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.

There's nothing reckless or haphazard about anything here. It's the nature of free will that a perfectly created being may choose to use that free will in a contrary manner. The risk is inherent in free will.

If you have a child, are you being haphazard or reckless? There's a chance the child may use his/her free will contrary to what you would wish.

The fact that God is omniscient doesn't change the nature of free will.


Quote:
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.

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.

Because the future consists not of one thing, but of the sum of all possible ways events can happen, this is what God sees. The future is the sum of all these things. It's not a single line, comprised of what will actually happen. If you know something about quantum mechanics, that might help to conceptualize it.

Quote:
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. \:\)

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

I noticed that, but didn't think it was worth editing, as some time had passed. Nothing gets by you, huh?

Quote:
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.

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.

The medical scientist isn't creating a being with free will, is he? That's beside the fact, anyway.

God could be sure what creation would do without being sure of what each individual will do. I don't know if this point has anything to do with what you're wanting to get at though. Are you aware of this fact, and does it make sense to you? If not, we can discuss it.

Ok, I think we're back to the fact that free will is what it is. A being with free will may choose to use that free will to act contrary to God's wishes. There's really nothing God could do about that, given He chose to create beings with free will.


Quote:
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.

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.

Okay. I look forward to it.

I posted some things in one of the posts. Perhaps over the weekend I can post more.

I think Hellenistic philosophy has played a large role in what we consider to be Scriptural. The eternal soul is one example of that. The impassibility of God is another. We can get more into this later (although, if you're not familiar with this, you could check into some online articles about impassibility)

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.

This would have been true of anyone in Lucifer's position, unless God created Lucifer with some special propensity to fail. The point is that, from your perspective, God would have known straight off exactly what would happen if He created Lucifer. God, from your perspective, knew Lucifer would sin. God, from your perspective, would have known that some other creature in Lucifer's position would not have sinned. So it comes down to sin coming about because God chose Lucifer over someone else.

From my perspective, this issue doesn't exist. Lucifer was created perfect, and there was no reason for God to expect that he should sin, any more or less than any other creature God could have created instead of Lucifer.

Also, how would omitting the traits and qualities that led Lucifer to rebel reduce him to a mere automaton?

Because the trait/quanlity that led Lucifer to rebel was free will.

Couldn't God have created him like other angels who lacked the traits and qualities that lead to rebellion?

The other angels had free will also, so they had the same trait/quality that Lucifer had.

The situation would be bad for God – concealing something would simply be against His transparent nature.
Besides, not allowing free will would also be against God’s nature. Free will means the power to choose for or against something. God created His creatures with the choice to remain loyal to Him, or to rebel against Him. But if God refrained from creating a being because he would rebel, He could not tell His creatures that they had free will. This would simply be hypocritical on God’s part, even if nobody ever came to know about the being not created.


Isn't He infinitely intelligent?

"God and Christ knew from the beginning of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate. The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race" (1 SM 250).

The text implies that God knew not only that Satan would fall, but also that he would cause the fall of man.

1.Why would God be under any obligation to conceal something the revelation of which could only be bad?
2.Is God under obligation to reveal everything He thinks to His creatures? Is this necessary in order to be transparent?
3.Since we should be like God, assuming God is under obligation to reveal everything He is thinking, should we also reveal everything we are thinking? (tossing out any non-good thoughts, of course; of course we shouldn't reveal any bad thoughts).




How does God's choosing not to create a being He knows would sin not allow the free will of any of the creatures who actually exist? They would have gone on making choices and decisions as their will dictated just as they always had.



But a given choice doesn't have to be exercised for free will to exist. Thus free will can exist without the existence of sin. All that is necessary is the ability to sin, should one choose to do so. That is, there was no more free will in existence before sin existed than after.



Why not? And why would God have to tell them anyway? Wouldn't creatures know they have free will simply by making choices?

It seems to me the inference from your argument here is that without sin there is no free will.



What would be hypocritical? God's telling creatures that they had free will? So until God created a being that would rebel, none of the other creatures could be told they had free will?



Certainly. But what does intelligence have to do with suspecting someone with free will would sin? What reason would they have to sin? Would God somehow be less intelligent for not suspecting something that had no reason to be suspected?

To address your question in a way where I'm not simply asking questions back to you, from my perspective God created beings with free will. God foresees everything any being can possibly do, being omniscient. However, which of the possible freedoms His creatures will choose, is up to the creature, and cannot be known by God as settled, or decided, until the creature actually makes the decision that causes the possibility to become a reality.

