Tom, you suggested the cross would have been nonsensical to Adam and Eve before they sinned. I am attempting to explain why it could have made sense to them. They were well aware of the fact one third of the angels rebelled against God. It would not have been a stretch of the imagination for them to grasp the cross. Not any more than it was for the angels when Jesus revealed it to them for the first time.

Could God have done something more to prevent Eve from being deceived into eating the forbidden fruit? I believe this question is worth pondering. For example, why didn't God dispatch a holy angel to ask Eve, while she was dialoging with Satan, before she took a bite of the forbidden fruit - Might this be the fallen angel we warned you about? Wouldn't you like to ask Jesus about this before you take a bite?

Obviously God thought it not wise to do this, but why not? If the cross is what guarantees sin will not arise again in the future, why didn't God make this clear to FMAs in the beginning? He could have easily shown them a panoramic portrayal of sin and salvation and the cross as an example of what would have to happen if FMAs chose to rebel. So, why didn't He?

This doesn't really have to do with our conversation on foreknowledge, does it? Why not post this as a separate topic, and others, who may also be interested in this topic, but not foreknowledge, could also participate.

I started to write a long answer, but I thought of a much shorter and direct one. The whole issue was over who to believe, Satan or God. Satan claimed that God was lying, while God claimed that Satan was the liar. In this scenario, isn't it clear that God's showing a film, or something similar, wouldn't resolve the problem? Satan could just claim the film was a lie, and he wouldn't do the things portrayed in the film. The questions regarding God's character would still remain.

Tom, you wrote - "God is not doing something that caused sin to certainly happen." I am responding to this observation. With hindsight in mind, we now know God did indeed do something that resulted in FMAs sinning, namely, He created them in spite of the fact He knew in advance they might sin. The only way around this would have been not to create them.

But the risk was worth it. Why? Because even if FMAs were certain to rebel, according to your view, God was still willing to go through with it, because in the end, after the elimination of sin and sinners, the remaining FMAs would live happily ever after. God would eventually end up with what He wanted all along - FMAs to share and receive divine love and companionship. The end (FMAs living happily ever after) justifies the means (allowing the GC to run its course).

Don't you think God would have gone through with it anyhow even if He knew in advance, as I believe, that FMAs would certainly rebel? If so, how, then, does my view appear to misrepresent God's character?


I will be more careful from now on not to tell how to post or what to post. I will leave it up to you to decide what is right and appropriate. And, like you, I enjoy our discussions.


Thank you for clarifying this point. I never suspected you were so flexible or tentative. You sound very convinced that God did not know in advance FMAs would certainly rebel.


Actually, I do not think my view is right because I think it is better in comparison to your view. I think it is right because I believe Inspiration teaches it. I suspect you feel the same way about your view. It's just that I thought you were comparing our two views and concluding yours is better than mine and therefore right.


According to you, God was unsure what His creation would do, but decided to risk it anyhow, hoping things wouldn't go awry or worse. How is this any different than Dr. Frankenstein, who was unsure what his creation would do, but decided to risk it anyhow, hoping things wouldn't go awry or worse? Please explain this to me. Thank you.


I understand. Hopefully we can at least agree to disagree. And, hopefully, after all is said and done, we believe our respective view is supported in Scripture.

Why thank you, fine sir.


Do you mean to say God foresaw the possibility that one FMA would choose to lead a rebellion? Did He foresee the possibility of other rebellions happening? Or, did He only foresee the one that ended up happening?


Was the universe less safe before playing out the plan of salvation? If one third of the angels hadn't rebelled, would the universe have been just as safe? Or, were both necessary in order to make the universe safe beyond a recurrence of rebellion? Otherwise, it implies rebellion was necessary.


Was this particular revelation of God's character necessary in order to prevent rebellion? If so, then surely there must have been a less destructive and discouraging way to demonstrate it, right?


Are you suggesting that the process of rebellion and redemption is the only way God was able to demonstrate those self-sacrificing traits of character necessary to safeguard the universe against a repetition of rebellion?


Earlier you wrote that Lucifer's knowledge of God was full and complete, that the cross was implied in the knowledge he possessed. How can you say, then, that knowledge of God’s self-sacrificing nature did not exist before the cross? And, how can you say such knowledge will prevent rebellion in the future considering the fact it didn’t prevent Lucifer from rebelling in the beginning?


If the possibility of rebelling is inseparably linked to free will, how can God know the possibility of rebelling will cease to exist after sin and sinners are eliminated in the lake of fire? Will free will cease to exist, too?

