MM, these questions apply just as much to your view as mine.

If knowing the truth about God's character is what makes it possible for God to foresee a future without the possibility 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?

Haven't you asked this like 6 times?

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?

These questions apply just as much to your view of things as mine.

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?

Didn't I answer this? Maybe I didn't post it? Well, here's a slightly different answer than last time. Surely if God could have done something that would have helped Adam and Eve not to sin, He would have done so, don't you think?

The idea I've been sharing regarding the universe being safeguarded by the cross and the working out of the Great Controversy is from EGW. I assumed you were aware of this. If you're not, I'll find a quote for you.

---

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?

These same questions apply to your view as much as mine.

---

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.

Again, these questions apply to your view as much as mine.

---

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?

These questions apply to your view as much as mine.

You wrote - God is not doing something that caused sin to certainly happen.

In response to this I wrote - What God did do certainly resulted in FMAs sinning. In other words, God did something that certainly resulted in FMAs sinning, namely, He created them in spite of the fact He knew in advance there was a slight chance (according to your view) they would sin.


Tom, sometimes your coaching (teaching, instructing) me on how and what to post is wearisome. At any rate, you have been saying that my view misrepresents the character of God, and that your view is the truth, that it correctly represents the character of God. I am attempting to point out an observation regarding this comparison. Again, just because you think your view in comparison to mine is better doesn't mean your view is true or right.

Again, I believe the idea that God did not know in advance if FMAs would sin, that in spite of this He chose to create them anyhow, misrepresents the character of God. In my mind, it depicts Him as incompetent and reckless. It reminds me of a mad scientist, like Dr. Frankenstein, unsure what his creation will do, but deciding to risk it, hoping it doesn't go awry or worse.

No doubt you will be tempted to address this observation with an equally unflattering depiction of my view, but to what purpose? Will comparing your view to mine, trying to prove how yours is less monstrous, improve my mental image of your view? Instead, what I would like to know is - Why is your view true and right? How does it not depict God as incompetent and reckless? Do you understand what I'm asking?


Whether or not your answer - "it was worth it" can apply to my view is a matter of opinion, don't you think? I believe it does apply. Besides, aren't you assuming not creating Lucifer was an option available to God? Where did you read such an idea? Why are you acting like it is a, Thus saith the Lord? If you don't really believe it, why are you treating it like a legitimate point?

Okay. But I asked it first. Let's start with your answer, and then I'll follow suit.

You go first, Tom, and then I'll follow suit. That's fair, isn't it?

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?


Again, Tom, you go first.


You go first.


You go first. Again, the question is - 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?

You wrote - God is not doing something that caused sin to certainly happen.

In response to this I wrote - What God did do certainly resulted in FMAs sinning. In other words, God did something that certainly resulted in FMAs sinning, namely, He created them in spite of the fact He knew in advance there was a slight chance (according to your view) they would sin.

God did something that *might* result in FMAs sinning, namely, He created them knowing they had free will. What you're writing above here seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

Tom, sometimes your coaching (teaching, instructing) me on how and what to post is wearisome.

I can assure you, your posts have a similar affect on my at times, brother! However, I still enjoy our discussions.

At any rate, you have been saying that my view misrepresents the character of God, and that your view is the truth, that it correctly represents the character of God.

I don't think I stated any of these things in this way. I think I was more charitable in the way I put things. I don't make statements like what you are saying in an unqualified way, unless it's a gross oversight. IOW, I would have written something like, "It seems to me this view misrepresents God's character because of xyz." I allow for the possibility I might be wrong. If nothing else, I may have misunderstood something you wrote.

Regarding my view, it's evolving. Over the few years I've been posting here, it's evolved a lot. I'm sure it will continue to change. I can say that as I grow to more about God, my appreciation for who He is grows, but I'm sure my view is very limited. I wouldn't begin to presume to say that it is "the truth" in any all-encompassing sort of way. It's simply how I view things as of now.

I am attempting to point out an observation regarding this comparison. Again, just because you think your view in comparison to mine is better doesn't mean your view is true or right.

I don't see why this is a point that needs to be made. Did it enter your mind that I thought such a thing? That because I held a certain view, that made it right? Do I need to point out to you that because you think God sees the future like a T.V. rerun that this doesn't make it so?

Again, I believe the idea that God did not know in advance if FMAs would sin, that in spite of this He chose to create them anyhow, misrepresents the character of God. In my mind, it depicts Him as incompetent and reckless. It reminds me of a mad scientist, like Dr. Frankenstein, unsure what his creation will do, but deciding to risk it, hoping it doesn't go awry or worse.

I can't imagine how anyone would view perspective a below as worse than b.

a)The Creator creates beings with free will, knowing it's possible they may use their free will to rebel.
b)The Creator creates a being that He is certain to rebel, and lead many others into rebellion, even though there was no need for Him to do so.

