Yes, they are. Here's an example:



If you look, you can find many more.




I don't know what your point is. I quoted from DA "It Is Finished" to show that the loyal angels had doubts regarding Satan's character that were cleared up at the cross. You agree with that, don't you? If so, then I think that's all I was trying to show, and we're done with that point.



Genesis 3. His side of the story was that God was a liar, and untrustworthy.



No.



Sin leads to death. God was making Adam and Eve aware of this fact. There is no more coersion involved here than there is when you explain to a child that putting on a superman cape and jumping off the house is a bad idea, because of gravity.



I think it would have. There's a fine line between how much information is enough to make an informed and correct decision, and how much is too much, going over the line, and entering into the area which crosses into interfering with free will. It seems to me clear that this is what was happening here. I can't think of any other explanation.



No, this is where you and I disagree, and it's important distinction. I agree that, from your perspective, it was God's decision that resulted in FMAs rebelling. God created FMAs that He knew would rebel. That this was God's decision is clear, and I'm glad you recognize that.

However, from my perspective, it was not God's decision that led to sin, but that of Lucifer. Lucifer acted contrary to God's wishes. God did not plan, intend, or design that sin should happen, nor did He set into motion a course of events that would inevitably lead to sin. God simply created beings with free will. Free will means the decision rests with the person exercising the free will.



Why didn't God create (only) FMAs He knew wouldn't rebel? I think so far all you've said is that God makes only correct decisions, and therefore this was the best alternative. However, that doesn't address the question as to why God did not create only FMAs He knew wouldn't sin. Why is the alternative God chose better than this one?

Tom,

I am considering two things here: impartiality, which I believe is an attribute of God’s character, and foreknowledge.
Before creating His creatures, God decided to endow them with free will, because He desired from them only a voluntary service. This meant, however, that He would respect their choices, even if these were wrong.
Also before creating His creatures He saw, because of His foreknowledge, that one of them, although created perfect, and although loyal to Him for ages, would one day make a wrong choice.
If God decided not to create this being, He would indeed be sparing Himself and the universe a lot of trouble, but I can’t see how He could have been true to Himself and to His decision to respect His creatures’ choices.


No, I’m asserting that the gift of free will ensures that wrong choices are respected.


If freedom of choice is a universal gift, then it must be extended to all creatures indistinctly (in this case, to all future creatures, since God decided this before creating any creature). If God had decided to create only the beings who would make the right choices, He would be respecting right choices, not respecting free will.


I don’t see how.


No, I don’t believe He considered not implementing the decision.


Peter also says that “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,” not that He bore sin in a generic sense.

I am considering two things here: impartiality, which I believe is an attribute of God’s character, and foreknowledge.
Before creating His creatures, God decided to endow them with free will, because He desired from them only a voluntary service. This meant, however, that He would respect their choices, even if these were wrong.
Also before creating His creatures He saw, because of His foreknowledge, that one of them, although created perfect, and although loyal to Him for ages, would one day make a wrong choice.

Lucifer, at this point, was simply a possible created being. IOW, instead of saying, "He saw .... that one of them .... would one day make a wrong choice" one could say (more accurately) He saw .... that one of the possible creatures He might create ... would one day make a wrong choice.

If God decided not to create this being, He would indeed be sparing Himself and the universe a lot of trouble, but I can’t see how He could have been true to Himself and to His decision to respect His creatures’ choices.

At the time God considered creating Lucifer to be the covering cherub, He must have considered many others that could have been created to fill that spot. It's hard to believe God could have only thought of one angel for that spot. That doesn't seem to be at all like God. He seems to consider all the possibilities, and then makes a decision from that. So given there were other choices available, those other choices had as much right to exist as Lucifer.

Throught God's foreknoweldge, before starting to create, God was looking forward to what might be. Until He started creating, it wasn't a certainty. So God looked forward and saw that what might be, if He should create Lucifer, was a being who would bring sin into the world. He also would have seen what might be if He should create some other being besides Lucifer, who would not bring sin into the world.

Why would God choose a being He knew would sin over a being He knew would not sin?

Quote:
R: However, my main emphasis here is in God’s impartiality, and in His purpose to guarantee the exercise of free will in the universe.
T: So you are asserting that free will could not exist without sin, aren't you?

