MM: By faith they believed he was a liar.

They still had doubts regarding Satan's character, as the DA passage makes clear.


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.

Satan did tell his side of the story to Eve. That's how he got Eve to sin. Satan did the same thing to man as to angels. He deceive them into rebellion by misrepresenting God's character. Satan's side of the character is that God's character is flawed.

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.

The situation was totally different, MM. God showed the angels the cross *after* man had sinned, not before. If God had shown Adam and Eve such a movie, this seems like it would have been a way of applying coersion in order to get His way, which God does not do.


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

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.

It would have interfered with their freedom of choice. That's easy to see. It would be like you stepping in front of a teen-age child any time they were thinking of leaving the house, and giving them a long lecture. At some point you have to allow them to make their own decisions.

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.

I don't see how you, or anyone, can possible consider for a moment that sin was the best thing that could happen for the universe. What you're suggesting makes God responsible for the existence of sin. I trust you perceive this.

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.

You are saying here that God orchestrated sin?

In answer to the first question, yes, if the FMAs choose not to sin. To the second, the FMAs used their free will to sin. God created them perfect. In answer to the third, I've answered that many, many times now, so I'll pass. The last time I answered it was 4 or 5 paragraphs of explanation. It's a bit surprising to see you ask this yet again, after that.



God didn't "gamble" or "bet." He created beings that could love and be loved, which necessitated free will, which necessiated risk. God did nothing wrong. God is totally, 100% innocent of sin coming about. God created all beings perfect.



I guess it's difficult to understand. This is why I suggested the other site I mentioned, because the author had time to lay out the ideas carefully.

God knows how some things will play out exactly that do not involve the unknown decisions of FMAs. These possibilities are settled. Other possibilities of the future involved the decisions of FMAs that are unknown.



Your view seems to me to make God worse than Hitler. The whole idea that God chose to create FMAs knowing they would rebel, when He could have created FMAs that would not rebel, but deciding to cause sin to come into being anyway, reminds me of a horror show.



No. Actually my idea here is pretty complicated, so I'll just skip it. It's not a vital point to our discussion.

He foresaw that possibility, as well as foreseeing the possibility that Lucifer would not rebel.



I've answered this question many times, the last time in a lot of detail. If you don't understand my answer, please quote something from my long post, and we'll discuss that.

I would say there is nothing that God knows that He will always (forever and ever) have to hide from His creatures.


During this whole discussion you have been referring to Lucifer as just an idea (certainly a bad idea), a thought (certainly a bad thought), that could have been easily discarded. God certainly doesn’t have a womb where His creatures stay 9 months before being born, but what I hear you saying is that God designs creatures like we design machines or houses, coldly discarding wrong projects. We humans exist before we are born, and have rights before we are born, but, according to you, angels do not.


OK, let me rephrase it. By eliminating the possibility of existence of beings who would choose this option, God would be virtually eliminating the option.


Please read my argument again. I’m referring to the possibility of either choosing good (option A) or choosing evil (option B); of either choosing to submit to God’s government (option A) or to rebel against God’s government (option B).


Very democratic indeed on God’s part! Democratic, impartial, honest and fair. A universe where free will is allegedly extended to all in order for them to choose either option A or option B, but where only those who will choose option A have the right to come into existence. I would call this a “Castrolike” (after Fidel Castro), not a Christlike, attitude.


Of course as a human being He couldn’t have “exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future”, but the decision to die in man’s place had already been made by the incarnate Christ. Or do you believe it hadn’t? If the decision had already been made, the cause of the struggle obviously lay in the difficulty involved in its implementation.


Preventing an already existing creature from sinning? I said nothing about this. What I said was that my conception of a scenario which would not have been certain to be negative was one in which no creature would choose to sin, not one in which God just abstains from creating creatures that He knows will sin.


Since God knew one of the creatures He was going to create would sin, yes, God chose the best (or less worse) alternative of permitting sin to happen.

I don't understand why you think Lucifer had a right to exist. On what is Lucifer's right to exist based? How was Lucifer anything more than some being God had considered creating, until the time God actually created him? Why would Lucifer have had any more right to exist than any of the other creatures God thought of making, but didn't?



God didn't have to create Lucifer, did He? I'll assume the answer is no.