So although God foresaw the possibility that any of His creatures with free will could sin, He had no reason to suspect any of them. Why would He? They were created perfect.

Sin is mysterious, irrational. There would be no reason for God to suspect a being to act irrationally.



Only if one interprets "of the apostasy" to mean "of the apostasy certain to occur" as opposed to "of the apostasy that could occur." If one takes into account other things that EGW wrote regarding the fall, and sin in general, it becomes clear that she did not regard sin as inevitable, which the interpretation you are suggesting would imply.

For example, in Education she speaks of the plan of salvation as being a remedy for sin akin to the power our bodies have to heal themselves should the need arise, the point being that before the need arose, the remedy already was available.

Consider, for example, the well known scene in Early Writings where heaven reacts after man sinned. If one takes the viewpoint that the fact that man would sin at that precise moment was settled in the mind of God from all eternity, then the meeting of Christ with the Father becomes nonsensical.

Jesus went into the Father's presence 3 times to plead to be allowed to come to earth to live and die in our behalf. EGW tells us an angel told her it was a "struggle" for God to allow Jesus to come. What sense does it make for her to speak of God having a struggle. How can God struggle with a decision? Does He consider making the decision, consider not making it, then consider some more making it, and so forth, until He finally decides? But if He has known for all eternity exactly what He would do, what sense would it make for Him to be struggling with a decision?

Not only this, but if the future is exhaustively settled in God's mind from all eternity, then God foresaw exactly what He would do. He foresaw His own struggle! He foresaw He would struggle with the decision, ponder one way, ponder the other, and then finally decide to allow Jesus to come. Does that really make sense?

And why would Jesus have to go into the Father's presence 3 times? Given that God knew exactly what He was going to do, why go in even once? Why have a meeting? Wouldn't that just be a pretense? What could there be to discuss, since the decision had already been made?

Both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy present God as considering alternatives, regretting decisions He made, being open to act in a different way then He has declared He would, struggling with a decision, and many other things which reveal that the future is not something exhaustively settled in God's mind.

Rosangela, I realize my post was very long, with many questions. I have no problem at all with your choosing which points and questions you want to respond to, and not necessarily addressing all of them. However, I am particularly interested in your response to the following portion of a previous post:

Ros: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.

Tom: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?

Your statement was that all the solutions to the sin problem were negative. My question is how there was a sin problem without the being existing who originated sin?

Ros: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.

Tom:Given that God chose to create beings with free will, can you postulate a scenario 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?

I'm curious as to your response to this as well.

Thanks!

I think you mean “reveal” instead of “conceal”.
God is not under any obligation, but He simply doesn’t have anything to hide from His creatures – not even evil.
Much as He would like them to not choose it, evil was one of the possible options for God’s creatures. By eliminating the beings who would choose this option, God would be virtually eliminating the option. The talk about two options would be a pretense.
It’s like saying that people are free to vote either in a democrat or in a republican candidate, and then setting the electronic urn to compute the votes for the democrat candidate and not compute the votes for the republican candidate. People are indeed free to vote, but there is no honesty in the process.


We have discussed this in the past. The answer I gave then I give now: making a decision and implementing it are two different things. You may have made a decision in the past, and then you struggle with it at the time of implementing it. I even cited Christ’s example. Hadn’t He made the decision to die for man in eternity? Didn’t He make it again when Adam sinned? Why then the struggle at Gethsemane?


The problem to me, as explained above, begins with the fact that I don’t see how God can honestly allow free will and at the same time eliminate the possibility of one of the alternatives.


If no creature had chosen to sin. Notice that I’m not saying “If God hadn’t prevented Satan from existing,” but “If Satan had not chosen to rebel.”

MM: By faith they believed he was a liar.


MM: Satan did not explain his side of the story. He simply deceived Eve into believing eating the forbidden fruit would make her more like God. He said nothing about his rebellion in heaven.


MM: Yes, I agree God did not show A&E a preview of the cross, like He did the angels, for a good reason. What that reason is I don’t know. But I’m fairly certain it wasn’t because He thought it would cause them to serve Him out of fear. It didn’t have that affect on the angels.


MM: I don’t know why God didn’t send an angel as I described above. But I am fairly certain it wasn’t because Satan would have cried Foul play. I am certain, though, that it would not have interfered with their freedom to choose.

