Our fundamental difference is in perspective: you consider that the existence of sin means the existence of a creature who sins (or will sin); I consider that the existence of sin means the choice, or the decision to sin. So, when you say that God is responsible for the existence of sin, you mean God is responsible for the creation of a being who would sin. When I say that God is not responsible for the existence of sin, I mean God is not responsible for the poor choices of His creatures.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they accused God of being responsible for their sin:

“Adam could neither deny nor excuse his sin; but instead of manifesting penitence, he endeavored to cast the blame upon his wife, and thus upon God Himself: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.’ He who, from love to Eve, had deliberately chosen to forfeit the approval of God, his home in Paradise, and an eternal life of joy, could now, after his fall, endeavor to make his companion, and even the Creator Himself, responsible for the transgression. So terrible is the power of sin. When the woman was asked, ‘What is this that thou hast done?’ she answered, ‘The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.’ ‘Why didst Thou create the serpent? Why didst Thou suffer him to enter Eden?’--these were the questions implied in her excuse for her sin. Thus, like Adam, she charged God with the responsibility of their fall” (PP 57, 58).

Since God created the originator of sin and permitted him to tempt humans, how couldn't He be considered responsible for the existence of sin on earth? Only if sin is seen as a choice. That’s why Ellen White says that on the great day of judgment, nobody will have an excuse for his sin. Nobody will say to God: “You created me with free will, therefore You are responsible for my sin;” or, “You permitted me to be born, knowing that I had sinful tendencies, therefore You are to blame for my sin;” or, “You created the being who originated sin and permitted him to tempt me, therefore You are responsible for my sin.” These excuses won’t hold water because, as I said, sin, in all cases, was a poor choice made deliberately, despite God’s warnings about its results. God warned Lucifer several times about sin’s results – but Lucifer chose to rebel. God warned Adam and Eve about sin’s results – but they chose to rebel. God warns human beings through the results of sin, which can be seen everywhere, but they choose to continue in sin. So, God is not to blame for sin, for rebellion – the creatures who sin are. That’s what the quote in GC is saying: “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.”


That’s because of your perspective. I don’t believe that because God brought to existence a being that would sin, this means He is responsible for sin. He is not responsible for sin, since He is not responsible for the choices of Lucifer, who was created perfect.


When the prodigal son went to his father and asked for his inheritance, the father granted the request, although he surely knew that this was not in the son’s best interest. He could have said to his son that if he wanted to leave, he was free to leave, but that he would not give him money. But, according to your reasoning, the father did something that could only have a bad outcome, therefore he is responsible for that bad outcome.


Yes, I’ve addressed this twice. The only scenario by which free-will beings could have been created without sin existing would be the one in which God had foreseen that none of His creatures would make a wrong choice. But this never happened.

I understand what you mean, and I've been pointing out that the problem is not that God is responsible for the decisions of the creatures He made. He's not. He's responsible for His choice! God, from your perspective, chose to create a being that was certain to sin. It was 100% certain (again, from your perspective) that in so doing, sin would come into existence.



This is, again, just 1 of the 6 points. You're itching where it doesn't scratch, as a professor of mine used to say. The issue I'm dealing with has to do with God's decisions only, not His creature's decisions.

Here's another way to think of things. God had many choices in terms of the creation of creatures, an unfathomable number for us . The moment God made the decision which of these unfathomable number of choices to make, God (from your perspective) would know exactly what would happen from that point on. So God had available millions of possible scenarios to choose from, every one of which would turn out in one exact way. From these millions of scenarios, God chose a scenario where sin came into the universe, as opposed to one of the scenarios where there wouldn't have been any sin. He is responsible for His choice.

My question has been, why would He make such a choice.

Now you might answer that all of these millions of scenarios would have resulted in sin. If that's the case, then that means that the creation of beings with free will makes sin inevitable.

So either way there's a problem. Either God chose a scenario where sin would result instead of one where sin would not result, or the creation of beings with free will made sin inevitable.



