Adam and Eve were already aware of the fact Satan is a liar.

I'm not sure about that. They were aware that he was a crafty foe. Why do you think they knew he was a liar? Also, providing they knew something about Satan's being a liar, all they could have known is that God claimed Satan was a liar. Satan said God was a liar. So you have to beings claiming the other is a liar.


They were choosing to believe God and not Satan.

They chose to believe Satan and not God.


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?

The angels didn't believe until the cross, so, regarding the angels, no. They chose to follow God, but they still had doubts, at least some of them did, until the cross, when they became convinced as to Satan's character. That's DA "It Is Finished."

Had God shown them a movie, it's possible Adam and Eve could have chosen to follow God out of fear for what would happen if they didn't, and God doesn't want that.



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?

Satan was claiming that he had an approach to things better than God's. I think he would have cried "foul!" if God took too zealous an approach in their conflict. Also God has a great respect for free will. He doesn't like to tamper with it, sometimes surprisingly so.

Again, I’m using “might” just because we cannot be sure about what would have happened if God had not created Lucifer, since this never happened. But I’m sure that God knew perfectly what would have happened both in option A (creating Lucifer) and in option B (not creating Lucifer), and that He knew that option A was better (or less worse) than option B, and that’s why He chose it.

Here's my point. We both take it for granted that God always makes the best choice. God is good, perfect, and loving. Now if we take a position that leads us to a conclusion whereby God is making a questionable choice, then this implies there is a problem with our position. I take it you understand this logic is sound, so I won't explain it, unless questioned about it.

I will attempt to show that your position leads to such a conclusion.

My question is why God would choose to create a being that would certainly sin. This is an important question. Many people ask this question. Whatever position we take regarding how the Great Controversy works should be able to address this question in such a way that God does not come off appearing to make a questionable choice.

Let's say it is certain sin would not have occurred had God not created Lucifer. In this case, couldn't we conclude that God made a questionable decision? That is, deciding to create a being, where the result is that sin will certainly happen, as opposed to not creating said creature, where the result is that sin would certainly not happen, would be questionable. Given this is the case, we can throw out this option, since God does not make questionable decisions.

Now let's consider the other possibility. Let's say that God knew that rebellion would certainly have occurred had God not created Lucifer. This alternative is no better, because it leads to the conclusion that no matter what God did, rebellion was certain to occur. That means there was something inherently flawed in the process of creation, if the only possible alternative was that rebellion would occur. That can't be right either.

So, to conclude, at the point in time where God decided to create Lucifer, knowing that sin would certainly result, we are forced to conclude that either God could have refrained from creating Lucifer, in which case sin was certain not to happen, or, sin would have certainly happened anyway. Either of these options is problematic.

Let's consider one more thing, which is that had Lucifer not sinned, some other creature would have. To show this doesn't solve the problem, let's go back in time and say there are n creatures in the universe that God will create. Before creating the first one, God would know (again, from your perspective) that this creature would certainly sin, or would certainly not sin. Let's assume God would not create a being He knew would certainly sin. Then we come to the second being. God again knows that this creature would certainly sin or certainly not sin. If we again assume that God would not create a being He knew would certainly sin, then we now have two creatures who certainly will not sin. By induction, there would be no sin in the universe, if we make the assumption that God would not create a being that would certainly sin.

So in order for sin to exist, somewhere along the way, God must create a being that He is certain will sin.

But that just raises the exact same question I'm asking about Lucifer. Why would God do such a thing? Why would God create a being that was certain to sin?

Footnote 1 to argument above: For the sake of convenience, I spoke of a being who was "certain to sin." A possibility is that the created being would not sin, but would perform actions that would lead a different being to sin. So instead of writing "a being certain to sin," I could have written "a being, the creation of which, would certainly have resulted in sin occurring," but that would have been awkward to have written everywhere. Since the argument is exactly the same in either case, I chose to wrote it more simply.

Footnote 2. When you say sin might have occurred anyway had God not created Lucifer, you have pointed out that you are saying "might" because you don't know. That is, you are answering the question as to if sin would have occurred anyway, had God not created Lucifer, with "I don't know." But God would have known, from your perspective, that either sin would have certainly occurred, or sin would certainly not have occurred, had God not created Lucifer, so my argument proceeded by considering these two cases.

In face of the knowledge that a created being would sin, God had two alternatives – either refraining from creating that being, or going ahead and creating him. Both alternatives were negative.

If God refrained from creating him, God could either keep a secret from His creatures and choose not to be entirely transparent in all His actions, or He could opt for the revelation of the secret, which revelation would logically raise doubts in the minds of His creatures. Again both alternatives were negative.

If God went ahead and created him, He could deal with his sin by either letting him reap immediately its full results, and thus creating doubts in the minds of the other creatures, or by letting him live to demonstrate his true character, and thus bringing suffering to other creatures. Again, both alternatives were negative.

So, yes, as I see it, all the solutions to the sin problem were negative – even the alternative of not creating the being who would originate sin. But this does not mean at all that there was something inherently flawed in the process of creation – unless we believe free will is flawed.

By the way, according to your view didn’t God even suspect who was going to sin? Didn’t He have any idea?

TE: Surely a perfect God should be able to create an FMA that wasn't certain to rebel.

MM: So why didn't He?