No, I’m asserting that the gift of free will ensures that wrong choices are respected.

Wrong choices only need to be respected after they are made.

I'm not seeing why the inference from what you have been saying should not be that the existence of free will necessitated the existence of sin. If God was constrained to create a being He knew would sin, then free will necessitated the existence of sin, correct? Now if God was not constrained to create a being He knew would sin, then we are back to the question as to why He chose to do so.

Quote:
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.

If freedom of choice is a universal gift, then it must be extended to all creatures indistinctly (in this case, to all future creatures, since God decided this before creating any creature). If God had decided to create only the beings who would make the right choices, He would be respecting right choices, not respecting free will.

Whose free will would He not be respecting? The creatures He didn't create? That doesn't make any sense, does it? If they do not exist, they have no free will. The creatures already created? That would imply that sin must exist in order for free will to be resptected, even for creatures who do not sin.

Quote:
I'm glad you feel this way, even thought it's logically inconsistent with your viewpoint.

I don’t see how.

[quote]It was originally assumed that God could not change, because a perfect being cannot change. This is how the Greeks argued. From this idea, that God was impassible, came the idea that God's knowledge never changes, that He does not think, that He does not feel, He does not ponder, He does not consider, He does not regret, etc., because of all these things would imply that God had changed in some way, and God, according to the philosophy, is not allowed to change.

You are keeping some parts of the system, but not others, but the whole system fits together logically.

To mention just one item, since we have been discussing this, it doesn't make sense to assert that God struggled with making a decision if it has been settled for all eternity in God's mind what He would do.

Consider, for example, the moment in time God started to create. We don't know how long it was until man was created, but let's say it was x years. How many years would it take for God to figure out what He was going to do when Jesus came to Him asking Him to go to save man? Say it took 1 year of struggling. God would have already resolved the problem x-1 years before it happened, so when it actually occured, God would have no need to struggle.[/color]


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

No, I don’t believe He considered not implementing the decision.

If one is struggling with a decision, then one is considering more than one alternative. That's what stuggling with a decision means.

Quote:
The cross was necessary in order to "bring us to God," as Peter put it.

Peter also says that “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,” not that He bore sin in a generic sense.

There's quite a few ways this question could be addressed. I'll try one, and see if this makes sense to you.

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that there is no sin which man can committ that satisfaction has not already been made for at Calvary. The cross provides not only for whatever sins man has committed, but for any sins man could committ. Hence there is no need for an itemized list of sins to exist in order for Peter's statement to make sense.

I'm trying this answer because it might make sense to you. A better answer, which would take time to explain (but I'm willing to do, if you'd like) is that Peter was not thinking of this forensically, and given the way that Peter was thinking about it, there is no implication that Peter had an itemized list of sins in mind.

Again, the position has nothing to do with this. God didn’t create positions and then designed beings to fill them. The opposite is true. Besides, Lucifer’s position had nothing to do with his sin. It was the fact that he cherished a wrong attitude that had to do with his sin. If he had been the angel occupying the most humble position in heaven and had coveted the position of one of the covering cherubs, sin would have entered the universe nonetheless. I also don’t believe that God makes billions of drafts before finally deciding how He will create the next creature. He just imagines a perfect being and brings that being into existence, since all that He thinks and all that He does is perfect.


Of course if God prevents wrong choices from happening, it doesn’t make sense to say that He respects wrong choices. It only makes sense to say that he respects right choices. It’s easy to do that. Even Satan respects the choices which are right according to his standards.


My opinion is based on the Bible and on the writings of EGW, not on how the Greeks argued. However, in everything in this world truth is mixed with error. So, if among a lot of wrong concepts, one of them was right, this is not at all surprising.


I think God was struggling with His feelings, but He wouldn’t consider changing His decision, for the Bible is clear in saying that God doesn’t change. Or do you believe He changes?


So Christ didn’t suffer for specific sins of specific individuals, in your opinion. What about Satan and those who will be lost? Will they suffer for specific sins?

At the time God considered creating Lucifer to be the covering cherub, He must have considered many others that could have been created to fill that spot.

Again, the position has nothing to do with this.God didn’t create positions and then designed beings to fill them. The opposite is true.

