Or create us and we wouldnt have sinned? Was that ever a possibility?

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

Why would I do that? That's the opposite of what I've been saying. That would be like me asking you to show me where it says that the future is not like a T.V. rerun.

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.

Your logic is wrong here. It assumes that God could only create man in such a way that he would sin. That is, you're leaving out a third possibility: 3) to create us, and not have to deal with the sin problem (in human beings; there still would have been a sin problem to deal with) because we chose not to sin, as God intended.

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.

You have a habit overstating things, which leads to your having to backtrack. Here you are stating that "that's the only reason we are given" when you should state instead, "that's the only reason I've come accross."

God did not create us with the intention that we should sin, as you seem to be suggesting. You are stating that there were only two possibilities: 1)God could not create us 2)God would create us, and we would sin. You are further reasoning that God created us anyway because He would establish His throne in righteousness, making it sound as if it was part of God's plan that we should sin, so that He could establish His throne in righteousness. I think I'll stop here to see if you agree with this.

Again, I ask, does the end justify the means?

This would imply that the means are immoral, and need justifying. Again, I answer, "no." The end does not justify the means. I like (I think it was JB? who put it this way) the idea that the means are validated by the end. But the phrase "the end justifies the means" implies there is something faulty with the means, which is justified by the end result.

In other words, God is going to lose a majority to save a minority, so, does the end justify the means?

This is taking a myopic view of things. God created millions of worlds who did not sin. The vast majority of creation will not be lost. We're just a tiny speck. God safeguarded the universe, even though a tiny minority will be lost.

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?

No. God created millions of worlds, and any of these millions of worlds could have sinned. He would have had to refrain not just from creating us, but these millions of worlds as well, and refrained from creating the angels as well. As soon as God created sentient beings with the ability to love and be loved, the possibility for sin existed. You can't have the one without the other. (I'm speaking of the possibility of sin here; it was by no means necessary that this possibility be realized, but God foresaw the possibility, and was ready for it)

MM, you did not respond to this question yet. Would you please?

It is simpler to think on a personal basis.

Simply put:

Is your salvation affected by your choice, or God leaves nothing to your choice.

The issue of the great Controversy is after all a personal matter. You are one part of it, and God deals with each one of us individually.

TV: Or create us and we wouldnt have sinned? Was that ever a possibility?

MM: Obviously not. Otherwise, that's how God would have done it.

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. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

TE: I'm speaking of the possibility of sin here; it was by no means necessary that this possibility be realized, but God foresaw the possibility, and was ready for it.

MM: That's not how Sister White put it. She said God knew FMAs would choose to sin - not that He knew it was a possibility.

JB: Is your salvation affected by your choice, or God leaves nothing to your choice. The issue of the great Controversy is after all a personal matter. You are one part of it, and God deals with each one of us individually.

MM: "Is your salvation affected by your choice ..." Yes. I must choose to serve Jesus. The choice to be lost is made by default.

"You are one part of it ..." Yes, but a very small part of it. Whether I choose to serve Jesus or not will not change the outcome of the GC. God will win the GC with or without me.

The default is to be saved. One must fight to be lost.



Not only must one choose to be lost, but it is a difficult thing to do:



Notice the part that says, "God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves." This means that God's love has made it hard to be lost.

Thank the Lord for the good news of the Gospel! The gospel is not that it is hard to be saved, and by default that we are lost, as if God were making it hard for us to get to heaven. God is working hard not to keep us out, but to get us in! His love makes it hard for us to destroy ourselves. (I like how she puts this as well. Hard for us to destroy ourselves, as opposed to, "hard for us to avoid His killing us because we don't obey His rules.")

Not only is the good news that God has made it hard for us to destroy ourselves; it is even better than that!



God will not only justify us, if we don't resist His drawing, but He will perfect us as well. The Good News is good!

TV: Or create us and we wouldnt have sinned? Was that ever a possibility?

MM: Obviously not. Otherwise, that's how God would have done it.

This comment brings out the problems in your philosophy. First of all, this idea is directly contrary to inspiration. Secondly, it speaks very badly of God. Thirdly, it misstates things. I'll take things in reverse order.

It misstates things because it puts things as if whether or not man would sin was something controlled by God. It puts God in a bad light, because it makes Him, rather than Satan (and man) responsible for man's sin. Thirdly it directly contradicts inspiration because inspiration tells us that the entrance of sin is a mystery for which no explanation can be given. Clearly "Otherwise, that's not how God would have done it." is providing an explanation (i.e., God created things in such a way that man would sin) where we are told none should be given. (to explain the entrance of sin is to excuse it).

TE: I'm speaking of the possibility of sin here; it was by no means necessary that this possibility be realized, but God foresaw the possibility, and was ready for it.

MM: That's not how Sister White put it. She said God knew FMAs would choose to sin - not that He knew it was a possibility.

No, that's not what she said. She said this:

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}

You are interpreting this to mean what you think it means, but you are not taking into account other things which she wrote on the subject. She suggests that we (just like when we study Scripture) take into account all her writings on a subject, not just take one thing. For example, she wrote the following:



This makes it crystal clear that EGW did not view the future as you do, as being like a T.V. rerun (T.V. reruns have no risk!).

In the Story of Redemption we are told, " It was not the will of God that this sinless pair should have any knowledge of evil." (p. 34). This means it was not God's will that man would eat of the forbidden tree. According to you, if God had not wanted man to sin, "that's how God would have done it."

There's nothing wrong with how God did things! Sin arose not because of God's desire that man should sin, but in spite of His desire that man sin. To suggest that man sinned because of God is to blight His character. God is not willing that any should perish.



Here we see that God mad with Jesus three times. What was the purpose of this meeting?



Obviously if God always knew man was going to sin at this precise moment, and knew what He would do (send His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss), there could not have been any struggle. Everything about the account of man's fall makes it clear that it was a real emergency that had to be met. God had foreseen the possibility of man's fall, but it was not an inevitable event, as everything about the account indicates.

Therefore your interpretation of AG 129.2 must be rejected, as it does not fit with the rest of the evidence.