Let's back up. Why do you think God foresaw, in the beginning, the possibility of FMAs sinning, whereas, in the end, God does not foresee the possibility of them sinning? What makes the difference? In both cases, FMAs are sinless and perfect. Here is the answer you gave:

"The difference, as I explained, is that in the one case the Great Controversy has been fought, and Jesus Christ has perfectly revealed what God is like. The cross happened. Do you really think this doesn't make any difference?"

Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

God created beings to love and be loved. This necessitated free will, and with it, the possibility of rejection.

1. Is it because Jesus hadn't revealed the character of God yet? If so, why didn't He?

In the case of humans, human beings sinned before they knew God's character. God, in the person of Jesus Christ, was revealing His character to them, but they sinned early on, before they knew the fullness of God's love and character. In the case of Lucifer, he sinned knowing God's character.

2. Is it because Jesus hadn't died on the cross yet? If so, why didn't He?

In the case of Lucifer, it wouldn't have made any difference, since Lucifer knew the fullness of God's love and character. In the case of man, it wouldn't have made any difference for Jesus to die on a cross before man sinned, would it? Man wouldn't have understood it as an act of love. It would have been nonsensical.

3. Was there something more God could have done, in the beginning, but didn't do, to foresee a future without FMAs sinning? If so, why didn't He do it?

Not under my perspective.

Under yours there was. God, before creating a creature, saw if sin would exist after the creation of said being. He could have simply not created the being if sin would result.

In the case of Lucifer, under your perspective, God saw that sin would result upon creating him, yet God chose to do so. You think this is because He would establish His throne in righteousness by so doing, if I've understood you correctly. This sounds to me like you think God was wiling to do something that would make sin inevitable in order that He could make Himself look good.

I can't see any way that God comes out looking good in the scenario where He created a being that He was certain would sin.

TE: I would say there is the essential difference that you believe God created beings He was certain would sin, whereas I believe God created beings that He knew might sin.

MM: And the reason God created them, even though He knew they might sin, was because ... the chances of them sinning was so small it was worth the risk? And this sounds like a loving, omniscient, sovereign, totally in control God to you?

How is the view you espouse better than the one I believe? How is knowing they "might" sin compared to knowing they "will" sin vastly better? Both involve the sin problem. Both require the plan of salvation in order to go though with it (to create FMAs).

MM: Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

TE: God created beings to love and be loved. This necessitated free will, and with it, the possibility of rejection.

MM: How does this apply to the end? Since having a free will means sinning is inherently possible, how can God foresee, in the end, a future without the possibility of FMAs sinning?

---

MM: Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

1. Is it because Jesus hadn't revealed the character of God yet? If so, why didn't He?

TE: In the case of humans, human beings sinned before they knew God's character. God, in the person of Jesus Christ, was revealing His character to them, but they sinned early on, before they knew the fullness of God's love and character. In the case of Lucifer, he sinned knowing God's character.

MM: Earlier you said the difference has to do with the incarnated Jesus revealing the character of God. That is, in the end, the reason God foresees a future without FMAs sinning is because they are familiar with the character of God as revealed through the incarnated Jesus.

With this in mind, is that why God foresaw, in the beginning, a future that included the possibility of FMAs sinning, because as yet they were unfamiliar with the character of God as revealed through the incarnated Jesus?

Was it necessary for the incarnated Jesus to reveal the character of God before it was possible for God to see a future without FMAs sinning? If so, why, then, did God wait until after FMAs sinned to reveal His character through the incarnated Jesus? Why didn't He do it in the beginning to circumvent the possibility of sinning?

---

MM: Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

2. Is it because Jesus hadn't died on the cross yet? If so, why didn't He?

TE: In the case of Lucifer, it wouldn't have made any difference, since Lucifer knew the fullness of God's love and character. In the case of man, it wouldn't have made any difference for Jesus to die on a cross before man sinned, would it? Man wouldn't have understood it as an act of love. It would have been nonsensical.

MM: Nonsensical? On the contrary! Earlier you said difference has to do with the cross. That is, in the end, the reason God foresees a future without FMAs sinning is because they are familiar with the cross.

If the cross is one of the main reasons, in the end, why God does not foresee a future with FMAs sinning - Can we conclude this is why God was unable to foresee a future, in the beginning, without FMAs sinning (because the cross would have been nonsensical to pre-fall FMAs)?

