Agree.



I'm not following this. Sin doesn't add anything. It doesn't make God any more loving than He already was. Wouldn't the loving thing to do be to not bring sin into the world?

Also, God was in no way constrained to create Lucifer. He could have just as easily created a different covering cherub. What reason could there be to prefer Lucifer? Because God though of him first?

Imagine God thinking: "I need a covering cherub. Who shall I create? Ah, Lucifer. But there's a problem. Lucifer will sin. Oh, well. Too bad. I'll create Him anyway, to show I'm love."

I don't see how this can be construed in a way that makes sense. One is forced, logically, to come to the conclusion that God wanted sin to exist. How does one get around this?

TE: I think that love involves risk. To create beings that could love, one must create beings with free will, since love involves free will.

MM: Risk? It would have been a risk if God didn't know in advance which FMAs would choose to sin. But if God did know, then there was no risk involved, right?

TE: Free will involves the possibility of rejection. So God created beings knowing it was possible that they would reject Him.

MM: If God foresaw all the possible outcomes, including FMAs sinning and rebelling against Him, why did He create them? Why didn't it "deter" (ibid) Him from creating them?

TE: Also, God was in no way constrained to create Lucifer. He could have just as easily created a different covering cherub.

MM: But according to the idea you are espousing, God would have had no way of knowing if creating a different covering cherub would have yielded different results. So, based on this logic, no matter what, God was running the risk of creating FMAs who might end up sinning and dying.

How is God not knowing and running a risk better than what I believe?

Say you have a rare gene, that could cause a child of yours to be born with a bad disease. The chances of this happening are 1 in a billion, if you don't know if your partner has the same gene. If she does have it, your child will certainly get the bad disease.

What you believe is analogous to your choosing to have a child knowing that in so doing you are dooming your child to suffering with this terrible disease. What I believe is analogous to choosing to have a child when there is a 1 in a billion chance of it leading to its having the disease.

I see no problem with either scenario. Choosing to have a child knowing it will have a terrible disease is fine. Why? Because the child will eventually be translated or resurrected without disease and enjoy eternity in heaven.

Having children is a big risk no matter what, right? You have no idea of knowing in advance how they will turn out? They might end up sick or healthy, good or bad, saved or lost.

How is the idea you are advocating (God did not know in advance who would sin) any better than the one I am advocating (God did know in advance who woould sin)?

Why did Sister White say knowing in advance who would sin did not "deter" God from creating them? She didn't say the "possible defection", she plainly says "the defection".

"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."

I used this as an analogy to explain to you why a scenario where there is a 1 in a billion chance of something bad happening is better than a certainty that a bad thing will happen. Your very odd point here that it is OK to have a child with a terrible disease is completely irrelevant, which should be obvious. Use your own analogy. The simple point is that a scenario where a bad thing happens one in a billion times is better than a scenario where it happens 1 in 1 time.



Because having a bad thing happen 1 in a billion times is better than having it happen 1 in 1 times.



"Possible" is implied. It comes from comparing all the things she wrote, not just honing in on one text. Similar to GC 614, to understand things correctly, we need to look at more than just one text.

In the Education text I have quoted several times, she talks about how plan of redemption is like the ability of an organism being able to heal itself before the need for the healing exists. This implies that the creation of man had a remedy in place should the need arise.

If you take the position that the need was certain, and not possible, then you run into several problems.

For example, Scripture tells us that God repented that He had made man. Why would He have repented, if it was a certainty that man would act the way he did?

Ellen White also speaks of the risk that God took in creating man, which is incompatible with the idea of certainty that you are suggesting.

In addition to this, there are philosophical problems with this position. Specifically it would make God, and not Satan or man, responsible for sin. You seem to recognize this, at least implicitly, because you have written that God is the "author of sin."

TE: The simple point is that a scenario where a bad thing happens one in a billion times is better than a scenario where it happens 1 in 1 time.

MM: Better? In what way?

TE: "Possible" is implied.

MM: I disagree. The concept may be implied elsewhere, but in this particular passage. Right?

TE: For example, Scripture tells us that God repented that He had made man. Why would He have repented, if it was a certainty that man would act the way he did?

MM: Why does God sometimes ask questions to which He knows the answers? The fact God said it "repented Him" in no way implies He had no idea man would choose to sin.

TE: Ellen White also speaks of the risk that God took in creating man, which is incompatible with the idea of certainty that you are suggesting.

MM: Where? What risk?

TE: In addition to this, there are philosophical problems with this position. Specifically it would make God, and not Satan or man, responsible for sin. You seem to recognize this, at least implicitly, because you have written that God is the "author of sin."

MM: Tom, what do you think I mean when I say - God is the author of sin? Please explain. Thank you.

It is certain that He had not "repented" because He had changed His mind, regretting His decision to create man.

TE: The simple point is that a scenario where a bad thing happens one in a billion times is better than a scenario where it happens 1 in 1 time.

MM: Better? In what way?

TE: "Possible" is implied.

MM: I disagree. The concept may be implied elsewhere, but not in this particular passage. Right?

TE: For example, Scripture tells us that God repented that He had made man. Why would He have repented, if it was a certainty that man would act the way he did?

MM: Why does God sometimes ask questions to which He knows the answers? He often says things that are hard to understand. The fact God said it "repenteth me" in no way implies He had no idea man would choose to sin.

TE: Ellen White also speaks of the risk that God took in creating man, which is incompatible with the idea of certainty that you are suggesting.

MM: Where does she say it? What risk? Why was it a risk?

TE: In addition to this, there are philosophical problems with this position. Specifically it would make God, and not Satan or man, responsible for sin. You seem to recognize this, at least implicitly, because you have written that God is the "author of sin."

MM: Tom, what do you think I mean when I say - God is the author of sin? Please explain. Thank you.

I'm not sure what you're saying, Rosangela, but that's just one example among many in Scripture which provides evidence that the future is not a single-threaded thing.

Here's another example:



Scripture in general presents God as one who is impacted by the things that happen, not as One who reacts like nothing that happens was unexpected. For example, God reacts with genuine emotion all over the place. It's difficult to see the sense of this from the perspective that God has seen everything that will happen for all eternity like a T.V. rerun.

An EGW vision comes to mind with the same difficulty, where Jesus went to the Father three times to convince the Father to allow Him to come to earth as our sacrifice. This is really hard to understand from the re-run perspective. First of all, there is the problem of why Jesus was so anxious to come but God so reticent. Secondly, what sense would it make that Jesus would go to the Father three times? It would have to be just some sort of show if God had known for all eternity exactly what was going to happen and what He would do. He would have known that Jesus would come to Him three times, and that on the third time He would agree. Why wouldn't two times have been enough, given He knew He was going to agree? Or one? Or, better yet, zero; why not just announce the plan?