Also, addressing the argument, cited above, by simply saying God knew it was possible, does not explain why it is irrational and unexplainable, does it?


Do you think God would have chosen not to create FMAs if knew in advance they would choose to rebel? Or, do you think He would have decided the end (FMAs living happily ever after) justifies the means (creating FMAs knowing the process of rebellion and redemption would be necessary)?

Did God "pick" Lucifer for the position of covering cherub before He created him? If so, how could God know, from your perspective, he would have the necessary traits and qualifications? Is that how God designed and equipped him? If so, why didn't God omit those traits that led to his rebellion?

Isn't this thread about the concept of sin and punishment? My post, quoted above, is an attempt to understand the concept of sin.


Adam and Eve were already aware of the fact Satan is a liar. They were choosing to believe God and not Satan. Why wouldn't they continue to believe God if He had shown them a "movie" depicting how things would turn out if they chose to eat the forbidden fruit? The angels chose to believe it when Jesus explained it to them, right?

Could God have done something more to prevent Eve from being deceived into eating the forbidden fruit? I believe this question is worth pondering.

For example, why didn't God dispatch a holy angel to ask Eve, while she was dialoging with Satan, before she took a bite of the forbidden fruit - Might this be the fallen angel we warned you about? Wouldn't you like to ask Jesus about this before you take a bite?

Is this your opinion?


Yes, this is what I’m saying. I’m using “might” because we are just exploring possibilities here. Of course without an inspired statement about the subject no human being can know for sure how things would have developed.

So this sounds like you're agreeing with me, that rebellion would have been the result had God not created Satan.

Is this your opinion?

The post that you were originally responding to was my trying to express your position. That is, I attempted to express your position, and asked if I were expressing it correctly. You restated your position without commenting on whether I had stated your position accurately or not. I then responded "So this sounds like you're agreeing with me," which is to say, that you were agreeing with me in regards to my having stated your position correctly, since it looked to me that your restatement of your position was similar to my statement of it.

So to answer your question, it is my opinion that what I wrote is what your position is (taking into account my further comments that I added regarding "would" and "might")

Quote:
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).

Yes, this is what I’m saying. I’m using “might” because we are just exploring possibilities here. Of course without an inspired statement about the subject no human being can know for sure how things would have developed.

We have two scenarios to consider:

A.If God created Lucifer, rebellion was certain to occur.
B.If God did not create Lucifer, rebellion might occur.

I'm not understanding how scenario B would be superior to scenario A. Wouldn't it be better to take a course of action that *might* lead to problems, rather the one which is certain to lead to problems, especially when the problems are of such a grave nature?

Tom, you wrote - "God is not doing something that caused sin to certainly happen." I am responding to this observation. With hindsight in mind, we now know God did indeed do something that resulted in FMAs sinning, namely, He created them in spite of the fact He knew in advance they might sin. The only way around this would have been not to create them.

But the risk was worth it. Why? Because even if FMAs were certain to rebel, according to your view, God was still willing to go through with it, because in the end, after the elimination of sin and sinners, the remaining FMAs would live happily ever after. God would eventually end up with what He wanted all along - FMAs to share and receive divine love and companionship. The end (FMAs living happily ever after) justifies the means (allowing the GC to run its course).

Don't you think God would have gone through with it anyhow even if He knew in advance, as I believe, that FMAs would certainly rebel? If so, how, then, does my view appear to misrepresent God's character?

If God knew that FMAs would rebel, from my perspective, that would mean that all possible futures would lead to FMAs rebelling. This would suggest there was something wrong with the creation process. Surely a perfect God should be able to create an FMA that wasn't certain to rebel. Even now, the vast majority haven't rebelled. So, to answer your question, I don't think so.


I will be more careful from now on not to tell how to post or what to post. I will leave it up to you to decide what is right and appropriate.

Ok! But if something keeps coming up which you find bothersome, please let me know, either by mentioning it or PMing.

And, like you, I enjoy our discussions.

Good!


Thank you for clarifying this point. I never suspected you were so flexible or tentative. You sound very convinced that God did not know in advance FMAs would certainly rebel.

I wouldn't say tentative. The particular subject we are discussing on foreknowledge is something I've thought about for about 30 years. However I do try to be flexible. I've been wrong in the past about things I was just certain I was right about, so I've learned to be a lot more careful about being dogmatic.


