I’ve already admitted that my use of the word “chance” was wrong. Here’s what I posted about it:


The point is - There were only two possible outcomes. Either FMAs would sin or they wouldn't. On this we agree. I also admit that the equation 50/50 doesn't apply in this context.

Tom, I posted the context; the entire post, in fact. You’ll find it at the beginning of my post. It’s just that I didn’t address all of it, which consisted of constructive criticism, coaching, etc. Ever the teacher, you are.

TE: I agree with you on this new point, which is that I believe from God's perspective that sin was unlikely, whereas you believe it was a certainty.

MM: Good.

TE: I think your idea has a huge philosphical problem to it, which is why God would do something that was certain to mess up. Why not create something that would work properly?

MM: It did work properly, just as God foresaw it. Everything has, and is, unfolding just as God knew it would. He foresaw sin and salvation working just as it is. No problem. In the end God's will prevails.

You admit that the way things are unfolding is one of the ways God foresaw that it might turn out, and that He was willing to go though with it even if things should play out accordingly.

How is that any different than the view I have embraced?

I find this hard to believe, Tom. That God can promise something, even to the point of swearing it on Himself, and yet there be a possibility that He is wrong. Consider the following insights regarding swearing:

Matthew
5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Hebrews
6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
6:14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

TE: If God created beings certain to sin, then God is responsible for the existence of sin.

MM: On this we agree. I suppose you also agree that God did not force them to sin.

TE: He could have created beings that wouldn't sin.

MM: Again, even you admit that God foresaw the possibility of FMAs sinning, and yet He chose to create them anyhow. Why didn’t He create FMAs He knew would never chose to sin? Why did He run the risk?

So, are you basing your theory on logical deduction? Or, are you basing it on a plain, Thus saith the Lord? Are you attempting to force AG 129 (and DA 22) to say what it clearly doesn’t say? Neither one of these inspired passages imply "could". They plainly say God knew in advance FMAs would sin and rebel.

Tom, you are assuming too much. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are forcing her plain statements to mean something they clearly do not say. Such crystal clear statements do not need interpreting. Just because she introduced a risk concept does not mean we are required to interpret her plainest statements regarding God’s foreknowledge to mean He did not know with certainty if FMAs would rebel. She never placed those two insights in the same context and like you are doing. Why not?

Your answer implies you believe the great controversy was necessary before God could foresee a future without rebellion. I disagree.

As I said, the inhabitants of the universe would understand that those who disagree with God’s government have no right to life (and this is true), but wouldn’t understand why, and this would lead to a situation similar to what happened after Satan rebelled. God couldn't cease to sustain his life because the universe wouldn't understand the reasons behind this, and might be led to serve Him for fear, which would end up blossoming into rebellion.

The word “prefer” is inappropriate. It insinuates God wanted rebellion to occur. We both know that isn’t the case. Nevertheless, knowing FMAs would sin did not “deter Him” from creating them.


You didn’t address the following observations (I’ll address yours in the following section):

1. She says "but He foresaw its existence". She did not say He foresaw the possibility of its existence.

2. She says "yet it did not deter Him". Why would a "low probability" of FMAs rebelling "deter" God?

3. She says "for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness". This answer only makes sense, to me, if God choose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance they would rebel. Not to create FMAs versus winning a minority and losing a majority were His choices.


It is true that God could have chosen not create Lucifer. The idea that He could have created another being instead doesn’t make sense to me. He could have also chosen not to create the angels who sided with Lucifer in rebellion.

Why didn’t God choose not to create Lucifer? As I said before, the answer is implied in DA 22 and AG 129. I realize you don’t believe they do answer the question. But in my mind they do.

Again, the same question applies to the theory you advocate. By now, though, I’m sure you have addressed it in the posts preceding this one. If God foresaw, as one of many possible outcomes, FMAs rebelling – Why did He choose to create them anyhow? Did He know in advance which ones might sin and which ones would definitely not sin?

The word “prefer” is inappropriate. It insinuates God wanted rebellion to occur.

That's not true. "Prefer" is the correct word to use here. To "prefer" is to give preference to. "Preference" means:

[quote]The act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others[/color]

Clearly bringing Lucifer to life instead of the creatures He could have brought to life in his place was giving preference to Lucifer.