God could have created just one being with free will, if He wanted to, right? He must have been able to foresee this. So if what you were asserting were true, it would mean that not even by creating one creature could God have avoided sin. This doesn't seem reasonable, does it?

I think it's very easy to see that God could have created free will beings without sin existing, unless you take the position that every being that God could have created (given that He created only 1) would sin.

Regarding the prodigal son analogy, did the father have a better alternative? I was very careful in the way I expressed myself to make it clear that the responsibility comes when one makes a choice which will certainly end in a bad result when there is a better choice available that will not end in a bad result. But the father in the story had no such choice, correct? So from my perspective, the father has no guilt to bear, since he didn't make a bad choice.

I see just two scenarios – one in which He created only creatures who He knew wouldn’t sin, and one in which He created also the creatures who He knew would sin. We have already discussed this and are just repeating ourselves. Once God decided to create beings with freedom of choice, He bound Himself to respect these choices – and to respect the possibility of these choices existing. So, yes, God knew sin would exist and permitted its existence. Some may consider that this makes Him responsible for sin, in the same way that some may consider that the fact He permitted humans to be tempted makes Him responsible for sin on earth, but these arguments won’t hold water on the Day of Judgment.


By giving the money to his son, the father made it possible for him to leave home and squander it in bad things. The father had the option to not give him the money. If he wanted to leave, he could leave and find a job.
Speaking about this, did God have a better alternative?

I see just two scenarios – one in which He created only creatures who He knew wouldn’t sin, and one in which He created also the creatures who He knew would sin.

There would still be millions of scenarios. You are classifying the scenarios. There would be millions of scenarios which could be placed into one of two classes. Your argument is that God, in order to respect free will, had to choose one of the millions of possibilities that are in the class containing creatures that would make wrong choices.

We have already discussed this and are just repeating ourselves. Once God decided to create beings with freedom of choice, He bound Himself to respect these choices – and to respect the possibility of these choices existing.

This is not accurately characterizing what was happening, given your presuppositions. God was not, given your presupposition, respecting the possibility of these wrong choices existing, but rather, choosing to make it certain that the wrong choices would occur. There was no "possible" here. Only certainty. God could have acted in a way to make it certain that sin would occur, or to make it certain that sin would not occur. Either way the universe would be filled with creatures with free will. God chose, according to your view, to do the former.

It's not making any sense to me that the fact that God saw that a creature could make a wrong choice meant that creature had to be created. Since the creature did not exist, its free will was not being impacted. The free will of the creatures that would not have sinned was certainly not impacted. So if God had chosen to create beings none of which would make a wrong choice, the free will of no existing creature would have been disrespected.

So you must mean something like free will as a concept, as an idea, would not have been respected?

So, yes, God knew sin would exist and permitted its existence. Some may consider that this makes Him responsible for sin, in the same way that some may consider that the fact He permitted humans to be tempted makes Him responsible for sin on earth, but these arguments won’t hold water on the Day of Judgment.

These are two very different things. God's permitting someone to be tempted is just allowing choices to be made. There's no problem here. However, choosing a scenario in which sin had to occur instead of one where sin would not have occurred is a very different matter. I don't know why you are comparing these things.

If the fact that God could foresee that some creatures could make a wrong decision meant that God had to create these creatures in order for free will to be respected, then it is not possible for creatures will free will to have been created without sin existing. Two questions on this.

1.Do you understand this argument? If not, I'll try to explain it better.

2.Do you not perceive that the idea that creatures with free will could not be created without sin being inevitable is problematic?

Quote:
Regarding the prodigal son analogy, did the father have a better alternative?

By giving the money to his son, the father made it possible for him to leave home and squander it in bad things. The father had the option to not give him the money. If he wanted to leave, he could leave and find a job.

The point of the story was to teach a truth regarding God's forgiveness, how God does not require anything in order to forgive, but goes looking for the lost one while he is still a long way off. If the father had not given the son his inheritance, how could the story have been told?

I'm really not understanding why you brought up the prodigal son parable here. This story doesn't have anything to do with foreknowledge, does it? If you try to make parables which are dealing with their given point apply to some other point they were not intended to deal with, you run into all sorts of weird possibilities.

