Tom, yes I understand.

In view of MM's position we need to be clear.

That which is called the plan of Salvation, has to do with God's work of saving us from sin; rather than a program or plan for the progress and process of sin.

But is not the "plan of Salvation" largely misunderstood?

Hence this topic!

MM you did not respond to this:

Yes, of course, the plan of salvation is largely misunderstood. It is not seen at a plan to save us from sin, but as something else.

I understand your use of the word "program," as in so many man-made ideas to get this or that done. God's "program" is not one of mindless activity, but one of revelation, or to use your language, one of education, to teach us to see through His eyes.

I'm still thinking about the conscience idea. Instead of saying "I don't have a slate; I have a conscience" another way of putting it is that our conscience is the slate that gets wiped clean.

Everything important that happens, happens in the mind (not in books).

That would miss the point. You see, wiping the slate has an inanimate aspect. The slate is no better before or after; it can only be used by others for their purposes.

If God were to wipe my conscience, I would be an imbecile. The cleansing of the conscience is unlike the wiping of a slate.

The cleansing of the conscience is a work of enlightenment, dispelling the darkness. It is the changing from glory to glory.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

I responded on the other thread where you posted this. I wasn't thinking in the terms you are regarding the empty slate. You're ight that one could look at it that way, as an inatimate object being cleansed by an arbitrary mechanism. I also agree with you that conceiving of things as a legal process leads to this way of thinking.

TE: God allowed choice to derail His original plan, which was that sin would never occur.

MM: I disagree.

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. {AG 129.2}

TE: God allowed choice to derail His original plan, which was that sin would never occur.

MM: I disagree.

So you believe that it was God's original plan that sin should occur? I guess you don't see there being a problem of having the existence of sin being something which God desires?

No, Tom, what I disagreed with was the idea that "God allowed choice to derail His original plan." So far as we know the following insight deals with God's only plan. Nowhere does it say in the Bible or the SOP that sin derailed God's original plan, and that what is happening now is plan B.

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. {AG 129.2}

I stated that God allowed choice to derail His original plan. You disagreed. This means that choice did not derail His original plan, which means that His original plan was not derailed, which means that sin was His original plan.

This is straightforward logic, MM. You can't logically agree with both my original statement and its negation.

Tom, please show me where it says what God foresaw did not involve the fall and death of FMAs.

The following quote says God knew man would sin but that it did not deter Him carrying out His "eternal" purpose. You cannot get more "original" than eternal.

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. {AG 129.2}

No, Tom, God did not want us to sin. He did not create us to sin. He designed us to be holy and righteous, just like Jesus. He only had two options, 1) to create us and deal with the sin problem, or 2) not to create us and not have to deal with the sin problem. The same logic applies to the angels.

Obviously He chose to create us. Why? Because "the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness." That's why! That's the only reason we are given as to why God chose to create us in spite of the fact He knew we would sin and that some of us would reject Jesus and despise His sacrifice and die in the lake of fire.

Again, I ask, does the end justify the means? In other words, God is going to lose a majority to save a minority, so, does the end justify the means? Or, would it have been better if God had chosen not to create us in the first place? It would have saved Him losing the majority, right?