Of course not. The explanation for sin would be in the answer to the question of why that being sinned, not why he was created (since he was created perfect).

“Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion” (GC 492, 493).

If God didn’t withdraw His grace, which brings love to the heart of all His creatures, how could selfish thoughts arise and be cherished in the heart of a perfect creature, in a perfect environment? If there was no deficiency in the divine government, why would any creature rebel against it? Obviously there is no satisfactory answer to these questions.


This applies to your view too. God created perfect beings and created free will. If free will led perfect beings to sin, God is ultimately responsible for sin - whether He knew this would happen or not. Knowing about the possibility also brings responsibility.


The integrity of free will had already been established? What do you mean by that? My view is that God, as creator and preserver of free will, shouldn’t, to be coherent, abstain from creating any being just because that being will use his/her free will to make wrong choices.

You wrote before that if no one exited to make the wrong choice, to sin, then that would mean that God did not respect wrong choices. Well if it is for sin to exist in order for God to respect wrong choices, then that's an explanation for the existence of sin!

On the other hand, if there is no reason why a perfectly created being should sin (I agree with this part), then it's difficult (I'd say impossible) to see what would be lost by not creating beings who would sin. This would simply be refraining from creating beings that would do something that could not be explained.



No, it doesn't apply, and this is the principle reason I defend it as strongly as I do, because this is the only view I'm aware of where one can argue in a logically consistent way that God is in no way responsible for the entrance of sin. Free will did not lead perfect beings to sin. Free will made it possible for perfect beings to sin. There's a big difference here.

If free will, under my view, made it inevitable for sin to occur, then I would agree with you. But I don't believe sin was inevitable, or even likely. You, however, believe it was inevitable. This is also a big difference.



I asked the question why it was God would create beings He knew would sin. You said it was necessary to have beings who would sin, or else it could not be said that God respected wrong choices. I rephrased this as preserving the integrity of free will, which I think is an accurate representation of the thoughts you shared previously.

Given that when God create Lucifer, and the other angels He knew would join him in sin, the requirement to have beings that made wrong choices was already fulfilled. There is no more need for further creatures that would sin. So why did God create even more beings that He knew would sin? That's what I'm asking.

By way of clarification, when God was considering creating the first man and woman, would you agree that God was not constrained to create Adam and Eve? That is, He could have created a different pair. Given that God wasn't forced to create that particular pair, what would have been God's criterion? Just create the first pair that came into mind? He couldn't decide on some other pair just because that particular pair He foresaw would happen to sin, and His integrity wouldn't allow it? D'oh! Too bad God didn't think of a pair that wouldn't sin.

I’m almost sure you did not understand my point.
Before I reply, I would like to make sure I understood correctly what you are saying about what I said. What does “exited” mean here? Could you rephrase this sentence, please?

Again, what makes sin unexplainable is the reason why it was chosen.

“Sin appeared in a perfect universe. . . . The reason of its inception or development was never explained and never can be, even at the last great day when the judgment shall sit and the books be opened. . . . At that day it will be evident to all that there is not, and never was, any cause for sin. At the final condemnation of Satan and his angels and of all men who have finally identified themselves with him as transgressors of God's law, every mouth will be stopped. When the hosts of rebellion, from the first great rebel to the last transgressor, are asked why they have broken the law of God, they will be speechless. There will be no answer to give.” {TMK 15.4}


You are inverting things:
Sin didn’t have to exist in order for God to respect wrong choices; but
Since God respects wrong choices, He didn’t prevent sin from existing.


What would be lost? What about God’s impartiality? What about His coherence? Would it be coherent to create free will and then be partial in its application?


In no way responsible? You are deluding yourself, Tom. Whether sin was more likely or less likely, the fact is that God was not completely ignorant about it, and that He knew sin was a concrete possibility. Whether He was more responsible or less responsible, the fact is your view cannot exempt Him from responsibility.


I never said that. What I said was, if God did something to prevent wrong choices from occurring (as opposed to letting things run their course), it could not be said that He respected wrong choices. He would be manipulating things. His purpose could be good (to avoid sin), but His action would go against the essence of free will (respect for choices). That is, God would have to contradict Himself in order to achieve a good purpose, and this cannot be.


As I said before, who are we to determine how God’s mind works and how He creates His creatures? The fact is, He created a perfect pair – it would be impossible for it to have been more perfect. And what applies to Lucifer’s case applies to theirs too – God cannot contradict Himself in order to achieve a good purpose.
I consider this to be a speculative discussion, and don't want to go further into it, but your view, on the other hand, doesn't offer a better explanation for the creation of man. Why did God, after Satan's fall, go ahead and create man? Of course earth's pair was the most naive, the most inexperienced of all the inhabitants of the universe, and the most likely to fall. Why did God create them, thus increasing the chances of sin spreading to the inhabited worlds? Knowing about the possibility brings responsibility.

