both cases, God is dealing with perfect and sinless FMAs.

I was wondering the exact same thing. Consider the following comment Tom made on 3/15/2007 - 10:00 AM:

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
These are good questions. I've thought a lot about them. I can't say too much, except that I think it's possible to be "sealed in the truth," sort of like the unpardonable sin in reverse. It's not that one can't be lost, because we never lose free will (even in heaven, we could be lost if we wanted to), but that one won't. But I don't believe God ever communicates this to us, because even in the end time the 144,000 do not know that probation has closed. What they do know is they have, above all else, a desire that God's character be known and vindicated.
He acknowledges that in the new earth, we still have free will. Therefore, we must conclude that he believes that the future while living in the new earth is not fixed, just like he believes it is not fixed now.

He acknowledges that we could be lost in the new earth, if we chose (we still have free will, so we still have to choose for ourselves).

He seems to acknowledge that God absolutely knows that sin will not arise again in the future past the founding of the new earth, despite the fact that there are infinite choices which have not yet been made.

Unless you are talking about at time infinity (at which point your perspective is just as vulnerable to the argument you are making as mine), this statement is incorrect. There are a finite number of choices that can be made.

So the future does not exist, and since it does not exist it cannot be known.

The future does not exist? What kind of rational argument could be made that ends with "so the future does not exist"? At any rate, your premise is wrong. There are a finite number of choices.

So how can God possibly know absolutely that sin will not arise again?! Suddenly, God's absolute knowledge of the future no longer means that it must be fixed/determined.

I'm curious, from this statement. Do you disagree with the idea that the future is fixed? This is simply saying that there is one possible future, which is the future that will happen. Isn't this what you believe?

If you look closely at his comment quoted above, you'll see that Tom is making the exact point that I made earlier in this thread; and I didn't realize until now that Tom had made this point, and had done so before I had made it. Look at the following excerpt from the above quote:

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
It's not that one can't be lost, because we never lose free will (even in heaven, we could be lost if we wanted to), but that one won't.


Even though God absolutely knows the future, that does not mean the future is fixed. We still have free will. It's not that we can't choose differently than what He sees happening in the future, it's that we won't choose differently than what He sees happening in the future.

No, this isn't the same point. This is a different point. I'll explain the difference.

My point is that the righteous could choose to sin if they wanted to, because they have free will. It has nothing to do with the future at all, or with God's foreknowledge. When I said "can't," I was speaking of ability.

When you say that it's not that the wicked won't sin, but they can't, you are speaking of a logical construct. That is, you are claiming that there is a logical difference between stating that a person cannot do something, and that they will not do something. My statement is not addressing this issue at all.


MM, this is what you, Rosangela, and I (among others) have been saying all along; that God does know with absolute perfection what will happen in the future, not just the possibilities but what will actually will be. And this does not mean that the future must be somehow fixed (otherwise we might choose to do something that God did not foresee in the future thus making Him a liar).

Ok, you seem to be answering my previous question here. Logically it *does* mean the future is fixed, and this is very easy to see.

Given that God knows exactly what will happen, it is not possible for something to happen which is different than what God knows will happen, correct? So there is only one possible thing which can happen in the future, which is that which God knows will happen. To say there is only one possible thing that can happen in the future is to say that the future is fixed. They mean exactly the same thing. If you preferred, I could exchange "the one possible thing that can happen" for "fixed." This is a bit wordy, but it means the same thing.

For you, there is no such thing as a possible future. There is simply the future; what will be; what God knows will be.

It's not that we can't choose to do differently, it's that we won't choose to do differently.

It's so simple, I don't understand Tom's difficulty with it.

My difficulty with this is the following:

a.It doesn't fit what inspiration reveals to us, either from Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy.

b.If it were true, then it would not be possible for a person to do something different than what God has seen will happen. I don't mean not physically possible, but not logically possible. If what God sees is certain to happen, then it is not possible to do something different than what God sees will happen, because it is not possible to do something different than what is certain to happen.

This is very simple logic. If you see some error in this logic, I would be interested in what it is.

c.In particular, it raises questions about God's character. For example, why did God create a being that He knew would sin? Why not, instead, create a being He knew wouldn't sin? I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to this question.

And if Tom believes that it is possible for God to know the future after His second coming, why is it impossible for Him to know the future now?!! (it begs the question: does God suddenly acquire some new abilities at His second coming?)

I've consistently maintained that God knows the future perfectly. This doesn't change after the second coming. God knows the future perfectly now, and He will continue to know it perfectly then. God has always perfectly known the future.

I should add that "the future," is not one given thing, the thing that will happen, but the sum of all possible futures. This is where we differ. Not in God's ability to see the future (we both agree God can do this perfectly) but what the content of the future is. You think of the future is just one thing. I think of it as the sum of all possible things which can happen.