Also, since FMAs had a perfect revelation of God's character (by the time Lucifer began to rebel), how was it possible for God, in the beginning, to foresee a future that included FMAs sinning (considering you believe it is the perfect revelation of God's character that enables Him to foresee, in the end, a future without FMAs sinning)?

---

MM: Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

3. Was there something more God could have done, in the beginning, but didn't do, to foresee a future without FMAs sinning? If so, why didn't He do it?

TE: Not under my perspective. Under yours there was. God, before creating a creature, saw if sin would exist after the creation of said being. He could have simply not created the being if sin would result. In the case of Lucifer, under your perspective, God saw that sin would result upon creating him, yet God chose to do so. You think this is because He would establish His throne in righteousness by so doing, if I've understood you correctly. This sounds to me like you think God was wiling to do something that would make sin inevitable in order that He could make Himself look good. I can't see any way that God comes out looking good in the scenario where He created a being that He was certain would sin.

MM: I mean, besides not creating the FMAs that ended up sinning. My question addresses a different point. Earlier you said it is 1) the revelation of God's character through the life of the incarnated Jesus and 2) through His death on the cross that enables God to foresee, in the end, a future without FMAs sinning.

Are these revelations necessary in order for God to foresee a future without FMAs sinning? If so, does this mean sinning and salvation were necessary? If not, what else would have worked as well, would have enabled God to foresee a future, in the beginning, without FMAs sinning? What could God have done, in the beginning, which would have yielded the same results as Jesus’ twofold revelation of God’s character?

TE: I would say there is the essential difference that you believe God created beings He was certain would sin, whereas I believe God created beings that He knew might sin.

MM: And the reason God created them, even though He knew they might sin, was because ... the chances of them sinning was so small it was worth the risk? And this sounds like a loving, omniscient, sovereign, totally in control God to you?

Yes. I don't see what the problem is here. It's certainly better than the scenario that God did something that could only end up in sin occurring.

How is the view you espouse better than the one I believe?

Because in my view God is not doing something that caused sin to certainly happen.

How is knowing they "might" sin compared to knowing they "will" sin vastly better?

Because taking a risk that something might happen is better than doing something you know for certain will result in something bad. I've given you several examples of this. For example, having a child that you know will suffer a terrible disease is worse than having one you know has a small chance of getting it.

Your response to this I thought was absolutely incredible, that is was OK to bring a child into the world that you knew for certain would suffer terribly because the child could be saved. Incredible, but beside the point, which is that doing something that has a small chance in resulting in something bad is better than doing something that is certain to do something bad.

Both involve the sin problem. Both require the plan of salvation in order to go though with it (to create FMAs).

One involves the certainty of sin occurring, while the other doesn't. The plan of salvation would not have been necessary had sin not occurred.

MM: Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

TE: God created beings to love and be loved. This necessitated free will, and with it, the possibility of rejection.

MM: How does this apply to the end? Since having a free will means sinning is inherently possible, how can God foresee, in the end, a future without the possibility of FMAs sinning?

By the end, I assume you mean after the GC has played out. As EGW points out, all the questions regarding have been played out, and the universe has been safeguarded from sin reoccurring by Jesus Christ's revelation of God through the plan of salvation.

---

MM: Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

1. Is it because Jesus hadn't revealed the character of God yet? If so, why didn't He?

TE: In the case of humans, human beings sinned before they knew God's character. God, in the person of Jesus Christ, was revealing His character to them, but they sinned early on, before they knew the fullness of God's love and character. In the case of Lucifer, he sinned knowing God's character.

MM: Earlier you said the difference has to do with the incarnated Jesus revealing the character of God. That is, in the end, the reason God foresees a future without FMAs sinning is because they are familiar with the character of God as revealed through the incarnated Jesus.

Ellen White says this.

With this in mind, is that why God foresaw, in the beginning, a future that included the possibility of FMAs sinning, because as yet they were unfamiliar with the character of God as revealed through the incarnated Jesus?

The challenges of Lucifer had not come to pass. He knew it was possible Lucifer would rebel.

Was it necessary for the incarnated Jesus to reveal the character of God before it was possible for God to see a future without FMAs sinning? I

No; Lucifer knew the character of God.

