TE:Similar problems would mean sin, wouldn't it? IOW, if God had explained that there was a creature he could have created, but didn't because he would have rebelled, this explanation would have led to rebellion. Is this what you are saying?

Rosangela: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.

So this sounds like you're agreeing with me, that rebellion would have been the result had God not created Satan. Actually, now that I look at it better, it looks like you are saying that rebellion *might* have occured.

By the way, I'm not understanding why you are characterizing things in terms of those who disagree with God's government not having a right to exist. That's certainly not the way I conceive of it. The way I think of it is that those who chose to separate from God, who is the fountain of life, will die (as in DA 764). So God could simply have explained that there was a creature who would have chosen to separate Himself from God, and have led others with Him, by way of lies and deceptions, and God thought it better that His creatures should live instead of dying, so He opted not to create this hideous creature. This seems to me to be a most reasonable explanation, and I don't see why this would have led to any problems.

Anyway, that's not my primary question at this time, but rather to make sure that what you are asserting is that had God not created Satan, and explained why, that this might have led to rebellion (not would have, but might have).

Have I understood you correctly?

Great! I'm glad you saw this.

No, it doesn't. You're reasoning is incorrect here. Let me try to give an example.

Let's say you ask a question like, why did the Giants win the last game, and I say it's because they rushed the ball well. Say you concluded from that that I believe the Giants can't win a game unless the rush well. That would be incorrect reasoning. You're making the same error in reasoning here.

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.

No, MM, you didn't post the context. What I originally wrote, that you quoted, was something I wrote like two posts earlier. That is, I posted something. You responded to that post. I responded. You responded to that. You posted all of my second post, but my original comment wasn't in that post, it was in the first post. And you didn't have that context.

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 philosophical 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.

Unless you consider sin in the universe as a good thing, I don't see how you can assert this.

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.

But why create things so that there would be sin? I don't understand this. Why wouldn't God simply create FMAs that wouldn't sin? In particular, why did God create Lucifer? Why prefer a covering cherub that would sin over one that wouldn't?

I don't get it.

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?

As I've stated quite a number of times now, the difference between your view and mine is that I understand that sin was a possibility, even something unlikely to occur, whereas you believe it was certain to occur.

Let's say that you are thinking about going to the store in your car, and there is a one in a billion chance you will be in a serious accident. This represents my view. Now let's say there's a 1 in 1 chance that you will be in a serous accident. This represents your view.

Do you see any difference in these two view?

We are told that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. We are told that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

I agree this is hard to believe, but there it is.



I suppose.



The creation of beings that can love and be loved necessitates free will, and the possibility of rejection. God felt the risk of rejection was worth taking.

Regarding why God didn't create beings He knew would never sin, how would He do that, from my perspective? I don't see how that's possible, do you? If the creation of beings that love and can be loved necessitates the possibility of rejection, I don't see how God could do what you are asking about.

Now from your perspective, that's a good question. Since all God had to do was simply look into the future and see what would happen if God created a certain being, and see if sin would arise, why, indeed, would God do such a thing as create an FMA that would sin?



Both.

God created us with reasoning powers. This is how Paul, in particular, presented the Gospel.

It is God's will that we think about what He has revealed, and reason from that. Indeed, He invites us, come let us reason together.



No.



First of all, that's not what these passages say. Neither one of them say "God knew in advance that FMAs would sin and rebel." Now if this were all she wrote on the subject, one could infer this to be the case, but this isn't all she wrote on the subject.

You know, this reminds me exactly of our discussions regarding what happens when the wicked are destroyed. Ellen White explained in DA 764 what happened, but, as far as I can tell, you give no weight. You just consider the GC passage, or, rather, one of the GC passages. Here, as well, you only cite the one DA passage and the AG passage. But Ellen White also wrote about the origin of sin in Early Writings, in The Great Controversy, and other places. She also expressed the view that heaven was imperiled, which isn't congruent with the ideas you are presenting.

Whatever theory we have regarding the future should encompass *all* the evidence; not simply address one or two passages.

Also it would be good if it presented God's character in a positive way. I don't see how the idea that God would create a being that He knew would bring sin to the universe presents His character in a positive way. On the other hand, I find appealing the idea that God created beings to love and be loved, which required free will, even those this involved infinite (here the word infinite rightly applies! risk to Himself.

MM: If God foresaw, as one of many possible outcomes, FMAs rebelling – Why did He choose to create them anyhow?

TE: 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.

MM: Did He know in advance which ones might sin and which ones would definitely not sin?

MM: 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?

TE: As I've stated quite a number of times now, the difference between your view and mine is that I understand that sin was a possibility, even something unlikely to occur, whereas you believe it was certain to occur. Let's say that you are thinking about going to the store in your car, and there is a one in a billion chance you will be in a serious accident. This represents my view. Now let's say there's a 1 in 1 chance that you will be in a serous accident. This represents your view. Do you see any difference in these two view?

MM: Yes, I see a huge difference. I believe God entered upon it with His eyes wide open. He knew exactly how things would play out, and yet, in spite of this, He chose to go through with it. He thought it was worth it.

You, on the other hand, assume God was fairly certain things would play out without sin, and the infinitesimal chance that sin would occur, made the risk worth it.

In both cases, God chose to go through with it in spite of the inherent sin problem. I believe God was willing to go through with it in spite of knowing He would have to deal with the sin problem. Whereas, you believe He was willing to go through with it hoping He wouldn't have to deal with the sin problem.

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?

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

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

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?

MM: If God foresaw, as one of many possible outcomes, FMAs rebelling – Why did He choose to create them anyhow?

TE: 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.

MM: Did He know in advance which ones might sin and which ones would definitely not sin?

Given my perspective, and given the fact that the creation of beings that can love and be loved involves the possibility of rejection, how would this be possible? Please pardon my answering your question with another question, but it appears to me that from my previous answers, the answer to your question should be clear, so if it's not, I'm interested in what your reasoning is, which is why I'm answering your question with a question.

MM: Yes, I see a huge difference.

Good!

I believe God entered upon it with His eyes wide open.

We agree on this point.

He knew exactly how things would play out, and yet, in spite of this, He chose to go through with it. He thought it was worth it.

You, on the other hand, assume God was fairly certain things would play out without sin, and the infinitesimal chance that sin would occur, made the risk worth it.

I wouldn't put it this way. I would say that the creation of beings which can love and be loved necessitates the possibility of rejection.

There's no rational reason why any being would reject a good and perfectly loving Creator, but God was aware of that possibility, as it is inherent to free will.

I agree that the chance of this happening was small. I've never used the word "infinitesimal".

In both cases, God chose to go through with it in spite of the inherent sin problem. I believe God was willing to go through with it in spite of knowing He would have to deal with the sin problem. Whereas, you believe He was willing to go through with it hoping He wouldn't have to deal with the sin problem.

I wouldn't put it that way. 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.