This means God chose to create a being that would certainly sin. Why did He do that? You postulate because it was better than the alternative of not creating him. What this means is that since creating a creature who was certain to sin was the best alternative, as soon as God decided to create beings with free will, sin was inevitable. Given this to be the case, how can you maintain that there was nothing flawed in the process of creation, if it leads inevitably to sin?

You assert that if God did not create beings that would exercise a given option, then that option did not really exist. This idea does not jive with what inspiration tells us. According to inspiration, Lucifer almost repented; he almost didn't rebel. According to the viewpoint you are expressing here, there was no chance Lucifer could have repented and not rebelled.

The Early Writing scene describing what happened when man sinned also doesn't make sense. How could God have struggled in making a decision? This means God considered two alternatives, allowing Jesus to come, or not. Given your viewpoint, it doesn't make any sense that God would ponder a decision, or consider between alternatives. God cannot deliberate, or ponder, or struggle with a decision under your perspective. God simply acts in accordance with what He always knew He was going to do. Do you see the logical problem here?

My point is that we know very little about God, and His thoughts, and His methods of creation. The Bible shows that God knows us and loves us before we are born. So, when a creature is conceived in God’s thoughts, it doesn’t seem to me that this creature is just a draft which can be coldly discarded.
However, my main emphasis here is in God’s impartiality, and in His purpose to guarantee the exercise of free will in the universe. And I cannot see how this could be possible if He eliminated, by and arbitrary decision, the possibility of alternative B – the choice to not serve Him.


It wasn’t Creation which led inevitably to sin. Everything that God created was perfect, and therefore it couldn’t have led to sin. God just foresaw that sin would one day occur and, for wise reasons, decided not to prevent it from occurring.


There was no chance only in the sense that Lucifer didn’t decide to repent, and God saw beforehand that he wouldn’t decide to repent.


Some may disagree with what I’m going to say, but God has feelings, too, and the struggle was with His own feelings. God made a decision on the basis of what was necessary to do in order to save man, but the cost was tremendous (in fact, unimaginable to us). He was reluctant to give His Son, and at the same desirous to save man – and of course these are conflicting feelings. As I said, making a decision is easier than implementing it.

Well, I think anything else I could say would be a mere repetition of what I have already said. But this evening a thought occurred to me about your view, and I would like to ask you about it.
It’s my belief that I was in God’s thoughts in eternity, and that He knew me ages before I was born. It’s also my belief that the weight of my specific sins crushed Christ’s life on the cross. However, according to your view it would be impossible for Him, on the cross, or for the Father, at that moment, to know I would one day exist, and much less to know which would be my sins. So, Christ died for the very specific sins of the people who lived before the cross, but how could He have died for the unknown sins of unknown people who would live after the cross? How do you view this?

My point is that we know very little about God, and His thoughts, and His methods of creation. The Bible shows that God knows us and loves us before we are born. So, when a creature is conceived in God’s thoughts, it doesn’t seem to me that this creature is just a draft which can be coldly discarded.

But the other creatures God considered creating, but didn't, were also conceived in God's thoughts, and had just as much right to exist as Lucifer.

However, my main emphasis here is in God’s impartiality, and in His purpose to guarantee the exercise of free will in the universe.

So you are asserting that free will could not exist without sin, aren't you?

And I cannot see how this could be possible if He eliminated, by and arbitrary decision, the possibility of alternative B – the choice to not serve Him.

There are only two classes of individuals to consider, those whom God knew would rebel, and those whom God knew would not. If God did not create the beings that would rebel, their free will would not have been diminished, because they would not have existed, and thus would not have had any free will to exercise.

The free will of those who did not rebel, even after rebellion occurred, was not enhanced by the emergence of sin. They had no more free will after rebellion occurred than before.

The possibility to not serve God would have been just as real without the creation of Satan as with his creation. We are not dependent upon the existence of sin in order to exercise free will.

It wasn’t Creation which led inevitably to sin.

Yes, according your logic, it was. You are arguing that once God decided to create beings with free will, it was inevitable that sin would occur, because any choice other than creating a being whom God was certain would sin, would have been inferior to the creation of that being. So from the moment that God decided to create beings with free will, from your argument, it was inevitable that sin would occur.

Everything that God created was perfect, and therefore it couldn’t have led to sin. God just foresaw that sin would one day occur and, for wise reasons, decided not to prevent it from occurring.