If so, why, then, did God wait until after FMAs sinned to reveal His character through the incarnated Jesus? Why didn't He do it in the beginning to circumvent the possibility of sinning?

Lucifer knew the character of God, so it wasn't necessary for God to do something special to reveal His character to him. Certainly He would have done so if it would have done any good.

---

MM: Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

2. Is it because Jesus hadn't died on the cross yet? If so, why didn't He?

TE: In the case of Lucifer, it wouldn't have made any difference, since Lucifer knew the fullness of God's love and character. In the case of man, it wouldn't have made any difference for Jesus to die on a cross before man sinned, would it? Man wouldn't have understood it as an act of love. It would have been nonsensical.

MM: Nonsensical? On the contrary!

Of course. What sense would it have made to Adam and Eve to see Christ die on a cross, before that had sinned. Can you explain this to me please?

Earlier you said difference has to do with the cross. That is, in the end, the reason God foresees a future without FMAs sinning is because they are familiar with the cross.

The cross was a revelation of God's love.

It seems to me you are making this unnecessarily complicated. Lucifer, knowing God's character, chose to sin. He rebelled, in the full knowledge of God's character, and by deception got others to join him in his rebellion. By a revelation of God's love and character, it was possible to win back man, who did not know the fullness of God's love and character. This is from "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages."



If the cross is one of the main reasons, in the end, why God does not foresee a future with FMAs sinning - Can we conclude this is why God was unable to foresee a future, in the beginning, without FMAs sinning (because the cross would have been nonsensical to pre-fall FMAs)?

This is an awkward question. Could you rephrase it please?

Also, since FMAs had a perfect revelation of God's character (by the time Lucifer began to rebel), how was it possible for God, in the beginning, to foresee a future that included FMAs sinning (considering you believe it is the perfect revelation of God's character that enables Him to foresee, in the end, a future without FMAs sinning)?

According to inspiration, a being sinned in the full knowledge of God's love and character. This being led others to rebel along with him. This creature raised questions regarding God's character and love. The plan of salvation revealed the answers to these questions, and safeguarded the universe.


MM: Since, in the beginning, FMAs were sinless and perfect - Why did God foresee the possibility of them sinning?

God created beings to love and be loved, which necessitated free will and the possibility of rejection.

3. Was there something more God could have done, in the beginning, but didn't do, to foresee a future without FMAs sinning? If so, why didn't He do it?

TE: Not under my perspective. Under yours there was. God, before creating a creature, saw if sin would exist after the creation of said being. He could have simply not created the being if sin would result. In the case of Lucifer, under your perspective, God saw that sin would result upon creating him, yet God chose to do so. You think this is because He would establish His throne in righteousness by so doing, if I've understood you correctly. This sounds to me like you think God was wiling to do something that would make sin inevitable in order that He could make Himself look good. I can't see any way that God comes out looking good in the scenario where He created a being that He was certain would sin.

MM: I mean, besides not creating the FMAs that ended up sinning.

That's a pretty big thing!

My question addresses a different point. Earlier you said it is 1) the revelation of God's character through the life of the incarnated Jesus and 2) through His death on the cross that enables God to foresee, in the end, a future without FMAs sinning.

Are these revelations necessary in order for God to foresee a future without FMAs sinning?

Your trying to link things, it looks to me, that shouldn't be linked. God is simply seeing reality. There's no need to bring God's foreknowledge into the question.

What you're really asking is if it was necessary for there to be a revelation of the love and character of God to ensure that sin would not arise again, and the answer is yes.

If so, does this mean sinning and salvation were necessary?

No, certainly not. Lucifer nearly repented. Had Lucifer repented, then the plan of salvation would not have been necessary, as he would not have led a rebellion.

If not, what else would have worked as well, would have enabled God to foresee a future, in the beginning, without FMAs sinning?

I'm not understanding why you think something would have worked. God created FMAs perfect. That sin occurred is a mystery. There is no explanation for why it happened.

What could God have done, in the beginning, which would have yielded the same results as Jesus’ twofold revelation of God’s character?

Surely if God could have done something, He would have done it.

Your questions are bringing out the real weakness in your position. You are asking me what God could have done better. Under the scenario I am suggesting, there is nothing God could have done better. However, under your scenario, God could have done something better; He could have simply not chosen to create a being He knew would certainly sin over one He knew would certainly not sin.