TE: So, to answer your question, I don't think so.

MM: And yet you believe He was willing to risk it since He thought the chances of FMAs sinning were slight. This doesn't make sense to me, Tom. It seems reckless and haphazard.


Deal!


Ditto.


Me too. About the only things I am certain about are the 28 fundamental beliefs. However, I'm still not sure now if you are convinced God does not know in advance precisely which way the future will play out. Please clarify.


You can't even spell "mine" right, so how can yours be better than my? Oops! Ha!


Yeah, that does sound bad, doesn't it? Okay, try this one:

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 a medical scientist, who is unsure what his creation will do, but decides to risk it anyhow, hoping things won't go awry or worse, but in the end it turns out terribly bad? Please explain this to me. Thank you.


Okay. I look forward to it.

How would God have avoided it?


What made it less safe?


Wasn't it the pre-planning phase of mankind that led Lucifer to rebel? How could it have been God's way of safeguarding the universe? And, if it was His way, why didn't He create humans first?


If the demonstration of God's self-sacrificing love is necessary to prevent rebellion, and if God could have demonstrated it in the beginning without the GC, why, then, didn't He do it?

Why didn't knowledge of God's self-sacrificing love prevent Lucifer from rebelling?


But this sounds like you are saying the GC is necessary to prevent FMAs from rebelling in the future. Are you implying Lucifer did not possess the knowledge necessary to prevent him from rebelling? If so, it infers a design flaw, which implicates God.


Why not? Knowing it will happen and explaining why are two totally different things.


Are you suggesting God would not have gone through with creating FMAs if He knew in advance with certainty they would rebel? If so, why wouldn't He? Isn't the fact the majority would choose not to rebel worth it?

PS - Please include the ongoing dialog when you respond. Thank you. Quote boxes take up less space.

Why didn't God pick someone else? Wasn't Lucifer's position part of the reason why he rebelled? That is, he felt God was treating him below his position. Perhaps he wouldn't have felt slighted if he wasn't in that position. His expectations would have been such that he wouldn't have been tempted to feel slighted.

Also, how would omitting the traits and qualities that led Lucifer to rebel reduce him to a mere automaton? Couldn't God have created him like other angels who lacked the traits and qualities that lead to rebellion?

The holy angels and Jesus explained Lucifer's rebellion and intentions to deceive them. The fact he is a liar is inherent in the explanation and warning.


I meant before they fell. In other words, they chose to believe what they were told about Satan and his rebellion.


When Jesus explained it (the grueling details of the cross) to the angels, did it cause them to serve God out of fear and doubt? If not, can we speculate it would have caused Adam and Eve to fear God?


How would what I suggested above have been a breach of free will? Satan cries, "Foul play", all of the time. I doubt that would have prevented God from doing what I suggested.

In face of the knowledge that a created being would sin, God had two alternatives – either refraining from creating that being, or going ahead and creating him. Both alternatives were negative.

If God refrained from creating him, God could either keep a secret from His creatures and choose not to be entirely transparent in all His actions, or He could opt for the revelation of the secret, which revelation would logically raise doubts in the minds of His creatures. Again both alternatives were negative.

I don't understand why you feel God would have had an obligation to reveal something He was merely thinking about, especially if you feel this would have led to a negative result. Why couldn't He have just waited until there was an actual issue or problem to deal with? Why go about creating one where one didn't exist?

I follow the other if-then scenarios here, but not this one. I'm having difficulty seeing what bad thing was certain to happen if God had simply not created Lucifer and not said anything about it. Lucifer had no legitamate complaints. All of his arguments were deceptions and lies. Why would keeping these deceptions and lies from His creatures result in a sure negative result?


If God went ahead and created him, He could deal with his sin by either letting him reap immediately its full results, and thus creating doubts in the minds of the other creatures, or by letting him live to demonstrate his true character, and thus bringing suffering to other creatures. Again, both alternatives were negative.

So, yes, as I see it, all the solutions to the sin problem were negative – even the alternative of not creating the being who would originate sin.

In the scenario where God does not create the being who would originate sin, how is there a sin problem? How could there be a sin problem if no being existed to originate it?

But this does not mean at all that there was something inherently flawed in the process of creation – unless we believe free will is flawed.

Given that God chose to create beings with free will, can you postulate a scenarion which would not have been certain to be negative? If not, how can it possibly not mean that there is something inherently flawed in the process of creation, if every single possibility leads to a negative result?

By the way, according to your view didn’t God even suspect who was going to sin? Didn’t He have any idea?

Why would God, from my viewpoint, suspect that anybody would sin? What reason would there be for Him to suspect this?

From "It Is Finished"






They didn't really have a choice to make until they had heard both sides of the story. When they were presented with the other side, Satan's side, they chose to believe Satan and not God.



Yes, we can. The situation of angels was obviously different than the siuation of man.

Had it been a good thing to do, God surely would have shown Adam and Eve a movie. I sure you agree with that. That means there is some reason why He didn't. You asked me what one might be, so I offered a suggestion. If you think you have a better suggestion, suggest it.




If Satan had had a legitimate complaint, it would have. Satan cries "foul play" all of the time without any justification. By saying Satan would cry "foul play," the implication is clearly that he would cry "foul play" with justification.

Why do you think God didn't act the way you are asking about?