MM: I am talking about the differences between fact and faith. Fact (what you call overwhelming evidence) does not permit doubt. But faith, on the other hand, is needed when doubt is permitted, when the facts are insufficient to eliminate doubt. Faith and doubt are not in tension. They go hand in hand.

Jesus did not reprimand Peter for doubting. He simply asked him, Why did you doubt? Even you, Tom, admit that the angels lived with doubt until Jesus succeeded on the cross. Having doubt is not a sin or a lack of faith. It is faith that enables us to manage our doubts wisely.

It appears to me that you are using the word "doubt" differently than either Jesus or Ellen White. It looks to me like you are using it to mean "not 100% sure." However, if you look at how Ellen White uses it, it does oppose faith. I provided a quote which shows this. If you spend a little time looking at her writings, you can find many such examples. I don't think you could find even one example where she speaks of faith and doubt as you are. I'd sure like to see one if you could.

MM: I was talking about A&E and the cross. Then you switched to the angels and the cross. Never mind. It would help if you would include the ongoing dialog like I do (indicating TE and MM for each response). Going back to look up the left out context takes too much time. Now how lazy is that? ha!

Ordinarily I keep the indire dialog. Sometimes, I don't, just because it gets too long. Sorry for any confusion this might cause.

MM: Tom, you're missing my point. I asked, "Please post a passage where Satan is pictured explaining to Eve how and why he rebelled in heaven, etc."

I know what he told Eve at the forbidden tree. He didn't tell her, at the tree, his side of the story. That is, he didn't explain to her why and how he rebelled in heaven, why he was cast down to earth, etc. Do you agree?

Satan's side of the story is that God is unjust, selfish, doesn't have our best interests at heart, a liar, and so forth. He told his side of the story to Eve, who accepted it, and chose to rebel along with the other angels.



Notice that Satan worked to the same ends in both heaven and earth, and used the same means.

MM: You said showing A&E, before they sinned, a movie of the cross (in order to motivate them to obey) would be a form of coercion.

I said it might be. Please be careful with distinctions like this, because they are important.

And yet now you're saying telling them they will die if they eat the forbidden fruit is not a form of coercion. I don't see how it couldn't have motivated them to obey God, which is a "form" of coercion, right?

I've addressed this several times. There's a fine line between too much information (which could be a type of coersion) not enough information, which would be irresponsible. I believe with Adam and Eve God correctly parsed this difference.

MM: Oops! Did I misunderstand you, again? I got the impression you believe sinning would kill us immediately, like a bullet to the head, if it weren't for the fact God prevents sin from killing us the instant we sin. Did I get it wrong?

I never said like a bullet to the head. I've quoted from the Spirit of Prophecy. She never used that expression. If you look at DA 764 or DA 108 it speaks to how the wicked will die. This would have happened immediately, as she says, had God allowed Satan and his cohorts to immediately experience the result of their choice.

MM: Are the following promises a form or coercion?

Deuteronomy
28:1 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe [and] to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
28:20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

I think this is necessary information to make an informed decision, and that God was acting responsibly in providing it. Giving too much information could be a form of coersion. There's a difference between not enough, enough, and too much. You seem to be trying to argue that because too much causes a problem, then it follows that any amount causes a problem.

MM: Why did God create FMAs in spite of knowing there was, from your perspective, a slight chance they would rebel?

Haven't I answered this many, many times? I've thought about mentioning this many times, but haven't, but think I will now. You often ask the same question over and over again. I will admit I sometimes do this, like in the case of my asking why God would create a being He knew wouldn't sin, but I explain why I'm reasking the same question, I often apologize for doing so, and I acknowledge attempts that have been made to answer the question. You just re-ask the same question, again and again and again, without any explanation. Please don't do this anymore.

If you ask a question more than, let's say three times, please offer some sort of explanation. Do you find my previous answer lacking? If so, why? Did you forget what I said before? There has to be some reason why you asking the same question again.

I think my asking you to do this if you repeat a question more than twice is a reasonable request.

On to your question. God created beings to love and be loved, which necessitated creating beings with free will. He did not desire that they would use their free will poorly. Most, in fact, have not done so. Unforuanately some did.

Do you agree that there would have been zero sin if God hadn't created FMAs? Yes or no, please.

I don't understand why you ask questions like this. You're asking me if God did not create beings with the capability of sinning if there wouldn't be any sin? Where would it come from, if not from a created being? From God, right? So you're asking me, in effect, if I think God would sin if He didn't create any other beings who could sin. No, I don't think He would. I guess that wasn't "yes" or "no."