He not only didn't prevent it from occurring, according to the argument you are presenting, He took positive steps that made sure it would occur, because He rejected other alternatives whereby sin wouldn't have occurred (e.g., not creating a covering cherubim, not creating a different covering cherubim that wouldn't sin.)

Tom:You assert that if God did not create beings that would exercise a given option, then that option did not really exist. This idea does not jive with what inspiration tells us. According to inspiration, Lucifer almost repented; he almost didn't rebel. According to the viewpoint you are expressing here, there was no chance Lucifer could have repented and not rebelled.

Rosangela:There was no chance only in the sense that Lucifer didn’t decide to repent, and God saw beforehand that he wouldn’t decide to repent.

There more to it than that. You are saying that in order for there to be free will, rebellion had to occur. If Lucifer had repented, then rebellion wouldn't have occurred (unless you wish to argue that had Lucifer repented, God would have created some other creature to rebel). So baring this parenthetical observation, Lucifer could not have repented.

Some may disagree with what I’m going to say, but God has feelings, too, and the struggle was with His own feelings. God made a decision on the basis of what was necessary to do in order to save man, but the cost was tremendous (in fact, unimaginable to us).

I'm glad you feel this way, even thought it's logically inconsistent with your viewpoint. However, if you don't see the logical inconsistently, then that won't bother you. The important thing is to have a view of God that enables us to worship and admire Him, and a God without feelings would make that difficult to do.

He was reluctant to give His Son, and at the same desirous to save man – and of course these are conflicting feelings. As I said, making a decision is easier than implementing it.

Did God consider not implementing the decision? If so, when?

Well, I think anything else I could say would be a mere repetition of what I have already said. But this evening a thought occurred to me about your view, and I would like to ask you about it.

It’s my belief that I was in God’s thoughts in eternity, and that He knew me ages before I was born. It’s also my belief that the weight of my specific sins crushed Christ’s life on the cross. However, according to your view it would be impossible for Him, on the cross, or for the Father, at that moment, to know I would one day exist, and much less to know which would be my sins. So, Christ died for the very specific sins of the people who lived before the cross, but how could He have died for the unknown sins of unknown people who would live after the cross? How do you view this?

I don't see the problem as forensic, so this isn't an issue for me.

The cross was necessary in order to "bring us to God," as Peter put it. This would cover anyone who sinned, whoever that might be. There's no forensic need for Christ to pay for specific sins. This is shown in the case of Lucifer, where God offered to pardon him again and again, without Christ's having to pay for anything.

I know you say that Lucifer didn't sin, but to me it seems obvious that he did. For one thing, God offered him pardon. Only those who sin need pardon.

Also Christ called him a liar and a murderer from the beginning. I imagine you would say that the beginning is referring to when Lucifer made his final decision, but I think this misses the point that it was Lucifer's love for self which leads to lying, stealing, and murder, not simply the final decision to chose to stick to those principles.

Also, if you look at what he did, pretending reverence for God while at the same time scheming to exalt himself, and harboring hatred and envy in his heart against Christ; it's obvious to me these things are sin. To my point of view, it seems to me the only reason you don't acknowledge Lucifer sinned is because your viewpoint doesn't allow that. I think if you showed the passages EGW wrote to any person without an axe to grind, a non-SDA for example, and just asked if the description given depicted a being who was sinning, the answer would be "yes." (Actually as I read over this, I think I may have misrepresented your position. Perhaps your position is that Lucifer sinned, but sinned in ignorance. I don't think this difference in position changes any salient points of what I've been saying here, however. If you think it does, you can point out how, and we can discuss that if you'd like).

But this is old ground that we've been through before. However, I do find it interesting that our old "friend" Lucifer, and the specifics of his fall, has come into such prominence in a discussion unrelated to our former one (e.g., foreknowledge as opposed to meaning of Christ's death).

Continuing to address your question regarding Christ's payment for our sins, the payment was driven by our need, and that need would be generated by whomever committed sin and needed pardon.

This last question you asked is an excellent question to ponder, I think.

Ok, let me recap your answer to the question of why God would create a being He knew would sin. The main thing I hear you saying is that had God not done so, then this would have meant He didn't create beings with free will. That's basically it, isn't it? Or is there some other reason?