MM: How is the view you espouse better than the one I believe?

TE: Because in my view God is not doing something that caused sin to certainly happen.

MM: What about the fact that what God did do certainly resulted in FMAs sinning? Especially in light of the fact God, according to the view you advocate, knew it might happen.

---

MM: How is knowing they "might" sin compared to knowing they "will" sin vastly better?

TE: Because taking a risk that something might happen is better than doing something you know for certain will result in something bad.

MM: But not as good as not creating FMAs, right? So, just because you think the view you advocate is better than the one I believe, it doesn't mean your view is "good". It still begs the question - Why didn't God do what was best? Why didn't He opt for a plan that would result in sinning never occurring? The fact He was willing to do something (i.e., create FMAs) that had even a slight chance of resulting in sinning happening, suggests He was reckless.

---

MM: Both involve the sin problem. Both require the plan of salvation in order to go though with it (to create FMAs).

TE: One involves the certainty of sin occurring, while the other doesn't. The plan of salvation would not have been necessary had sin not occurred.

MM: Even according to your view, God could not have gone through with creating FMAs without having in place the plan of salvation as a backup plan (in case FMAs end up rebelling). This fact means God was willing to do something in spite of the fact it could result in sinning. Why would a loving, omniscient God take such a risk? Because it was worth it, right?

From my point of view, God did not take a risk. He made an informed, intelligent decision to go through with it. Why? Why would a loving, omniscient God choose to create FMAs knowing in advance they would choose to rebel? My answer to this question is the same as your answer to it - It was worth it!

Yes, "the end" refers to after the GC has ended. But what does believing the truth about God's character have to do with the fact possessing free will necessitates the possibility of sinning? Since having a free will means sinning is inherently possible, how can God foresee, in the end, a future without the possibility of FMAs sinning? The two are mutually exclusive, aren't they?

If knowing the truth about God's character is what makes it possible for God to foresee a future without the possibiity of FMAs sinning, and since Lucifer knew and appreciated the truth about the character of God, how was it possible for God, in the beginning (before FMAs were created) to foresee a future that included the possibility of FMAs sinning?

And, how can you be so certain that having similar knowledge and appreciation of God's character makes it possible for God, in the end, to foresee a future that does not include the possibility of FMAs sinning? If it didn't work in the beginning, how can you be sure it will work in the end?

MM: Nonsensical? On the contrary!

TE: Of course. What sense would it have made to Adam and Eve to see Christ die on a cross, before that had sinned. Can you explain this to me please?

MM: Sin already existed, right? The angels explained it to them. Jesus could have shown them a panoramic portrayal of what would be required to redeem them should they choose to sin. Which is what will happen if Jesus chooses to create new FMAs after the GC is ended. Are you suggesting such a preview, in the case of Adam and Eve, would have been nonsensical?

---

MM: Earlier you the said difference has to do with the cross. That is, in the end, the reason God foresees a future without FMAs sinning is because they are familiar with the cross.

TE: The cross was a revelation of God's love. It seems to me you are making this unnecessarily complicated. Lucifer, knowing God's character, chose to sin. He rebelled, in the full knowledge of God's character, and by deception got others to join him in his rebellion. By a revelation of God's love and character, it was possible to win back man, who did not know the fullness of God's love and character. This is from "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages."

MM: The "difference" I'm referring to is - Why did God foresee a future, in the beginning, that included the possibility of FMAs sinning; whereas, in the end, He does not foresee such a future? In both cases, FMAs are sinless and perfect, and have a perfect knowledge of God's character. So, what makes the difference? Why does God foresee two very different futures?

In response to these question, you wrote - "The difference, as I explained, is that in the one case the Great Controversy has been fought, and Jesus Christ has perfectly revealed what God is like. The cross happened. Do you really think this doesn't make any difference?"

Does your answer address the reason why God foresaw two different futures - Why He foresaw one that included the possibility of FMAs sinning and why the other one does not?

---

MM: If the cross is one of the main reasons, in the end, why God does not foresee a future with FMAs sinning - Can we conclude this is why God was unable to foresee a future, in the beginning, without FMAs sinning (because the cross would have been nonsensical to pre-fall FMAs)?