You wrote before that if no one exited to make the wrong choice, to sin, then that would mean that God did not respect wrong choices. ...

I asked the question why it was God would create beings He knew would sin. You said it was necessary to have beings who would sin, or else it could not be said that God respected wrong choices.



Sorry! Missing an "s". It means "existed."

I understood you to say that if God eliminated the possibility of wrong choices existing by not creating beings whom He foresaw would make wrong choices, that would not be preserving the integrity of free will (this phrase "respect the integrity of free will" is mine, not yours, but I think it accurate, and eloquently, captures your idea).

But you are offering a reason for its inception, which is my point. You claim that if God did not allow beings to exist that would make wrong choices, this would not be respecting the right to make wrong choices. From this idea, it follows that if God did not create beings who would sin, then free will would be compromised. This is what I understand your argument to be.

Given that is the case, God had to create beings that would sin. Given this to be the case, it's very easy to explain the inception of sin: God created beings He knew would sin.

I'm not getting what's difficult to understand about this. If you do something the end result of which is 100% certain, then there is no mystery when when the certain result occurs.

Please note that EGW said that the inception of sin could not be explained. She did not simply say that the reason why perfectly created beings would sin could not be explained, but that the inception of sin could not be explained.

I understand that your view does not explain why perfectly created beings would sin, but that's not my point. My point is that EGW says that the existence of sin cannot be explained. But under your theory it can very easily be explained: God created beings He knew would sin. He did so because to refrain from doing so would not be displaying integrity on God's part, either to Himself or to the concept of free will. I understand this to be precisely your point. I'm just about certain I've correctly understood this.

This constitutes an easily understood explanation as to why sin exists.



God created beings He knew would sin. I don't understand how I'm inverting things. I have been asking why God did this. You say it's because if He didn't, He wouldn't be respecting wrong choices.

You agree that God did not have to create beings He knew would sin, correct? That being the case, if God chose create beings He knew would sin, rather than refrain from doing so, then God made a choice, for the integrity of free will, to create beings that He knew would sin as opposed to creating beings He knew would not sin. This is accurate, isn't it?



Why is not sinning less partial than sinning? It seems to me that creating beings that would sin is exactly equal in partiality to creating beings that wouldn't sin. I don't understand what it is to be gained by creating beings that would sin. How is God any more impartial one way or the other?



I don't understand the distinction. Beings with free will don't create themselves. God has to create them. God can either create beings with free will that will sin, or beings with free will that won't sin. He, under your theory, He chose to create beings that would sin.

You're putting things in a bit of a weird way, I think. You speak of God's preventing beings that would sin from existing. That's not what happened. God actually created beings that would sin. That is, God undertook a positive action, the result of which was the existence of beings God was certain to sin, under your theory. I don't see how I am being in any way inaccurate in asserting this. Once again, the beings that would sin do not put up out of nothing. God had to create them.



One can assert that God was responsible for creating a universe where sin was possible. I recognize that. What I am asserting is that God is absolutely innocent for the fact that sin came into existence.

Let's say you choose to have a child. Let's say you raise the child perfectly. The child can still go wrong, can still choose to be an evil person. If this should happen, you would bear no responsibility for that. It would be 100% the responsibility of your child, who exercised his or her free will to do what he or she wanted, in spite of being perfectly raised.

However, if you brought a child into the world that you were absolutely certain would do evil, then you would bear responsibility.

There's no delusion here!



God had to take a positive action to create beings that He knew would sin. These beings do not create themselves. You are speaking in terms of God's taking an action to prevent wrong choices from occurring as if somehow this meant something different than God's taking a direct action that made these wrong actions certain. But what's the difference? You agree that God created beings He knew would sin, don't you? That's a positive action that God undertook. It's not that God simply didn't prevent something from occurring. The something that occurred would never have happened had God not taken steps to make it occur.



We are creatures created in God's image that He invites to reason with Him. He wants an intelligent appreciation of His character, and invites us to understand His mind. In fact, He wants us to think like He does (to take His mind; "let this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus"), which is hardly possible if we don't understand how He thinks.



He could have just as easily created a perfect pair that He knew wouldn't sin.



These are good questions.

From my perspective, God created man expecting that man would not enter into rebellion. Perhaps the gift of procreation is unique to man; this has been suggested. Perhaps man was created to demonstrate in some special way that Satan's charges were false.

I think if God created man, and man was likely to fall (or certain to, under your view), then I would agree with you that God would bear responsibility. However, I think man acted in a way that God did not intend or expect, which is born out by Genesis 6, where God said that He regretted making man.

I should point out here the same thing that I've been pointing out to MM, which is that the fact that a decision turned out badly in no way implies that the decision made was of necessity a poor one. If, given the information that God had available at the time He made the decision, it was unlikely that man would sin, and there was great gain to be had in the likely event that man did not sin, then one cannot fairly blame God for having made a poor decision.