MM: You seem to think "doubt" and "faith" are in tension? I believe doubt is inherent in faith; otherwise, faith is not faith. It is fact. Besides, A&E died before witnessing the cross. Both men and angels had faith Jesus would win on the cross. They also have faith the rest of the GC will play out according to God's predictions.


MM: "Satan did tell his side of the story to Eve." Please cite or post your reference. Thank you.


MM: True. God does not use force. However, wasn't there a form of coercion in the prohibition regarding the forbidden tree? "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."


MM: I don't see the same comparison, Tom. Sending an angel to ask simple questions, like the ones I posted earlier, would not have interfered with her freedom to choose.


MM: You and I both agree that God foresaw the GC, and yet in spite of this He chose to go though with it. His decision resulted in FMAs rebelling.


MM: No. God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing they would rebel. He is managing the GC in a way that the outcome serves His eternal purpose - "to establish His throne in righteousness". (ibid)

MM: Tom, none of your answers addressed my questions. Here they are again:

1. Can God create FMAs, endowed with free will, that He can guarantee will never exercise their freedom to rebel?

2. If so, why didn't He create them in the beginning?

3. If not, how can you say God can guarantee that FMAs will never exercise their freedom to rebel after the GC is ended? Your previous attempts to answer this question left me wondering how you could believe such a thing. Perhaps you can explain it better this time?


MM: True. God didn't force FMAs to rebel. We both believe this important point. However, I am questioning something entirely different. You believe:

1. God knew there was a slight chance FMAs would rebel. He created them hoping they wouldn't rebel. Should they choose to rebel, He would simply implement the plan of salvation. The risk was worth it.

2. God would not have created FMAs if He had known ahead of time that they would certainly rebel. Not even the plan of redemption would have made it worth it.

These two observations seem to contradict one another. Do you agree? If not, why not?


MM: Are there decisions that FMAs will make in the future that can be known by God ahead of time? Please give an example. Thank you.


MM: Tom, did I misrepresent your view - "The whole idea that God chose to create FMAs, knowing they might rebel, hoping they wouldn’t, but deciding to risk it anyhow"? The reason I ask is because you just misrepresented mine - "The whole idea that God chose to create FMAs knowing they would rebel, when He could have created FMAs that would not rebel, but deciding to cause sin to come into being anyway."

Please, let me correct you. I do not believe "when He could have created FMAs that would not rebel" was an option available to God. That's your idea. Nor do I believe God "caused" sin to occur. Instead, I believe God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance that they would choose to rebel.



No. Actually my idea here is pretty complicated, so I'll just skip it. It's not a vital point to our discussion.


[/quote]

MM: Tom, none of your answers addressed my questions. Here they are again:

1. Can God create FMAs, endowed with free will, that He can guarantee will never exercise their freedom to rebel?

2. If so, why didn't He create them in the beginning?

3. If not, how can you say God can guarantee that FMAs will never exercise their freedom to rebel after the GC is ended? Your previous attempts to answer this question left me wondering how you could believe such a thing. Perhaps you can explain it better this time?


MM: True. God didn't force FMAs to rebel. We both believe this important point. However, I am questioning something entirely different. You believe:

1. God knew there was a slight chance FMAs would rebel. He created them hoping they wouldn't rebel. Should they choose to rebel, He would simply implement the plan of salvation. The risk was worth it.

2. God would not have created FMAs if He had known ahead of time that they would certainly rebel. Not even the plan of redemption would have made it worth it.

These two observations seem to contradict one another. Do you agree? If not, why not?


MM: Are there decisions that FMAs will make in the future that can be known by God ahead of time? Please give an example. Thank you.


MM: Tom, did I misrepresent your view - "The whole idea that God chose to create FMAs, knowing they might rebel, hoping they wouldn’t, but deciding to risk it anyhow"? The reason I ask is because you just misrepresented mine - "The whole idea that God chose to create FMAs knowing they would rebel, when He could have created FMAs that would not rebel, but deciding to cause sin to come into being anyway."

Please, let me correct you. I do not believe "when He could have created FMAs that would not rebel" was an option available to God. That's your idea. Nor do I believe God "caused" sin to occur. Instead, I believe God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance that they would choose to rebel.


MM: Before you dropped it, Tom, please at least reword the following sentence, because it certainly says what I thought it said (quoted above): “God could be sure what creation would do without being sure of what each individual will do.”