TE: This is an awkward question. Could you rephrase it please?

MM: If the cross is one of the main reasons why God does not foresee, in the end, a future that includes FMAs sinning - Can we conclude that the absence of the cross, in the beginning, is why God was unable to foresee a future that did not include FMAs sinning?

I think I know your answer: In the beginning, FMAs were able to completely grasp and appreciate the truth about God's character without the cross, therefore, the cross wasn't necessary in order for God to foresee a future without sinning. The reason why God foresaw, in the beginning, a future that included the possibility of sining is because He is omniscient.

But this answer does not address my question. Saying God knew it because He knows everything doesn't do it, for me, especially in light of your explanation as to how and why God knows sin will never rear its ugly head again. You say possessing free will inherently means sinning is a possibility, and then you say there is no possibility sinning will ever happen again because FMAs will know and appreciate the truth about God's character. According to you, such knowledge did not prevent FMAs from sinning in the beginning.

---

MM: Also, since FMAs had a perfect revelation of God's character (by the time Lucifer began to rebel), how was it possible for God, in the beginning, to foresee a future that included FMAs sinning (considering you believe it is the perfect revelation of God's character that enables Him to foresee, in the end, a future without FMAs sinning)?

TE: According to inspiration, a being sinned in the full knowledge of God's love and character. This being led others to rebel along with him. This creature raised questions regarding God's character and love. The plan of salvation revealed the answers to these questions, and safeguarded the universe.

MM: "According to inspiration, a being sinned in the full knowledge of God's love and character." According to you, the possession of this knowledge (a full knowledge of God's love and character) is exactly what enables God to confidently say FMAs will not sin again in the future.

How can God know having a knowledge of His character is what guarantees sin will not arise again if it didn't prevent sin from arising in the beginning?

MM: How is the view you espouse better than the one I believe?

TE: Because in my view God is not doing something that caused sin to certainly happen.

MM: What about the fact that what God did do certainly resulted in FMAs sinning? Especially in light of the fact God, according to the view you advocate, knew it might happen.

What about the fact that what God did do certainly resulted in FMAs sinning? This is a difficult question to decipher. Are you asking, what about the fact that after FMAs sinned, they certainly sinned? That's what it sounds like.

What about it? Please rephrase.

---

MM: How is knowing they "might" sin compared to knowing they "will" sin vastly better?

TE: Because taking a risk that something might happen is better than doing something you know for certain will result in something bad.

MM: But not as good as not creating FMAs, right?

God thought it was worth taking the risk.

So, just because you think the view you advocate is better than the one I believe, it doesn't mean your view is "good".

Why did you feel this was a point worth making?

It still begs the question - Why didn't God do what was best?

What?!? God did do what is best. Why are you asking questions like this?

Why didn't He opt for a plan that would result in sinning never occurring?

You mean create robots? What did you have in mind?

The fact He was willing to do something (i.e., create FMAs) that had even a slight chance of resulting in sinning happening, suggests He was reckless.

How would you characterize someone who purposely brought sin into the world? Evil? Is evil worse than reckless?

Instead of characterizing a position you disagree with in some negative way, why not just deal with the arguments?

---

MM: Both involve the sin problem. Both require the plan of salvation in order to go though with it (to create FMAs).

TE: One involves the certainty of sin occurring, while the other doesn't. The plan of salvation would not have been necessary had sin not occurred.

MM: Even according to your view, God could not have gone through with creating FMAs without having in place the plan of salvation as a backup plan (in case FMAs end up rebelling). This fact means God was willing to do something in spite of the fact it could result in sinning. Why would a loving, omniscient God take such a risk? Because it was worth it, right?

Right.

From my point of view, God did not take a risk. He made an informed, intelligent decision to go through with it. Why? Why would a loving, omniscient God choose to create FMAs knowing in advance they would choose to rebel? My answer to this question is the same as your answer to it - It was worth it!

The phrase "it was worth it" doesn't apply to your view because God, according to your perspectively, took action that would cause sin to come into the world, even though there was no need for it. In the view I am suggesting, God could do nothing different or better than He did, given that He decided to create FMAs at all, than what He did. In the view you are suggesting, God *could* have done something different. He could have not created Lucifer, whom, according to you, would certainly result in sin coming into the world.