MM: You have yet to show precedence for the idea that knowledge of God's character guarantees rebellion will not happen.

TE: It's impossible to show precedence. It's a situation that is will never have occurred until it occurs.

MM: I'm glad you agree there is no precedence for your position.

TE: We're discussing a situation which hasn't happened yet. Your position wouldn't have any precedence either. Also, the position that the cross safeguards the universe isn't mine, but Ellen White's, which you should be aware of. If you're not, let me know, and I'll get appropriate quotes.

MM: It didn't prevent Lucifer from rebelling.

TE:

MM: I notice you didn't comment on this point. Why?

TE: You've made this point before, several times, and in response I commented each time. If you have some question about what I wrote, please ask.

MM: Nor have you proven God knows anything about the future with settled certainty save for how inanimate things will perform.

TE: How did I prove that God knows something with settled certainty for inanimate things? Tell me, and I'll reuse the same proof. It's the same principle involved, so this will be easy.

MM: You listed the rising and setting sun, an inanimate object, as an example of God knowing the future with settled certainty. But you have resisted the idea God can know the decisions of FMAs an eternity before they exist with settled certainty. For example, you maintain God did not know Lucifer would rebel and deceive A&E into rebelling.

TE: I'd suggest you take a look at the thread that Rosanegela has been participating on, where we're discussing this same subject. I've given a couple of analogies, one involving slides and the other involving a chess player making a move.

If you prefer, I could cross-post what I'm thinking of here. If you take a look there, I think you can find it pretty easily, but, again, I'd be happy to cross post here if you'd prefer.

MM: You have yet to show precedence for the idea that knowledge of God's character guarantees rebellion will not happen.

TE: It's impossible to show precedence. It's a situation that is will never have occurred until it occurs.

MM: I'm glad you agree there is no precedence for your position.

TE: We're discussing a situation which hasn't happened yet. Your position wouldn't have any precedence either. Also, the position that the cross safeguards the universe isn't mine, but Ellen White's, which you should be aware of. If you're not, let me know, and I'll get appropriate quotes.

MM: Yes it has happened. Lucifer's knowledge of God's character did not prevent him from rebelling.

Quote:
MM: It didn't prevent Lucifer from rebelling.

TE:

MM: I notice you didn't comment on this point. Why?

TE: You've made this point before, several times, and in response I commented each time. If you have some question about what I wrote, please ask.

MM: If I remember right you're comment had something to do with rebellion being an unexplainable mystery. What guarantee do we have a similar mystery will not happen?

Quote:
MM: Nor have you proven God knows anything about the future with settled certainty save for how inanimate things will perform.

TE: How did I prove that God knows something with settled certainty for inanimate things? Tell me, and I'll reuse the same proof. It's the same principle involved, so this will be easy.

MM: You listed the rising and setting sun, an inanimate object, as an example of God knowing the future with settled certainty. But you have resisted the idea God can know the decisions of FMAs an eternity before they exist with settled certainty. For example, you maintain God did not know Lucifer would rebel and deceive A&E into rebelling.

TE: I'd suggest you take a look at the thread that Rosanegela has been participating on, where we're discussing this same subject. I've given a couple of analogies, one involving slides and the other involving a chess player making a move.

If you prefer, I could cross-post what I'm thinking of here. If you take a look there, I think you can find it pretty easily, but, again, I'd be happy to cross post here if you'd prefer.

MM: Actually, I would prefer inspired examples demonstrating the idea that God cannot know with settled certainty the future decisions of FMAs, and in particular that He did not know ahead of time Lucifer would rebel and deceive A&E into sinning.

Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.

Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others.

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 darling Son to die for them. Angels were so interested for man's salvation that there could be found among them those who would yield their glory and give their life for perishing man. "But," said my accompanying angel, "that would avail nothing." The transgression was so great that an angel's life would not pay the debt. Nothing but the death and intercession of God's Son would pay the debt and save lost man from hopeless sorrow and misery. (EW 126, 127)

MM: You have yet to show precedence for the idea that knowledge of God's character guarantees rebellion will not happen.

TE: It's impossible to show precedence. It's a situation that is will never have occurred until it occurs.

MM: I'm glad you agree there is no precedence for your position.

TE: We're discussing a situation which hasn't happened yet. Your position wouldn't have any precedence either. Also, the position that the cross safeguards the universe isn't mine, but Ellen White's, which you should be aware of. If you're not, let me know, and I'll get appropriate quotes.

MM: Yes it has happened. Lucifer's knowledge of God's character did not prevent him from rebelling.

TE: If this is precedence for your position, this must mean you think rebellion will occur again.

