Its one of the mysteries of our faith. Together with the trinity, the incarnation, the creation is something we do not understand but believe explains reality non the less.

First of all, I quoted from "The Desire of Ages," a wonderful book, but one I cannot claim credit for having written.



This is what I have quoted.

Secondly, I've never said this is equivalent knowledge. I've pointed out that circumstances are different after the Great Controversy than before. God's character was revealed in a way it hadn't been before.

Thirdly, there was nothing about God from knowing what future decision a created being with free will would make. That's simply the way the future is. It is not comprised of the one thing that will happen, but of every possible thing that can happen, all of which God sees. Which future takes places depends upon decisions of FMAs which have not been made yet. When the decisions are made, then one of the possible futures becomes a reality.

To go from the idea that not every decision that an FMA will make is settled to God has "no idea" what will happen is quite a stretch.

In some circumstances God knows how someone will respond to His influence, or to the influence of others. The fact that some decisions can be predicted ahead of time with certainty does not mean that all can. For example, I may be able to say with certainty that you will choose strawberry over vanilla or chocolate, but not know if you would choose strawberry over cherry.

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

MM: Tom, you seem to be saying God didn't have options. That "the" plan of salvation, as we know it, was God's only option. Is that what you're saying, that God didn't have any options?

Of course God had options.

From my perspective, however, there was at least a second option, albeit a theoretical one. God could have chosen not to implement the plan of salvation. He could have allowed A&E to die eternally the instant they chose to sin.

Right, that was an option. What I said was the Plan of Salvation was the only way to save man, something I'm sure you agree with.

Then God would have been forced to disprove Satan's accusations some other way, that is, if He didn't want the loyal angels to serve Him out of fear only to eventually rebel. Of course, theoretically, He could have opted to just eliminate all FMAs and either leave it at that or start all over again with a fresh batch of FMAs.

You are correct here in pointing out that God had options.

MM: How can He know what we always do under certain circumstances hundreds of years before we are born?

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at here. God sees every possible future, as I've explained many times. Why doesn't that answer your question?

If He can know it about some things hundred of years before we are born, why can't He know it about all things hundreds of years before we are born?

God does know all things hundreds of years before we are born. God has always known all things.

By way, how far back does this go? Did God know these things about everyone dating back to eternity past? Or, is there a limit to how far back God can know these things? I seem to recall you saying there is no limit, that God has always known these things. So, please forgive me for askig it again.

Yes, you asked this before. You're forgiven.

There's no time limit. How could there be? God doesn't age and become more forgetful. How could there be a time limit? Like God could remember 10 years, but not 11? I'm not understanding how you could think your question makes sense. (Perhaps I've misunderstood it(?))


Quote:
What is the thing that prevents Him from knowing everything about everyone?

TE: Nothing. God does know everything about everyone.

MM: If God knows "everything" about everyone before they are born, why, then, do you insist there are certain things about people He cannot know ahead of time?

I'm "insisting" that God knows the future as it is, which is comprised of things which are settled and things which are not settled. This line of questioning would be like if I kept asking you if God was all powerful. You say yes. I say, "so He can do anything?" and you say "yes." So I ask you, "Can He make a square trinangle? Can He make a rock so big He can't lift it? You're doing the equivalent here.

The mistake you are making is in framing the issue as if it had something to do with God. It doesn't. The issue involved regards the nature of the future.

Quote:
MM: And, since, from your perspective, He knew there was a chance Lucifer and A&E would sin, why did He choose to create them? Why didn't He just leave them uncreated?

TE: Why are you asking this? If you are going to ask a question again which you've already asked several times before, and has been answered several times, please explain why you are reasking the question. Before knowing why you're asking this again, I'll just say my answer is the same as it was the other times.

Quote:
Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. (COL 196)

MM: I'm sorry for asking the same question again without explaining why. I used to think you thought God knew rebel might happen but that He didn't know ahead of time which FMAs would choose to rebel. Now it seems like you're saying God knows some things about everyone before they were created or born.

The future is comprised of everything that can possibly happen. God sees all of this. As time goes on, the possibilities become realities as FMAs make choices.

With this in mind, I would like know if you think God knew ahead of time that Lucifer and A&E were going to rebel? If so, why didn't He simply leave them uncreated?

I've said many times that I believe that while sin was possible, it wasn't likely. God saw the possibility of man, and other creatures, sinning.

If not, then why not? That is, if God didn't know they were going to rebel, why didn't He know?

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.

Since He knows perfect and sinless beings will not rebel in the future, why couldn't He know perfect and sinless beings were going to rebel in the beginning?

He knew of the possibility.

MM: That God had options is clear from the fact He created several different species of FMAs.

Right! It is clear that God had options.

But when it came to creating human beings God's options were two, 1) To create them and deal with the GC, and 2) Not to create them and not deal with the GC. I realize you believe there was at least one other option, namely, To create them knowing they might rebel but hopping they wouldn't.

What? God would hop? I haven't used the word "hope." I've used the word "expect," which is a better word, as well as being Scriptural. (e.g. Isa. 5)

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?


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.

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.

First of all, there is no reason to believe that a perfect being only has one option available. This is just an assumption, and you have produced no evidence whatsoever why this should be true.

Secondly, you are contradicting what you yourself wrote in this very post! You just wrote above that God had options, which is "clearly seen" in that He created different types of FMAs. You're right! God has options.

Judas, if your perspective were true, would not have had a choice which could actually be made. This is easily seen from the following:

A.If God knows something is certain to happen, then it is certain to happen.
B.God knew Judas would not repent, so it was certain that Judas would not repent.

So Judas did not have a "real" choice in the sense of a choice that could actually be made, or, to say it another way, it is logically impossible that Judas could have chosen not to repent.

It's not that God's knowledge of what would happen forces Judas to make a certain decision, but making this assumption leads to the logical conclusion that Judas could not make the decision. It's a problem of logic, not of God's causing something to happen.

There are other logical arguments that can be made in regards to why libertarian free will and the future being settled (which God's having exhaustive definite foreknowledge implies) is concerned, but this is the easiest one to follow, I think, so I'll just present this one.

I think it's tempting to reason along the lines of Judas could have chosen to repent, and in that case, God would have foreseen that. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that what is known about Judas' decision occurs *before* Judas makes the decision.

Where, in the definition of free will, is it said that free will is tied to someone's (anyone's) knowledge? If I know beforehand what my choice will be, does this mean I don't have free will?

Free will is tied to the ability to choose between options. The logic runs like this:

a)If God knows with certainty something as of a certain time something will happen (or not happen), then it will certainly happen (or not happen)
b)It is known, or certain, as of this certain time that the given event will not happen.

Let's stop here a second. b) is the problem, not a).

It doesn't matter why b) is true. Given that b) is true, an event different than what is certain to happen logically cannot happen.

It's not an epistemological problem, but an ontological one.

Let's consider a specific example. As of 20 B. C., we will assume that God knew that Judas would not repent. ( this is a) from above). Therefore, as of 20 B. C. it was known, or certain, that Judas would not repent ( b) from above).

This is the problem. If it is certain that Judas will not repent for whatever reason (that the reason is because God knows this is what will happen is irrelevant; God can be taken out of the equation here. All that matters is that it is certain, as of 20 B. C., that Judas will not repent), then Judas does not have the option available to him of not repenting, because it is not possible to do something which cannot happen.

Again, the problem is not epistemological, but ontological.

Thomas, does this answer explain my view as well as yours?