I wish I could see things the way you are saying, as then I might at least understood you a bit better. God created beings to love and be loved, which necessitated their having free will. This is just reality. What could God have done differently? (other than not create FMAs at all). I don't see how you can equate what God did, in this sceanario, with Dr. Frankenstein. *That* seems reckless to me.

No doubt you will be tempted to address this observation with an equally unflattering depiction of my view, but to what purpose? Will comparing your view to mine, trying to prove how yours is less monstrous, improve my mental image of your view?

I guess the purpose I have in mind in these discussions is to help clarify how I see things, to develop my perspective, and to improve my ability to dialog. I don't have any aspirations that your mental image of my view will "improve," but there's some possibility you might understand it better by way of contrast.

Also I see great shortcomings to your position, so I feel somewhat constrained to point these out, although I don't really have any expectations regarding your changing your mental image, as you put it. The best I hope for is that you might understand what I'm saying, and perhaps see things from my perspective to some extent, even though you disagree with it.

Instead, what I would like to know is - Why is your view true and right? How does it not depict God as incompetent and reckless? Do you understand what I'm asking?

Regarding what makes my view "right," as you put it, is the force of logic and what we know about God's character. I have been arguing along these lines throughout the entirety of our discussion on this issue. I point out the logical inconsistencies I see to your view, and the logical consistencies I see in mine, and how the respective views represent God's character, as I see things.

From my perspective, the future is the sum of all possible things which can happen. The possibility of rejection is inherent to free will. To depict a Being as reckless or incompetent because He cannot see things in a way that does not reflect reality, does not seem reasonable to me. It's like asking if God can create a rock so big He can't lift it, and given the answer "no," then indicting God for a lack of power.

Regarding the "you go first" comments, I've already answered your question, MM, several times. You want to know how God, before the Great Controversy had begun, foresaw that sin was a possibility, whereas after the Great Controversy God foresees that sin will not happen again. Rewarding your persistence, I will answer it yet again.

My answer is that God, in creating beings that can love and be loved, had to create them with free will. One of the creatures chose to use that free will to lead a rebellion. God foresaw this possibility.

As a result of the rebellion, the Plan of Salvation was put into effect. This Plan answered all of the questions the rebel raised, and did so so wonderfully that the universe was safeguarded against sin by his so doing.

The difference is that the character of God was fully revealed by Jesus Christ, in a way, and in a context, which had not been possible before. Before the challenges raised by Satan, no one questioned if God was self-sacrificing. With Christ, the answer to the question (one which had not even been thought of before) "is there self-sacrifice with God" was answered. In Christ it was seen fully and completely that what God requests of His creatures is simply a reflection of what He is like Himself. As Jesus put it, "the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve." This is what God is like. A servant. This incredible truth was not seen, being hidden by the majesty of awesomeness of God. But God shrouded His majesty and awesomeness so that His character could be manifest in a way it never had been.

Without the context of a fallen race, how would God have demonstrated these things? It wouldn't have made sense for God to become a man, and suffer and die as a man, if man had not sinned, would it?

After the Great Controversy is over, God foresees that sin will not arise again because all of the questions regarding Him have been answered. Before the enemy rebelled, it was possible certain acusations could be laid against God. But now that they have been raised, and answered, they will not be raised again, because all those who might have had any such doubts have had those doubts removed by the revelation of Christ.

That's one side of the answer. The other side of the answer is that I believe God perfectly knows the future, just as you believe He does, and God has revealed to us, no doubt taking into consideration His perfect knowledge of the future, has told us that sin will not arise again.

Regarding the situation before sin arose, I see three possibilities:
a)God did not know that sin was a possibility.
b)God knew sin was possible, but it wasn't a certainty.
c)God knew sin was a certainty.

I see a) as a problem, because that would imply God did not understand the dynamics of free will, although this alternative seems to me more plausible than c), since one could argue that for a perfectly created being to rebel against a perfectly loving God is an irrational act, so why should God know of the possibility of this irrational act? However, we are told that God did know of the possibilty, and made provision for it, so that rules out a).

Regarding c), this raises the question as to why God would do such a thing create the universe in such a way that sin was certain to happen. This is totally incomprehensible to me. I realize you think it makes sense, but I just can't see why God would do such a thing. It would negate everything I know about God. He's been fighting to bring sin to an end since it came up. He's been doing all He can to end it as quickly as possible. Jesus Christ shows what a hateful thing sin is, and how much God hates it. How could God cause sin to come about, when He hates it so?

I left this out inadvertently. Could you explain to me how not creating Lucifer could possibly not be an option to God? God is God. He can do anything He wants. If God was unable to refrain from creating Lucifer, then who or what forced Him into this predicament?

You appear to think that God was limited in His abilities to think of possible candidates for the position of covering cherubim. Lucifer popped into God's mind, and that was it. He couldn't think of anything else? I don't see how this could be considered a possibility. It seems to me incomparably more likely that God considered all the possibilities for a covering cherubim, and picked Lucifer, because Lucifer was the best choice.