It's just a way of identifying who is being discussed. The one who filled this position is the one God knew would sin.

Besides, Lucifer’s position had nothing to do with his sin. It was the fact that he cherished a wrong attitude that had to do with his sin. If he had been the angel occupying the most humble position in heaven and had coveted the position of one of the covering cherubs, sin would have entered the universe nonetheless. I also don’t believe that God makes billions of drafts before finally deciding how He will create the next creature. He just imagines a perfect being and brings that being into existence, since all that He thinks and all that He does is perfect.

This idea doesn't seem to be in harmony with what is revealed by God about Himself in Scripture. If God really went about things the way you are suggesting here, Scripture would not present God as thinking or pondering, but simply deciding and doing. This idea is exactly what I had in mind in pointing out that your position doesn't allow for God struggling with a decision.

Putting that aside for a moment, surely you agree that God had the capability of creating someone besides Lucifer to be the covering cherub, right? God had the ability to foresee what some other creature in that position would do. So there is still the same question to consider, which is why God would create a being He knew would sin, when He could have either skipped making that creature or made some other creature in this one's stead who wouldn't sin.

The fact that God thought of a creature to create doesn't mean God was forced to stop there.

Regarding the affirmation that everything God does is perfect, I agree. From my perspective, what transpired makes perfect sense. God created a perfect being, one with free will, one God knew could use that freedom to rebel. However, from your perspective, God created a being He knew would sin. How is that perfect?

Quote:
Wrong choices only need to be respected after they are made.

Of course if God prevents wrong choices from happening, it doesn’t make sense to say that He respects wrong choices. It only makes sense to say that he respects right choices. It’s easy to do that. Even Satan respects the choices which are right according to his standards.

It would not be God who was preventing the wrong choices from happening, but the creatures with free will who chose not to make those wrong choices.

You've been arguing that God's knowing what will happen does not cause the thing He knows to happen to happen, right? Well, you can't have it both ways. Using the same logic, God's knowing that the creatures He is making would not make wrong choices does not prevent them from making wrong choices. Either that, or, since God created a creature He knew would sin, then, by using the same logic, God caused sin to happen.

Quote:
This is how the Greeks argued.

My opinion is based on the Bible and on the writings of EGW, not on how the Greeks argued.

Anyone who lives in a Western culture has been shaped by the philosophy of the Greeks. How you read and understand that Bible is shaped by your culture, just as much as someone who reads it from an eastern culture or Afro-American culture. Your opinion is very much based on how the Greeks argued (just as everyone else's who lives in a Western culture) although you may not be aware of that fact.

However, in everything in this world truth is mixed with error. So, if among a lot of wrong concepts, one of them was right, this is not at all surprising. \:\)

Quote:
If one is struggling with a decision, then one is considering more than one alternative. That's what stuggling with a decision means.

I think God was struggling with His feelings, but He wouldn’t consider changing His decision, for the Bible is clear in saying that God doesn’t change. Or do you believe He changes?

Not in the sense that the Greeks thought, no, I don't agree. However, in the sense of character, God does not change.

Let's consider the scene from Early Writings.

Said the angel,



Clearly this was not simply God's struggling with His feelings, but He was having a difficult time deciding between two options, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His Son to die for them. This is even clearer when one reads of the meeting Jesus had with the Father.



Jesus had been pleading with the Father to obtain permission to give His life for the guilty race. Obviously God had not yet made up His mind as to what He was going to do, or why else would Jesus be pleading?

Quote:
Hence there is no need for an itemized list of sins to exist in order for Peter's statement to make sense.

So Christ didn’t suffer for specific sins of specific individuals, in your opinion.

As Ellen White put it, satisfaction was made for any sin man can create, so Christ's death does not simply cover a specific list of sins, but any sin that can be committed.

What about Satan and those who will be lost? Will they suffer for specific sins?

Yes. They will suffer for the sins that committed or had a part in.

MM: I believe doubt is inherent in faith; otherwise, faith is not faith. It is fact. Faith says, in spite of my doubts I choose to believe. In Peter's case, he didn't manage his doubts wisely. Again, there is no tension between faith and doubt if we faithfully manage our doubts wisely. Do you agree?


MM: I was talking about A&E and the cross. Somewhere along the line you switched gears.