As a reminder, the reason I am raising these questions is because it has to do with God taking responsibility for the sin problem. I believe God foresaw the GC and chose to create FMAs anyhow. He has been actively involved from the very beginning in making sure the scroll of history unfolds in accordance with what is best for the universe. Nothing is left to chance or trial and error. His involvement, or lack thereof, at the forbidden tree when Eve was being deceived reflects God’s well thought out plan. He knew what He was doing. He orchestrated an acceptable outcome, though the fall of A&E seems to indicate otherwise.

MM: Do you think God is able to make FMAs, endowed with free will, who will never choose to sin? If so, then why didn’t do it in the beginning? If not, how, then, can you say God knows FMAs will never choose to sin again in the future (after GC is ended)?


MM: There is no “chance” a human child might act contrary to wishes. It is 100% certain to happen. Is it reckless to have children? No. Why not? Because the positives out weigh the negatives.

Yes, risk is inherent with free will. But it was also inherent with God’s decision to create FMAs since, according to your view, there was a slight chance they might rebel. Elsewhere you indicated God would not have chosen to create FMAs if He knew with certainty they would rebel.

With these things in mind, I find it difficult, in light of your view that God gambled on something He was betting wouldn’t happen. Since, according to your view, He was unwilling to do something that would result in rebellion, taking such an unnecessary risk seems a bad bet, especially in light of the fact His gamble proved hazardous.


Awhile back, when you stated God knew which way the future would play out because of His active participation, I thought you meant God knew which way the future would play out. So, I’m still a bit unclear as to what you believe. Something about partly fixed and partly open. I duno.


MM: The reason I compare your view to Dr. Frankenstein is because that’s what it reminds me of. The whole idea that God chose to create FMAs, knowing they might rebel, hoping they wouldn’t, but deciding to risk it anyhow – well, it reminds me of a horror show. I’m sorry. I realize that is offensive to you. But I don’t mean to be offensive.

“God could be sure what creation would do without being sure of what each individual will do.” Are you suggesting God knew “creation” would rebel, but that He didn’t know which creature would rebel?


MM: Thanx.

MM: Are you suggesting God did not foresee a future that included the possibility of Lucifer, in particular, leading a rebellion?


MM: If the trait that leads FMAs to rebel is free will, how, then, can you say God does not foresee a future, after the Millennium, which includes FMAs rebelling?

Right.



Nothing? There is nothing that God knows that He hasn't revealed?



They didn't exist! You can't "eliminate" a being who doesn't exist. God had three possibilities, at least, for any being He was considering that He knew would sin: 1)Create a different being whom He knew would not sin. 2)Don't create any being 3)Create the being that God knew would sin. It's very difficult for me to see how 1) and 2) would not be clearly better alternatives in every case. That worse problems would have arisen, simply because God *considered* a being who would sin, had God either skipped creating the being, or created a different one He knew wouldn't sin, seems to me to be a very weak argument. There any reason to asert this, other than the theory of foreknolwedge that you hold necessitates it in order to keep the theory in tact, is there?



Three. At least.



It's not at all like this. It would be like God only creating people that He knew would be demoncrats. God would in no way limiting the freedom of any creature that existed. Creatures that do not exist have no free will to be limited.



Certainly for us it is, because we have indecision involved in our knowledge and our thinking process. For God to struggle, there would have to do something to struggle against, some indecision involved. How is it possible for God to have any of the characteristics necessary for a struggle to take place? It seems to me that your perspective would not allow for any indecision on the part of God.



Because Jesus Christ did not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future. This makes perfect sense for me to say. However, given your view, I think you're asking good questions. Why, indeed, did Jesus struggle? Doesn't seem to make sense given your perspective.



Ok, here's the logical conclusion of this argument: If God did not create creatures that He knew would sin, then He would not be allowing free will. (I'm not sure what you mean by "allow free will," but I'll use the verb "allow," since that's what you used.) This implies that it is impossible for God to creature creatures with free will without creating sin at the same time.



My whole question is about why God created a being He knew would sin. It's never been about preventing an already existing creature from sinning. I don't know why you're making this distinction.

I also don't see how this answers my question. It seems to me, from what you've said, the moment that God decided to create beings with free will, He had to create being He knew would sin. I see no possible scenario, from your perspective, that is not negative. Can you suggest one? You say here "if no creature had chosen to sin," but there's no what that could have happened, from your perspective, is there? As soon as God thought of a creature who would sin, if God created him, He was stuck. He was forced to create the being He knew would sin. By forced I mean it was the best alternative available.

This seems to me like straight forward reasoning. Do you see any problem with the logic here?