MM: You didn't address my question. I'll rephrase it. It is essentially the same question you've been asking me, which is, Why did God choose to create FMAs in spite of knowing they would rebel instead of opting for the better alternative - not to create them?

This isn't the same question at all. My question to you is why He didn't create being He *knew* would rebel. Had He done so (possible under your view, not possible under mine) there still would have been trillions or quadrillions of FMAs, and still no sin. So my question to you still results in a uniververse full of FMAs.

However, the option you are suggesting is either a universe full of FMAs, or 0 FMAs. This is a very different thing.

So, here is my question to you, Why did God choose to create FMAs in spite of knowing there was a slight chance they would rebel instead of opting for the better alternative - not to create them?

You are assuming not having any FMAs at all is a better alternative than having a universe full of FMAs, with the risk that some FMAs might sin. This is debatable.

However, my assumption is that having a universe of FMAs and no sin is better than a universe of FMAs and sin. This seems very clear. Why wouldn't the second choice be better than the first?

My question has nothing to do with free will. It has to do with God's options - to create beings with free will or not to create beings with free will. To risk taking the chance they won't rebel or not to risk taking the chance they won't they rebel. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I think you're trying to equate my question to yours. Above I've explained why they are different. Under my perspective, the options are no beings, or beings + the possibility of sin. Under your perspective that options are a universe full of beings + sin, or a universe full of beings and no sin.

MM: Tom, my answer hasn't changed. God's options were two, 1) To create FMAs and deal with the sin problem, and 2) Not to create FMAs and not deal with the sin problem. He chose the first option.

The idea that my view means there were variations to these two options is incorrect. Just because God knew in advance which FMAs would rebel and which ones would not, does not mean God could have chosen not to create the ones He knew would rebel. This deduction is erroneous.

Of course it's possible. I explained how it was possible. God could have done the following:

For i = 1 to n (n = number of creatures to create)

if creature will sin
do not create creature
else
create creature


This algorithm would lead to a universe with FMAs, none of which would sin.

It's illogical to assert that God could not have done this. You can assert God chose not to do this, but not that it wasn't physically possible for Him to do so.

My question is why God did not choose to do this option I've laid out here.



The reasons are simple. They are based on what we know to be true about God. God is perfect. The decisions He makes are perfect. He doesn't make mistakes. How things turned out is not the result of a mistake or a wrong decision.

This is just dodging the question. I've given you an explicit way that God could have created a universe full of FMAs that wouldn't sin, based on your perspective. You are basically saying God didn't do this option because He always chooses the best option, and the one I'm suggesting isn't as good, because if it were, God would have chosen it, because God is perfect.

My question is *why* didn't God choose my option? Can you come up with a better reason than "because He didn't"?

God is omnipresent. Our yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows are, for God, now and always. His knowledge of the end does not mean He can change the beginning to ensure a better outcome. He sees things (yesterday, today, and tomorrow) as they are happening. He does not have the choice to go back and alter it. He doesn't need to, either. He doesn't make mistakes.

This isn't addressing my question. It's another version of "God made the best choice." My question is why this choice was better than the one I suggested.

Also I feel constrained to point out that your argument, starting with "the idea" and ending in the next paragraph with "or a wrong decision" is not valid.

Your premises are the following:
a)God is perfect.
b)The decisions He makes are perfect.
c)He doesn't make mistakes.
d)How things turned out is not the result of a mistake or wrong decision.

No problem with your premises.

From here you conclude that:

Just because God knew in advance which FMAs would rebel and which ones would not, does not mean God could have chosen not to create the ones He knew would rebel.

This statement in no way follows from your premises. This doesn't mean the statement is false, it just doesn't follow from your premises.

Regarding the statement itself, you are asserting that because God knew in advance which FMAs would rebel and which would not does not mean that God could have chosen not to create the ones He knew would rebel. The reason I would give that God could have chosen not to create the ones He knew would rebel is because He is God, and God can do anything which isn't nonsense, like creating a square circle, or a rock so big He can't lift it.

Given that God did not do something He was physically capable of doing, it stands to reason that He didn't do so for some reason.

What was that reason?

Too much work yesterday and I had to preach last night.

You are better at summaries than I am, however, since you asked, I’ll try to make one of my view.

“God desires from all His creatures the service of love ... and to all He grants freedom of will, that they may render Him voluntary service.” {GC 493.2}

So, God decided that one of the principles which should govern the universe was freedom of will, and this privilege should be extended to all His future creatures. Each creature would have the option of either loving and serving God or of rebelling against Him, and God, of course, had the moral obligation of ensuring the exercise of free will for His future creatures and of respecting their choices.