Concerning the angels and Lucifer's accusation, yes, they had doubts about God's law and character, but they managed them well. They chose to believe God and not Satan. The cross confirmed (not verified) their belief. Even without the cross, they would have continued believing God. Early on, way before the cross, they were ready to toss the evil angels into the lake of fire. How do we explain this?


MM: I've read several different versions of the Bible and so far none of them reflect what you are saying about it. Again, please post a passage where Satan is pictured explaining to Eve how and why he rebelled in heaven, etc. Thank you.


MM: I don't get it, then. 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. 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?


MM: Oh, that's right, you believe sin, like a bullet to the head, causes people to die. Whereas I believe God is the one who punishes and destroys the wicked in the lake of fire. I still think telling them was a "form" of coercion.


MM: Okay.


MM: Tom, I don't see how you can insist God didn't do anything that resulted in FMAs rebelling. Who created FMAs? Why did He create them in spite of knowing there was, from your perspective, a slight chance they would rebel?


MM: You're right, Tom. The reason God did what He did is because He is perfect. He doesn't make mistakes. Even from your perspective, God chose to create FMAs in spite of knowing there was a slight chance they would rebel. How was this decision better than the alternative (not to create them)?

If you look at the EGW quote I provided, you will see that doubt stands in contrast to faith. Actually, in the quote I provided, it was Jesus who said that. He said, "Oh ye of little faith. Why did you doubt?"

To but it another way, to believe is the opposite of disbeleiving. Disbelieving is doubting.

I think what you really mean is that faith does not need to have some proved 100%. That is, God will never remove all possibility for doubt. But the possibility of doubt (God's not providing overwhelming evidence) and actually doubting (not taking advantage of the evidence God does provide, which is sufficient for faith) are two different things.

So I think you are confusing doubting with overwhelming evidence that does not permit doubting.



I'm sorry but I don't understand either what you are saying or what you are asking here.



The serpent said, "ye shall not surely die," which would make God to be a liar. When the serpent said "ye shall be as gods" he insinuated that God did not have Eve's best interest at heart, He wanted to keep Eve down.

Also in DA, first chapter, maybe page 19, it says that Satan, in order to deceive men to join him, misrepresented God's character.



There's a fine line between enough information and too much. God gave them enough information to do the right thing, but did not overwhelm them with evidence. God always works this way, as far as I can tell. To use EGW's language, He leaves hooks upon which we can hang our doubt.



Where did I say this?



Certainly, "Do what I tell you, or I will burn you alive and then kill you" is a form of coersion. However, we are told that God's government does not use compelling power. I do not see that telling someone the truth that sin inevitably results in sin is a form a coersion.



The only way possible to create beings that can love and be loved is to create beings with free will. EGW is very clear that God did nothing that resulted in FMAs rebelling. This is in the chapter speaking about the origin of evil in The Great Controversy, among other places. Actually simple logic and a knowledge of God's character is enough to see that God is in no way responsible for evil. Just look at the life of Jesus Christ, and this should be easily seen.



How is having free will creatures exist better than not? I suppose that's a question for God. I don't see how I could answer a question like that. I guess a similar question would be, why choose to have children, when you know they may use their free will poorly?

Here is a question for both Rosangela and MM. It's actually the same one I've been asking, which is why would God choose to create a being He knew would sin, as opposed to a being He knew would not sin.

I feel that Rosangela has made good attempts to answer this question, but I still can't put the reason succinctly or clearly, so my request to her would be to answer this question in as clear and succinct a manner as possible, as I'd like to have something I can keep and refer back to.

I'm sorry, MM, but I haven't seen anything that looks like an answer to me from you to this question. I'm looking for a reason as to why God preferred the alternative of creating a being He knew would sin to creating one He knew would not sin. So far all I've seen you say is that God did what He did, and knew what would happen. But you haven't given any answer, that I can discern, as to *why*. Rosangela has made an attempt to explain why, for which I thank her, and I wish you'd do the same.

Thanks to both of you, and thanks for the discussion. Both of you are far more patient than most people are in this discussion. I've gotten a lot out of it, and appreciate your participation.

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.


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!


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?


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. 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?


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?


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.


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

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


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 crate them?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.