I realize this is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp, but it's a fundamental one from the perspective of probability theory. I can give some good examples of this from game theory, if desired.

Ellen White is very, very clear about what she means, which is that it cannot be explained why perfectly created beings would sin.

“The entrance of sin into heaven cannot be explained. If it were explainable, it would show that there was some reason for sin. But as there was not the least excuse for it, its origin will ever remain shrouded in mystery.”--RH March 9, 1886.

“The angels had been created full of goodness and love. ... But in this state of peace and purity, sin originated with him who had been perfect in all his ways. ... Sin is a mysterious, unexplainable thing. There was no reason for its existence; to seek to explain it is to seek to give a reason for it, and that would be to justify it. Sin appeared in a perfect universe, a thing that was shown to be inexcusable.”--ST April 28, 1890.


According to your view it’s also very easy to explain the inception of sin: God created beings He knew might sin.
Of course “would” or “might” makes little difference as far as responsibility is concerned.

Let’s say there are three kinds of steel cables which can be used to raise a heavy box: a cable that will break, a cable that may break, and a cable that will not break. In the first case, the cable breaks, the box falls, and a lot of people are killed in result. In the second case the cable breaks, the box falls, and a lot of people are killed in result. In the third case, obviously, the cable doesn’t break, for there’s no way it can break. Would you say that the worker who used the cable that might break is not guilty? How can he be exempted from responsibility if he knew there was a possibility, although remote, that the cable might break? Knowing about the possibility brings responsibility.


Yes, Ellen White specifically says that.

“From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency.” {DA 22.2}

“Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter him from carrying out his eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish his throne in righteousness.” {ST, April 25, 1892 par. 1}

“God had a knowledge of the events of the future, even before the creation of the world. He did not make His purposes to fit circumstances, but He allowed matters to develop and work out. He did not work to bring about a certain condition of things, but He knew that such a condition would exist. --ST March 25, 1897.


Since God knew both kinds of choices would be made in the future, not just one, the partiality consists in His suppression of one of them while affirming to respect both. As you say, I'm not getting what's difficult to understand about this.


God saw that creature 1 would sin.
God saw that creatures 2, 3, 4, 5.....n wouldn’t sin.
If He decides not to create creature 1, but just create creatures 2, 3, 4, 5......n, He is taking a positive action to NOT create one being. Again, what is difficult to understand about this?


Wrong, because in both cases you raise the child perfectly, and in both cases the responsibility is 100% of the child, who exercised his or her free will to do what he or she wanted, in spite of being perfectly raised. Your perfect knowledge or your lack of certainty about what will happen doesn’t change that.


Yes, we are just creatures and we are not in possession of all information.


Satan had already fallen. The creation of any being after that would only increase the possibility of sin spreading into the inhabited worlds. Anyone can see that.

The quotes you provided here say that no reason for the existence for sin can be given, my point.



Right here. But your theory provides an explanation for the existence of sin, and a very easy one at that. God foresaw that certain beings would sin, and chose to create these beings because if He refrained from doing so, He would not be respecting the wrong choices that beings with free will could make.

It makes all the difference in the world. Say you are thinking of having a child, and you know that child could get a terrible childhood disease, but the odds of that happening are small. If you have children, you made this exact decision. But if you knew for certain that a child you had would have a terrible disease, would you still have chosen to have had it?

Here's another example. As a point of law, it makes a difference as to whether you do something that you have reason to expect will result in a certain way, as opposed to expecting it to result in a contrary way.



In reality, there's no such thing as a cable that is 100% certain not to break. So unless you think every worker who uses a cable is guilty if it breaks, the answer has to be yes, the person is not guilty.

The standard used in U.S. law involves what a prudent person could reasonably be expected to do in the given circumstance. So if the worker acted in accordance with what a prudent person would reasonably expected to do, he bears no guilt if the cable breaks.

On the other hand, if he used a cable he knew would break, he would be guilty.

Regarding the quotes from EGW that God created beings that would sin, I think this is a wrong conclusion for a number of reasons.

The statements you quoted can be understood just as readily as saying that God was aware of the possibility that created beings would sin. For example, in the third quote you provided, right after where you stopped, it says:



Here she clarifies here meaning. She says the plan that *should* be carried out upon the defection of *any* creatures. This is qualified language, indicating an event that can happen, not one that will happen with certainty.

Here is the same principle in regards to humanity:



Here are some more reasons to understand that EGW did not believe in a settled future.

For example:



Clearly if God had seen from all eternity that heaven would never be in any danger, it could not be said that for our redemption heaven was imperiled.



If EGW believed the future were settled, she would not have spoken of the possibility of our hastening Christ's coming, since the date would be fixed. You can't hasten an event that has been fixed to a certain date.



This didn't happen. No one from that Conference is alive.

There are many statements where she writes, "Christ could have come before now." These are just a few examples which demonstrate that Ellen White had a view of the future wherein the future is not completely settled.