Speaking about this, did God have a better alternative?

Yes. God could have created creatures He knew would not sin.

Here's a way to see that God could have created FMAs without sin occurring (given the perspective that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge).

1.Create just one creature, like Gabriel. God would know that Gabriel would not sin.

If God had done this, then there would have been just one creature with free will, a creature that could love and be loved, with no sin in the universe. In this scenario, it should be clear that free will would in no way have been disrespected. God is not forced to create more than one creature.

2.Create a brother for Gabriel, another angel whom He saw would not sin. Now there are two creatures, both with free will, and no sin in the universe. It should be clear that free will is not being disrespected here either.

We'll stop with just two creatures.

Yes, free will has two sides – the creature’s side and the Creator’s side. For the Creator to be true to the free will He decided to allow His creatures to possess, He must bind Himself to respect His creatures’ choices, and to respect the possibility of these choices existing. If He doesn’t respect the possibility of a certain choice existing, this means He doesn’t allow that choice to be made. This is obvious to me.
Besides, although God allowed sin to exist temporarily, He provided the solution for it, so that every creature was given the opportunity to be saved – including Lucifer. So, the creation of Lucifer wasn’t what gave origin to sin, because, even after having cherished wrong feelings, Lucifer was given a choice; what gave origin to sin was his choice, not his creation. Therefore, sin is entirely his fault, not God’s.


God’s allowing Lucifer to exist was just allowing choices to be made.


Yes, I understand the argument, but I don't see it as a problem.


I was referring to a general statement of yours, which said:
“If one does something that can only have a bad outcome, especially when one has alternatives that do not lead to that bad outcome, then one is responsible for that bad outcome.”

Well, my point was that the father does something that can only have a bad outcome – gives money to his son. But the father is not responsible for the bad outcome – the son is, because of his choice. The father had an alternative – not to grant the son’s request, which could have prevented all the son’s suffering.

This isn't really what's happening, though. It isn't possible for God to respect every possible choice that could be made, because many possible creatures that could have been created weren't created. Their choices weren't respected, so it's difficult to see that the argument you are presenting here has merit.

Unless you modify the argument to be something like God had to allow specifically sin to exist, because it is clear that many possible choices that could have been made were not made, because God never created the creatures that could have made those choices.



From the standpoint of Lucifer's decisions, you are correct that Lucifer is responsible for his decision, and could have acted differently (of course, this is assuming my perspective. Your perspective has logical problems associated with it, in that if the future were settled before Lucifer made his choice, as God's having exhaustive definite foreknowledge would imply, than *logically* Lucifer could not have made a different choice than what God had foreknown he would do). However, my point has been in relation to *God's* choice, not Lucifer's.

God was under no obligation to create Lucifer. Lucifer had no more right to exist than any other creature God chose not to create. God made the decision, under your perspective, to act in such a way that sin was inevitable. According to your theory, He did this because if He didn't He wouldn't be respecting free will. However, no actually living breathing creature's free will would have been disrespected, as the FMAs who chose not to sin would have just as much free will as they did before sin happened, and the creatures who did not exist would not have had any free will at all.

So the whole argument comes down to God being true to Himself, to God's integrity. Somehow if God did not create beings that would sin, God would not be maintaining His integrity. The key point seems to be this one:



This isn't being consistent with your point of view. You can't speak in terms of possibilities. *My* perspective can, not yours.

Under yours, there are two things which could have happened. God could have acted in a way that sin was sure to happen, or in a way that sin was sure not to happen. He chose the former, but I'm still not sure why.

I understand you said that if God did not create any creatures that He foresaw would sin, then that would not allow the possibility of sin to exist. But this contradicts your speaking in terms of possibilities, because the creatures who God foresaw would not sin had just as much ability, or possibility, to sin as those whom God foresaw would not sin.

So, once again, under your perspective, God did *not* act in such a way to make sin a possibility, but in such a way as to make sin a certainty.