You didn't answer my question as to whether you are aware that the position I was expressing from Ellen White, or if I should produce quotations for it.

MM: It didn't prevent Lucifer from rebelling.

TE:

MM: I notice you didn't comment on this point. Why?

TE: You've made this point before, several times, and in response I commented each time. If you have some question about what I wrote, please ask.

MM: If I remember right you're comment had something to do with rebellion being an unexplainable mystery. What guarantee do we have a similar mystery will not happen?

TE: I've answered this many times. I've made two points. First of all, God sees every possible future. In none of the futures does sin occur again. I'll stop there. Just this one point should be enough.

MM: Nor have you proven God knows anything about the future with settled certainty save for how inanimate things will perform.

TE: How did I prove that God knows something with settled certainty for inanimate things? Tell me, and I'll reuse the same proof. It's the same principle involved, so this will be easy.

MM: You listed the rising and setting sun, an inanimate object, as an example of God knowing the future with settled certainty. But you have resisted the idea God can know the decisions of FMAs an eternity before they exist with settled certainty. For example, you maintain God did not know Lucifer would rebel and deceive A&E into rebelling.

TE: I'd suggest you take a look at the thread that Rosanegela has been participating on, where we're discussing this same subject. I've given a couple of analogies, one involving slides and the other involving a chess player making a move.

If you prefer, I could cross-post what I'm thinking of here. If you take a look there, I think you can find it pretty easily, but, again, I'd be happy to cross post here if you'd prefer.

MM: Actually, I would prefer inspired examples demonstrating the idea that God cannot know with settled certainty the future decisions of FMAs, and in particular that He did not know ahead of time Lucifer would rebel and deceive A&E into sinning.

TE: She talks about how the plan of salvation would go into effect should any creatures sin. Something like that. "Should" and "any" are conditional. I already produced this quote. Also there's the Education quote which speaks of the Plan of Salvation being like an organism's ability to heal itself should it be cut, which is also conditional.

She speaks of heaven being imperiled for our redemption, Christ's eternal existence being put at risk, which would not be possible for her to say given your view of the future. Clearly if there was no chance for Christ to fail, He could not have been at risk.

Also there's the account in Early Writings. I'll produce it here again for you, and I've gone through this in detail with you in the past, but you didn't respond.



This whole thing is unintelligible given the idea that the future is something seen like a T. V. rerun, something known to be in exactly one way from all eternity. Clearly God's dealing with an emergency is being described. Why 3 meetings? Why say that Jesus was pleading with God, who gave His Son permission? Surely if God had known from all eternity that man was going to sin at that precise moment, there would have been no need for Jesus to plead with Him for permission. You can see the incongruity here, can't you?

Why would the angel say that it was a struggle for God to allow Christ to come? If God lives in a timeless experience, as you have been suggesting, it would not be possible for God to struggle. You should be able to see this.

Does God's knowledge every change?

MM: My position is based on an entirely different precedence. God's knowledge of our future is based on His omnipresence, not on past experience or good guessing. Also, I am aware of what Sister White wrote about the cross. However, my question has to do with how and why God knows our future.

MM: My question concerns your idea that knowledge of God's character is what guarantees rebellion will not reoccur. If this is true, why didn't it prevent Lucifer and one-third of the angels from rebelling? Answering this question with, None of the possible futures God sees involves rebellion reoccurring, doesn't help me understand your idea. Here is the question again:

Why didn't knowledge of God's character prevent Lucifer and one-third of the angels from rebelling?

MM: I have two comments in response these insights and questions: 1) None of your examples prove God does not know the future decisions of FMAs with settled certainty,

and 2) God is timeless, therefore, the way He behaves in our present time and space is how He thinks and feels at the time.

Such an experience does not discount His omnipresence, His ability to think and feel a certain way in the past, present, and future at any given time.

We are talking about two different realities as it relates to our future. There's the future as God knows it, and the future as we know it.

In reality it is the same future, but from God's perspective, our future is happening now. Whereas, from our perspective, our future has yet to play out. Knowledge, or the lack thereof, is what makes it two different realities.

Once, from our perspective, tomorrow is today, the two realities coincide. Until then, however, future realities, from our perspective, consist of unknowns. From God's perspective, however, the future is a reality. It is happening now. He knows the end from the beginning. In this way, His reality is different than ours.

MM: My position is based on an entirely different precedence. God's knowledge of our future is based on His omnipresence, not on past experience or good guessing. Also, I am aware of what Sister White wrote about the cross. However, my question has to do with how and why God knows our future.