Much as He would like them to not choose it, evil was one of the possible options for God’s future creatures. If God decided to eliminate the possibility of existence of creatures who would choose this option, God would be virtually eliminating the possibility of occurrence of this option in the universe. Thus, the talk about two options would be a mere pretense. Instead of wrong choices not occurring naturally, God would be making something for them not to occur. And even if nobody ever knew about God’s decision, God wouldn’t be being true to Himself and to His attributes of impartiality and honesty. Since God would be eliminating the possibility of occurrence of wrong choices, it cannot be said He respects wrong choices. It’s obvious that He just respects right choices – which is in direct contradiction with the gift of free will.

Thanks, Rosangela. Up to the second sentence of the last paragraph, what you wrote is something that applies equally to my perspective. I think the following would work as a summary for your answer to my question:



I see the main points being made are, if God did not create a being He knew would sin:

1.The talk of two options would be merely a pretense.
2.It could not be said that God respects wrong choices.
3.This would be in contradiction to the gift of free will.

Is this an accurate summary of your summary? (or am I missing something vital?)

It seems OK.

Ok, Thanks.

Tom, we have reached yet another impasse. You believe God chose to risk creating FMAs hoping they wouldn't rebel, in spite of knowing there was a slight chance they might rebel, because it was worth it. You also seem to believe God knew FMAs would rebel, but that He didn't know which ones would rebel, so He just created all of them.

I, on the other hand, believe God knew FMAs would rebel, that He knew exactly which ones would rebel, and that He chose to create them anyhow. Why? "... because He would establish His throne in righteousness."

Also, according to my concept of sin and punishment, God takes responsibility for the existence of the great controversy. He implemented the plan of salvation and damnation. During human probation, God rewards the righteous and unrighteousness as He sees fit. He also punishes people in one of three ways, 1) directly Himself, 2) indirectly through holy angels, and 3) indirectly through evil angels.

When the time is right, God will reward the righteous with eternal life and the unrighteousness with eternal death. He will reward everyone according to their words and works. He will punish the unrighteousness with fire and brimstone in duration and intensity in proportion to their sinfulness. When sin and sinners are dead and gone, God will recreate the earth, wherein the righteous shall dwell forever and ever.

No, I don't believe this true. I believe God didn't expect any FMAs to rebel. They were all created perfect, with no tendencies to rebel.



I don't see the meaning of this. Could you express it in some other language?



Well if God created beings He knew would sin, yes, He should certainly take responsibility (or blame, which is probably a better word, since blame is reserved for those who are responsible for bad things that happen) for that.



No, God did not implement damnation. That's a really bad idea. Damnation is the result of sin. Not something God implemented at all. Satan is the author of sin and all of its results. That's a good idea! Wish I had though of it! (Can't take created though. It was our old friend EGW).



This is a very Calvinistic, or, perhaps more accurate, Augustinian way of looking at things. Things happen all the time that are contrary to God's will (which is why, for example, we pray "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven -- God's will is not done on earth).



I think this is a very negative way of looking at things. It makes God responsible for all the bad things that happen, whether sin or the punishment for sin. The whole thing seems to me to portray God very negatively, and not at all like Christ.

I don't understand why someone would prefer this view of God to the one Jesus Christ presented. For example, Jesus Christ never even once attributed a single bad thing that happened to God. (that's a bit redundant, isn't it? well, it's clear)

Rosangela, I've been thinking about the idea that God created beings He knew would sin in order to preserve the integrity of free will (I think this is an accurate way of presenting your view. If you think otherwise, please let me know). A couple of things came up in my mind.

First of all, from the SOP we know there is no explanation for the existence of sin. However, if God was constrained to create being He knew would sin in order to preserve the integrity of free will, that explains the existence of sin very nicely.

Secondly, if God was constrained to create beings that would sin in order to preserve the integrity of free will, then God is responsible for sin. Not because God's knowing they would sin forces them to sin, but because the preservation of the integrity of free will forced Him to create beings that would sin. IOW, there had to be beings that would sin, once God decided to create beings with free will. Since God decided to create beings with free will, and this decision meant He had to create beings that would sin, this would make God responsible for sin.

Thirdly, I can understand why, under this idea you are suggesting, that God would have to create some beings that would sin. However, once Lucifer was created, and some rebels already existed, the integrity of free will had already been established. Why create more beings that would sin? That is, why did earth need to have parents that would sin? Why not create parents that God knew would not sin for earth?

Thank you, Tom. Our differences should be clear by now.