Your "insuates" comment brings a question to mind, however. Do you think God wanted rebellion to occur?

We both know that isn’t the case. Nevertheless, knowing FMAs would sin did not “deter Him” from creating them.

I guess this answers my question. It seems illogical to me to take the position that God took a specific action that could only result in rebellion occuring, in the place of a specific action that would have resulted in rebellion not occuring, and at the same time maintain that God did not want rebellion to occur. If He didn't want it to occur, why did He set in action a course of events that could only result in that outcome?


You didn’t address the following observations (I’ll address yours in the following section):

1. She says "but He foresaw its existence". She did not say He foresaw the possibility of its existence.

I've addressed this many times.

2. She says "yet it did not deter Him". Why would a "low probability" of FMAs rebelling "deter" God?

Because the low probability was for an exceedling horrific event.

3. She says "for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness". This answer only makes sense, to me, if God choose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance they would rebel.

This doesn't follow at all. It makes every bit as much sense to assert that God would establish His throne in righteousness should sin occur as it does to say, even thought sin had to come about as a result of God's decision to create Lucifer, He would establish His throne in righteousness.

Not to create FMAs versus winning a minority and losing a majority were His choices.

This is incorrect, as I pointed out. God could have created FMAs such that 100% of them would have chosen to follow Him. Easy as pie, given your perspective. Think of a puppet, or model of clay, set up to live, needing only that God breathe into it. Before God breathed the breath of life into this creature, He would know whether or not sin would result in this action of His. It would be 100% one way or the other. No probability, just certainty. Either yes sin, or no sin. All God would have to do would be give the breath of life to the being to be created only if the result of such would be no sin. Then He would have wound up with 100% of FMAs choosing not to sin.

It is true that God could have chosen not create Lucifer. The idea that He could have created another being instead doesn’t make sense to me.

It should. The alternative is that God was somehow constrained in His ability to create. Surely He could have created a billion different angels, right? I mean, God had the ability to do so, right? The only conclusion I see is that God chose to create Lucifer instead of other beings He could have created because Lucifer was the best choice. This makes perfect sense from my perspective, but I don't see how to make this work in yours. So one way or another it looks to me like you're constrained to believe something illogical. For example, that God could not have created another bieng instead of Lucifer. Do you think it was likewise impossible for God to have created a different man other than Adam?

He could have also chosen not to create the angels who sided with Lucifer in rebellion.

Now this makes sense. Yes, God could have chosen to do this as well.

Why didn’t God choose not to create Lucifer? As I said before, the answer is implied in DA 22 and AG 129. I realize you don’t believe they do answer the question. But in my mind they do.

It really doesn't. It just begs other questions. For example, why would creating beings God knew would sin establish God's thrown in righteousness? IOW how is righteousness served by creating creatures that are certain be unrighteous? Wouldn't righteousness be better served by creating righteous creatures?

Again, the same question applies to the theory you advocate.

No, it doesn't at all. I hope you can understand why, as this is an important distinction. What I am suggesting is that inherent in the creation of beings that can love and be loved is free will, and inherent in that is the possibility of rejection. God could not create beings with free will without running the risk that rebellion might occur. What you are suggesting is vastly different than this, however, because under your scenario there was no chance of anything occuring, only certainty. God created things in such a way, under your scenario, where sin was certain to occur. God could have created things differently so that sin would not have occured, but He, for some reason as yet unspecified, chose not to do so. Under the scearnio I am suggesting, the possibility of sin occured, due to the nature of free will, but God made no choices that would make that undesired outcome more likely, not to mention certain.

These are very different scenarios, MM.


By now, though, I’m sure you have addressed it in the posts preceding this one. If God foresaw, as one of many possible outcomes, FMAs rebelling – Why did He choose to create them anyhow? Did He know in advance which ones might sin and which ones would definitely not sin?

God created beings that might sin because He thought is was worth the risk. As I stated a number of times now, I believe that the possibilty of rejection is inherent in the creation of beings that can love and be loved. If there were any way that God could have created free will beings and be certain that sin would not occur, I am 100% convinced that God would have done that.