TE: If your perspective were true, God could not make a decision, nor think, nor experience emotions, as these are all things which are dependent upon a sequencing of events, or, to say it another way, a passing of time, as well as necessitating a change in knowledge.

I'm not seeing any question in what you quoted of our conversation, so I don't know what question you are referring to.

MM: My question concerns your idea that knowledge of God's character is what guarantees rebellion will not reoccur. If this is true, why didn't it prevent Lucifer and one-third of the angels from rebelling? Answering this question with, None of the possible futures God sees involves rebellion reoccurring, doesn't help me understand your idea. Here is the question again:

Why didn't knowledge of God's character prevent Lucifer and one-third of the angels from rebelling?

TE: There's two questions involved here. One is how we can know that rebellion won't occur again, and the other is why it occurred in the first place. Regarding why it won't occur again, we are told that it is because of the revelation of Christ. This is not my idea. This is Ellen White's idea. I'm just expressing what she said in regards to the revelation of Christ safeguarding the universe.

It is worth nothing that Satan raised certain questions about God's character, and Jesus Christ answered those questions. He did so so thoroughly that they will never be raised again. When Satan first brought his deceptions, he was able to fool some beings. Those who chose to believe him will be no more. Those who chose not to will not choose to rebel in the future, having already decided not to in the past when it would have been much easier to do so.

Regarding why sin came up the first time, even though Lucifer knew God's character, the answer is there is no reason that can be given as to why this happened.

MM: I have two comments in response to these insights and questions: 1) None of your examples prove God does not know the future decisions of FMAs with settled certainty …

TE: They all do. Your asserting they don't is as pointless as my asserting they do. If you disagree with an example, state why. You shouldn't just state it doesn't prove what I say it does without explaining why not.

MM: … and 2) God is timeless, therefore, the way He behaves in our present time and space is how He thinks and feels at the time.

TE: This is contradictory. Consider the meaning of the words "timeless" and "our present time" and this should be easily seen.

MM: Such an experience does not discount His omnipresence, His ability to think and feel a certain way in the past, present, and future at any given time. We are talking about two different realities as it relates to our future. There's the future as God knows it, and the future as we know it.

TE: There's just reality. There's aren't two realities. Reality is what is. "Two realities" is a contradiction in terms. You can have to perceptions of reality, but not two realities.

MM: In reality it is the same future, but from God's perspective, our future is happening now. Whereas, from our perspective, our future has yet to play out. Knowledge, or the lack thereof, is what makes it two different realities.

TE: Knowledge doesn't affect reality in any way. Knowledge is an understanding of what is. Understanding a thing does not change the thing.

MM: Once, from our perspective, tomorrow is today, the two realities coincide. Until then, however, future realities, from our perspective, consist of unknowns. From God's perspective, however, the future is a reality. It is happening now. He knows the end from the beginning. In this way, His reality is different than ours.

TE: There is no such thing as "His" reality or "our" reality. There is just reality. There are perspectives of reality, but not multiple realities.

I'm curious, if you happen to know, where you got such an idea (that there is more than one reality). I suppose I should ask what you think reality is. I think, from what you are writing, that you must be confusing a perception of reality with reality, so that when you say "His reality" and "our reality" you really mean "His perception of reality" and "our perception of reality" in which case I would say (using your language) that His reality is the true reality, and our reality is false, and untruth, based on ignorance, and does not reflect the way things really are.

MM: Being omnipresent does not rob God of emotions.

TE: Being timeless robs God of emotions. Without time, God cannot experience things that happen sequentially, which includes thought. Without thought one cannot experience emotions, or make decisions.

MM: As to how and why He knows the future it is because the future is happening now. That’s how and why He knows the future. Which, I might add, is different than the rerun example. The rerun example assumes, to a degree, that God is bound by time and space, that yesterday, today, and tomorrow somehow happen sequentially. Whereas, in reality, it all happens simultaneously.

TE: This again leads to the problems of God's not being able to think, emote, or make decisions.

MM: They do not “prove” your assertions. Your saying so doesn’t make it so.

TE: This was my point. You're saying they don't is just as pointless as my saying they do. You should point out what you disagree with about the assertions.

MM: None of them speak to the question. They are unrelated points. You might think they imply it, but is it nothing more than a opinion since they don’t say so.

TE: You're speaking of the question of God's not seeing the future in a settled, definite way, correct? The episode in Early Writings is nonsensical looking at the future as happening now, as you are suggesting. I went through the passage in detail, and asked you specific questions. Why would Jesus have to go in to the Father three times? Why would He have to plead for permission to come? Why would God have had to struggle to decide to allow Jesus to come? The whole episode simply doesn't agree with your perspective of the future.

