1. Yes, I realize you base this particular insight on the DA quote.

2. Didn't you say that Lucifer's knowledge of God's character included those attributes demonstrated on the cross, therefore, the cross would not have served to save him, and neither was it necessary to pardon him?

3. Nevertheless, you also seem to believe God does know ahead of time certain choices and their outcomes, that of all the many possible choices and outcomes, He knows, in certain cases, precisely which one will play out. I would like to know - how?

But were they viable options? For examle, did God consider, even for a nonsecond, to let mankind perish in his sins?


What was the content and nature of God's struggle? Why did He struggle?

Tom,

If I know beforehand what my choice will be, does this mean I don't have free will?

MM: Here is what you said (above), "... God could know that you would prefer strawberry to vanilla in a certain instance (because you always do this) . . ."

This insight does not imply "God sees every possible future." Insteaad, it says there are times when "God could know". It was this insight that prompted me to ask, "How can He know what we "always do" [i.e. "prefer strawberry to vanilla"] under certain circumstances hundreds of years before we are born?"

Answering this question with "God sees every possible future" is confusing. Do you see what I mean?


MM: Does "God has alawys known all things" include the things you say He cannot know? For example, you say God cannot know ahead of time how everything will play out because He does not which choices will be made under all circumstances.


MM: So, in those cases where God knows ahead of time the choices that will (not might) be made and the outcome, He has known it for eternity. I agree.


MM: Sorry about the rocks and triangles, but I'm actually more interested in why you believe God can know some things about the future but not the rest of it. In other words, I'm asking about the "how" and "why". How can some things be "settled" (certain how it will play out) and the rest "unsettled" (uncertain how it will play out)? Why is it that way? What makes the future that way? I hope you see what I'm getting at. If not, I'll try to explain myself better.


MM: Again here's what you wrote (above), "... sometimes decisions are uncertain while other times they aren't. For example, God could know that you would prefer strawberry to vanilla in a certain instance (because you always do this) but not that you will [wear] navy blue to [or] black (because sometimes you do one, and sometimes the other)."

This insight leads me to think it has something to do with God. Do you see why it would?


MM: However, you also seem to believe God knows ahead of time which choices certain FMAs will make, and that He has known it for an eternity before they were created or born. Are you suggesting God didn't know ahead of time that Lucifer, in particular, would (not might) rebel and that he would deceive A&E, in particular, into sinning? YOu haven't answered this question, in particular, with a yes or no, so I don't know what you believe.

"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." (DA 22)


MM: Is that why He chose to create them, because He didn't know they were goig to rebel? Seems to me you've admitted that God knew they might rebel but that the likelihood was so slight He thought the risk was worth it, that is, He took the risk hoping they wouldn't rebel but kowing He could implement the plan of salvation to resolve the problem.


MM: So, did God know they might rebel or not? If He knew there was a slight chance they would rebel, does that mean there is a reason why they rebelled, namely, because God knew it might happen?


MM: Okay. But why? Why couldn't He know it would or would not happen? In the past you've suggested that the cross explains why God can know FMAs will not rebel in the future. However, you've also suggested Lucifer was, before he embarked upon his downward course, already familiar with the attributes of God's character that were demonstrated on the cross. So, why didn't it (Lucifer's comprehensive knowledge of God's character) enable God to know Lucifer wouldn't rebel? I'm asking this question again because I don't remember the answer.

MM: Hopping? Oops! Some typos can be incredibly embrassing, eh! Fortunately, this one was just funny.

Why isn't the concept of "hope" appropriate? "He hoped they would be sweet, but bitter grapes were all it produced." (CEV) If He knew FMAs might rebel, why wouldn't He hope they wouldn't?


MM: I've already explained why I believe the two options listed above were the ony ones available to God. It's just that you disagree.


MM: That's because you choose to believe it. How do you know there weren't other options God decided against? After all, wasn't it you that wrote, "First of all, there is no reason to believe that a perfect being only has one option available."


MM: Please read again what I wrote. I think you will find that I said God did indeed have options. Do you see what I mean? Here it is again:

"Of course, I believe there was only one legitimate, viable option available to God. All options, other than the one God chose to go with, were only theoretical. Why? Because God is perfect, omnipresent, and omniscient. He can only do that which is right and best and perfect, and by virtue of the definition of "right and best and perfect" there can be only one right and best and perfect way."