With that established, the question comes up as to why God has more integrity acting in such a way as to make sin a certainty as opposed to acting in a way that it wouldn't exist. It's really difficult for me to see how a choice that brings sin into existence implies more integrity.

Another problem I see with this perspective is that is seems to be selfish. God has no problem, apparently, with subjecting this world to thousands of years of horror so long as His integrity is maintained.




Creating Lucifer allowed more choices to be made? Only Lucifer could choose to sin?



To clarify, you don't see the fact that God's creating beings with free will meant that sin was inevitable is a problem?



For one thing, it seems to me there is a good chance that the alternative of not granting the son his wish, would not have alleviated the son's suffering. Also, even more importantly, for all the father knew giving the son his inheritance could have made him happy, couldn't it?

It seems to me that my statement is true that if you do something which is certain to end in a bad result when you could have done something else which is certain to end in a good result, then you are responsible for the bad result coming to pass.

We are not speaking of every possible choice that could be made, but of two classes of choices – serving God or not serving God. God bound Himself to respect both classes of choices, but if He suppresses the possibility of existence of one of these classes of choices, He is not really allowing free will.


Possibility is the quality or condition of being possible. According to the dictionary, the word “possible” has two meanings:

1. that can be; capable of existing
2. that can be in the future; that may or may not happen

I’m using it in the first sense. If God doesn’t allow something to exist, then that thing is not capable of existing.


I’m not speaking of sin, I’m speaking about the decision to sin. God chose to allow this decision to happen, as opposed to not allowing it to happen.


Allowing choices to happen is part and parcel of the gift of free will. Why did God, under your perspective, thought it was worth while to run the risk of sin by allowing free will? Would you classify this reason as “selfish”?


I think freedom of choice is invaluable. If sin had to be allowed to happen in order that freedom of choice might be preserved, I don’t see this as a problem.


The money facilitated the son’s sinful behavior after he left home. Besides, the father was painfully aware that the son wouldn’t make good use of the money.


“Which is certain to end” – what’s the end of the story? This is the point.

This doesn't make sense unless beings that choose not to sin do not have free will.

To make this obvious, consider the case where God creates just one creature, say Gabriel. Let's postulate that Gabriel chooses not to sin. Does Gabriel not really have free will? Is God somehow not allowing free will by only creating Gabriel and not creating Lucifer? How does this argument make any sense? Free will is no more "allowed" by having creatures that make one choice instead of another.



You are saying that the FMAs that would not choose to sin did not have free will? Nor the ability of choosing to sin?



Any FMA could choose not to serve God, coudn't it? Isn't this a characteristic of free will? So how does God's not creating beings He foresaw would sin make the decision any more possible than it already was?

Consider again the case of God's creating just one being, say Gabriel. Wouldn't Gabriel have the ability to decide not to serve God?



If God had chosen not to create beings He knew would sin, those creatures He did create could still make any choices they wanted, couldn't they? How would God, in this scenario, be preventing them from making any choices they wanted to make?

Regarding under my scenario, God chose to create beings that could love and be loved for the good of the creatures He created. His reasons were not selfish.



I think the idea that freedom of choice necessitates the existence of sin is problematic. I think there are a lot of problems with this idea. Probably worth a topic.



I don't see how discussing this parable is going to get anywhere. Even if the father made a poor decision in giving his son his inheritance ahead of time, so what? What would that prove?



I don't follow your point here.

I was going to post a new topic, and quote what you wrote here, but then I noticed you switched words on me. So before I make a new topic, let me clarify this.

What I wrote was this:



It doesn't really clarify things if you switch the word "inevitable" for "allow to happen."

Let me backtrack a bit. I wrote:



To which you responded



In your saying this, I understood you to mean that you recognize that my argument is valid, but you don't see that there is any problem with its conclusion, which is that, given what you have been arguing, it was not possible for God to create beings with free will without it becoming certain that sin would exist.

The argument has nothing about allowing sin to happen, but about the existence of sin being inevitable.

So, to clarify, you don't see the fact that God's creating beings with free will meant that sin was inevitable is a problem?