It's not my saying this is the case that makes the case. It's the way the story was written, and the different aspects of the future which are clearly written from the perspective of experiencing something as it is happening, not in a timeless way. In fact, I can't think of a single thing in Scripture which suggests that God experiences things in a timeless manner, yet I could present literally thousands of examples which suggest the converse.

TE: Reality is what is.

MM: I agree with this statement.

TE: Good! Then you should be able to see there can only be one reality, since what is is, so to speak. You can't say what is are, which is what multiple realities would imply.

MM: Since the future, from our perspective, is not what is, it is not, therefore, reality.

TE: Excellent!! This is the point I've been trying to make for months now. I'm glad you finally agree!

MM: Yesterday and today are realities, it is what is, but the future is not reality because it is not “what is”. As such, the future is never, from our perspective, reality.

From God’s perspective, however, the future is what is, therefore, it is reality. From God's perspective, the future is happening, therefore, it is what is, that is, it is reality. So, reality is not the same for us and God.

Not that the essence of reality or the future is different; instead, it has to do with timing, that is, when reality is experienced. God experiences the future before we do, thus, He experiences it as reality before we do.

TE: Ok, I'm glad you've seen what I've been trying to say for quite some time now, which is that reality is what God perceives it to be, not what we perceive it to be. A consequence of this idea is that we cannot have free will, at least not according to the libertarian idea. I'll comment on that later.

MM: Being omnipresent does not rob God of emotions.

TE: Being timeless robs God of emotions. Without time, God cannot experience things that happen sequentially, which includes thought. Without thought one cannot experience emotions, or make decisions.

MM: We're talking about God - not FMAs.

Quote:
MM: As to how and why He knows the future it is because the future is happening now. That’s how and why He knows the future. Which, I might add, is different than the rerun example. The rerun example assumes, to a degree, that God is bound by time and space, that yesterday, today, and tomorrow somehow happen sequentially. Whereas, in reality, it all happens simultaneously.

TE: This again leads to the problems of God's not being able to think, emote, or make decisions.

MM: I disagree.

Quote:
MM: They do not “prove” your assertions. Your saying so doesn’t make it so.

TE: This was my point. You're saying they don't is just as pointless as my saying they do. You should point out what you disagree with about the assertions.

MM: None of them speak to the question. They are unrelated points. You might think they imply it, but is it nothing more than a opinion since they don’t say so.

TE: You're speaking of the question of God's not seeing the future in a settled, definite way, correct? The episode in Early Writings is nonsensical looking at the future as happening now, as you are suggesting. I went through the passage in detail, and asked you specific questions. Why would Jesus have to go in to the Father three times? Why would He have to plead for permission to come? Why would God have had to struggle to decide to allow Jesus to come? The whole episode simply doesn't agree with your perspective of the future.

It's not my saying this is the case that makes the case. It's the way the story was written, and the different aspects of the future which are clearly written from the perspective of experiencing something as it is happening, not in a timeless way. In fact, I can't think of a single thing in Scripture which suggests that God experiences things in a timeless manner, yet I could present literally thousands of examples which suggest the converse.

MM: The EW account depicts God experiencing things in real time. But since God is timeless He experiences the past, present, and future at the same time.

Quote:
TE: Reality is what is.

MM: I agree with this statement.

TE: Good! Then you should be able to see there can only be one reality, since what is is, so to speak. You can't say what is are, which is what multiple realities would imply.

MM: Since the future, from our perspective, is not what is, it is not, therefore, reality.

TE: Excellent!! This is the point I've been trying to make for months now. I'm glad you finally agree!

MM: Yesterday and today are realities, it is what is, but the future is not reality because it is not “what is”. As such, the future is never, from our perspective, reality.

From God’s perspective, however, the future is what is, therefore, it is reality. From God's perspective, the future is happening, therefore, it is what is, that is, it is reality. So, reality is not the same for us and God.

Not that the essence of reality or the future is different; instead, it has to do with timing, that is, when reality is experienced. God experiences the future before we do, thus, He experiences it as reality before we do.

TE: Ok, I'm glad you've seen what I've been trying to say for quite some time now, which is that reality is what God perceives it to be, not what we perceive it to be. A consequence of this idea is that we cannot have free will, at least not according to the libertarian idea. I'll comment on that later.

MM: Reality is not what God "perceives it to be" as opposed to what we "perceive it to be" - reality is what is.

Since God experiences the past, present, and future in real time, as it is happening, and not, as it were, before it happens, it does not prevent free will.