2. Didn't you say that Lucifer's knowledge of God's character included those attributes demonstrated on the cross, therefore, the cross would not have served to save him, and neither was it necessary to pardon him?

I don't think I said this in exactly these words, but I communicated this general idea. It stands to reason from the DA quote, it seems to me:



Here she says that to Lucifer was given a special revelation of God's love. She talks about the cross, and how man did not know God's love and character. So the implication is that Satan did know these things, isn't it?

3. Nevertheless, you also seem to believe God does know ahead of time certain choices and their outcomes, that of all the many possible choices and outcomes, He knows, in certain cases, precisely which one will play out. I would like to know - how?

God sees every possible future. Say you prefer strawberry to vanilla or chocolate. Every time in your life after the age of 5, you choose strawberry. God, seeing every possible future, would see that you always choose strawberry over chocolate or vanilla. So He could see that it would be 100% certain that you, given this choice after the age of 5, would opt for strawberry.

On the other hand, say you like strawberry and cherry equally well. God would see that you might choose strawberry, or you might choose cherry. So in this case your decision would not be certain.

But were they viable options? For examle, did God consider, even for a nonsecond, to let mankind perish in his sins?

Sometimes I wonder if you pay attention to the things I post. (In fairness, you may wonder the same thing about me.) I've posted the following quite a number of times:



Just previous to this, she speaks of how Jesus went in to the Father three times, and after the third time the Father agreed to let Christ come. Don't you remember this?

Quote:
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him." {SR 45.1}

What was the content and nature of God's struggle? Why did He struggle?

Well, here it is! How about that! (I responded to the first part without reading all the way through).

Ok, in answer to your question, it was a real struggle, a normal struggle, just the sort of struggle that you and I have. Here, I'll quote the previous part that speaks of the meeting Jesus had with the Father.



Notice how before the resolution, on Jesus' face there was anxiety, and afterwards He was calm. Unless Jesus and the Father were just putting on a show for the angels, this was a real decision that was being made; a real struggle was going on.

It shouldn't be confusing. God sees every possible future. In 10,000 possible future, you choose strawberry over vanilla or chocolate, so God is sure you will do this. However, 50% of the time you have a choice between strawberry and cherry you choose one, and 50% of the time you choose the other. God sees all these possibilities as well.

So if God were asked what you would do, He could say that in a certain case you would be 100% certain to choose strawberry (when your choices are strawberry, chocolate, or vanilla) but in the other case He would say you would either choose strawberry or cherry.

I don't see what's confusing here.



Sure, when I say that God knows all things, I mean all things that it makes logical sense to say that he knows, exactly what you mean when you say the same thing. The difference between us has to do with what we think it makes logical sense to say that God knows.

This is what I've been saying for quite a while now. The difference between our views does not concern God in any way. It concerns the content of the reality which God foresees.



God knows all things about the future. There is nothing about the future which God does not know. God knows the future exactly as it is.

Your view (from my perspective) would have God know the future in some way which does not correspond to reality. It would be the equivalent of making God know white to be black. God cannot know white to be black because white is really white, not black. Similarly God cannot know the future to be like a T.V. rerun, something to be seen in hindsight, because that is not what the future is like.

As to why some things are settled, there are some decisions of which the result are certain. For example, if you say "I love you" to your wife, you may know with certainty that she will say, "I love you too." This would be an example of something settled.

Another example is that the sun will come up tomorrow.

A person's character may be such that it is certain how they will respond in a certain situation.

A person's preference may be such that it is certain how they will respond in a certain situation.



No, I don't see why you would think this has anything to do with God, when it seems clear that it has to do with you. God knows you perfectly. He sees everything you might do. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the confusion here.



I don't know what you're getting at in the first part of the paragraph. I don't understand why you're asking the second question. You should know, if you've been paying any attention, exactly what my response to this question would be. Why do you not know what my response would be? (Hint: I've said many times now I don't believe God would create a being He was certain would sin).