Actually, I do not think my view is right because I think it is better in comparison to your view. I think it is right because I believe Inspiration teaches it. I suspect you feel the same way about your view. It's just that I thought you were comparing our two views and concluding yours is better than mine and therefore right.

No, my is right, and therefore better than yours.


According to you, God was unsure what His creation would do, but decided to risk it anyhow, hoping things wouldn't go awry or worse. How is this any different than Dr. Frankenstein, who was unsure what his creation would do, but decided to risk it anyhow, hoping things wouldn't go awry or worse? Please explain this to me. Thank you.

Frankenstein? Can't you come up with a more apt analogy? I don't feel comfortable addressing a question that has its premise comparing God to Frankenstein.


I understand. Hopefully we can at least agree to disagree. And, hopefully, after all is said and done, we believe our respective view is supported in Scripture.

We really haven't gone in to the Scriptural evidence. That's something I'd like to do. I have some ideas, regarding a presentation of the Open View from Scripture, but it will take some time to put together.

Do you mean to say God foresaw the possibility that one FMA would choose to lead a rebellion? Did He foresee the possibility of other rebellions happening? Or, did He only foresee the one that ended up happening?

Yes to the first two questions, No the third. If there were only one possible rebellion, it seems to me that would have been easy to avoid.



Was the universe less safe before playing out the plan of salvation?

Clearly.


If one third of the angels hadn't rebelled, would the universe have been just as safe? Or, were both necessary in order to make the universe safe beyond a recurrence of rebellion? Otherwise, it implies rebellion was necessary.

There are some who make this argument, but I don't think it's sound. Here's why.

Assume that the possibility for rebellion exists because the safeguarding process which took place because of the Great Controversy playing out hadn't taken place. That does not mean that God was not working on some other safeguarding process that we simply don't know the details about. It seems virtually certain to me that God, being who He is, and not wanting rebellion with all its attendent misery to be experienced by His creatures, would have been working on such a project. Perhaps mankind was a part of that, but Satan got jealous, and decided to rebel, and here we are.


Was this particular revelation of God's character necessary in order to prevent rebellion? If so, then surely there must have been a less destructive and discouraging way to demonstrate it, right?

Yes, I think so.


Are you suggesting that the process of rebellion and redemption is the only way God was able to demonstrate those self-sacrificing traits of character necessary to safeguard the universe against a repetition of rebellion?

No.


Earlier you wrote that Lucifer's knowledge of God was full and complete, that the cross was implied in the knowledge he possessed.

No me. EGW. DA "It Is Finished".


How can you say, then, that knowledge of God’s self-sacrificing nature did not exist before the cross?

She just says Lucifer knew it. Perhaps the fact that he was more intelligent than other beings has something to do with why he was able to grasp it.


And, how can you say such knowledge will prevent rebellion in the future considering the fact it didn’t prevent Lucifer from rebelling in the beginning?

Because the knowledge which becomes known involves the Great Controversy, which, among other things, requires that the participants take sides. After the Great Controversy plays out, those who have taken God's side will be shown to have been right. Why would they change their minds?


If the possibility of rebelling is inseparably linked to free will, how can God know the possibility of rebelling will cease to exist after sin and sinners are eliminated in the lake of fire? Will free will cease to exist, too?

The creation of beings with free will implies the possibility of rebellion. After rebellion has taken place, and created beings have taken sides on the issue, it makes sense that those who have taken God's side, and have been shown to be right, wouldn't change their minds, doesn't it?


Also, addressing the argument, cited above, by simply saying God knew it was possible, does not explain why it is irrational and unexplainable, does it?

No, it doesn't. However, if it were certain to occur, then it would not longer be unexplainable.


Do you think God would have chosen not to create FMAs if knew in advance they would choose to rebel? Or, do you think He would have decided the end (FMAs living happily ever after) justifies the means (creating FMAs knowing the process of rebellion and redemption would be necessary)?

The end does not justify the means. This principle is contrary to the principles of God's kingdom. The prnciples of God's kingdom are immutable, set out by the Ten Commandments, and by the revelation of Jesus Christ. So no to this last question. The first question I addressed previously.

Did God "pick" Lucifer for the position of covering cherub before He created him?

Yes.

If so, how could God know, from your perspective, he would have the necessary traits and qualifications?

God created him to have the necessary traits and qualifications.


Is that how God designed and equipped him? If so, why didn't God omit those traits that led to his rebellion?

If God ommitted free will, Lucifer would have been an automaton. God didn't want automatons.