MM, you should really take into account *all* that EGW writes on a subject, not just consider one thing. She writes many things which make it very clear that her view of the future is not like yours. For example, she wrote that "all heaven was imperiled for our redemption." You, with your view, could not logically say such a thing.

She wrote that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. You, with your view, could not logically say such a thing.

She wrote that Christ could have come before now. She wrote that it is our privilege not only to look forward to his coming, but to hasten it.

You keep quoting this one thing from DA, but for this one thing, which you think supports her seeing the future like you do, I could quote 20 things (or more) which show she didn't see the future like you do.

But I'll just quote one, which is dealing with exactly the same subject that the DA quote is:



Please notice that she writes the plan that "should" be carried out upon the defection of "any" of the high intelligences of heaven. This is conditional language.

There is a plethora of evidence that EGW saw the future as conditional, not as settled.



God created beings to love and be loved. The creation of such beings necessitates that they be created with free will. Having free will, there was the possibility that His creatures might choose not to love Him. Love is risky.



I just said "Why should He know? If God knew man would rebel, that would mean there was some reason why it should happen. That would mean that there would be an explanation for the existence of sin."

Why is this not clear?



No.



He did know it would or would not happen.



God sees every possible future. In none of the possible futures do creatures rebel after the final judgment. As to why they don't rebel, we are told by Ellen White (not me!) that the cross safeguarded the universe.

As to why Satan rebelled, even though He knew God's love and character so well, I can't say. However, God foresaw the possibility that this would happen. (or, to say the same thing another way, there were possible futures which God saw where this took place).

MM: Hopping? Oops! Some typos can be incredibly embrassing, eh! Fortunately, this one was just funny.

Why isn't the concept of "hope" appropriate? "He hoped they would be sweet, but bitter grapes were all it produced." (CEV) If He knew FMAs might rebel, why wouldn't He hope they wouldn't?

"Hope" can be OK, depending upon what the intent is. A lot of time "hope" implies cluelessness, which would not be appropriate to apply to God. I think the CEV translation is fine. For our conversations, I would prefer "expect," (a point I first made a long time ago, but I won't hold you accountable because I forget a lot of things too).

TE: From your perspective, I would add the possibility of creating as the first humans beings that God foresaw would not sin. Or do you think that any human being that God could possibly have created would sin?

MM: I've already explained why I believe the two options listed above were the ony ones available to God. It's just that you disagree.

Could God have created a human being who wouldn't sin? That is, was it possible for Him to do so? Or would any human being that God created as our first parents have sinned?

MM: And when it came to redeeming mankind after he rebelled I assume we both agree God's options were two, 1) Implement the plan of salvation, and 2) Not implement the plan of salvation. Or, do you believe there were other options? If so, what might they be?

The Plan of Salvation was the only way to save man.

MM: That's because you choose to believe it.

Because inspiration says so!

How do you know there weren't other options God decided against?

I just know what inspiration says about this.

After all, wasn't it you that wrote, "First of all, there is no reason to believe that a perfect being only has one option available."

There was only one way to save man. That doesn't mean God didn't think about possible alternatives.

MM: Please read again what I wrote. I think you will find that I said God did indeed have options. Do you see what I mean? Here it is again:

"Of course, I believe there was only one legitimate, viable option available to God. All options, other than the one God chose to go with, were only theoretical. Why? Because God is perfect, omnipresent, and omniscient. He can only do that which is right and best and perfect, and by virtue of the definition of "right and best and perfect" there can be only one right and best and perfect way."

My points were valid, given what you wrote here. If God always has only one viable option, then He didn't have any other viable options in regards to creating other creatures as FMAs. But you said that God "clearly" had options available to Him, because He created different types of FMAs.

This is a contradiction.

Also, again, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that there cannot be more than one option which are both fine. For example, let's say you're going to have a child, and you can choose to have a boy or a girl. Why should only one choice be acceptable? Even if you were perfect, both choices would still be acceptable.

It's only in the case where one option is better than another that God must choose a given option.

I'm curious to know why you even think it makes sense to assert that there is only one viable option available to a perfect being in every situation. I understand the assertion that God never chooses something which is worse than a different available option, but I have no idea why you would think that there can never be more than one equivalent option.

What this answer explains is mainly that I given the answers I have thus far but that I still believe it to be true non the less.