God didn't have to create creature 1. What is difficult to understand about this?

God undertook a positive action to create a creature He knew would sin, under your theory. Had He refrained from creating the creature, that would have been refraining from something God *could* have done. But God actually did create the creature, so more than simply refraining from something He might have done, God actually did something.

Back to creature 1. God could have just as easily created a different creature in #1's place whom He knew would not sin, right? God had that ability, correct? Given God had the ability to create a different creature #1, a creature whom God knew would not sin, it follows that God chose to create a being whom He knew would sin instead of creating a creature He could have created that He knew would not sin.




It's not wrong! The reason you bear responsibility is not because you did something wrong in the raising of the child, but because you chose to bring an evil person into the world.



Why would you snip three words of a sentence. Here's what I wrote:



Do you disagree with this?



Ok, let's say it increased a hundred times. Say it was originally 1 in a million that a creature would sin. After Satan's fall, it became 1 in 100,000. This is still a far cry from creating a creature you knew would sin.

What good being would choose to bring an evil being into existence? (or, more accurately, a being the good being knew would become an evil being).

As everybody can see, the quotes are very clear. “Reason” for sin is equated with “excuse” for sin, and Ellen White explains that “there was no reason for its existence” by saying that “sin appeared in a perfect universe, a thing that was shown to be inexcusable.” The emphasis is clearly on the fact that there is no excuse for perfect beings to sin.


To me the problem would be the same if I knew there was the possibility of a terrible disease.


Oh, yes, there is. There are cables which of course would never break in this situation because they were made to bear a much heavier weight than that of the box which is being raised.
In relation to our discussion, the cable that would break is God’s creation of free-will beings with the knowledge that they would sin; the cable that might break is God’s creation of free-will beings with the knowledge that they might sin; and the cable that wouldn’t break would be the creation of beings without free will.
Of course the worker of the second option is not exempt from guilt. He wasn’t ignorant of the fact that the cable might break, although as a remote possibility, in the same way that God wasn’t ignorant of the fact that His creatures, specially in the case of man, might sin. It’s clear that the fact that the second worker “hoped” that the cable wouldn’t break doesn’t exempt him from responsibility.
Of course I wouldn’t use this illustration to explain my view, but since you consider that God, under my view, is guilty for the existence of sin, I used it to show that your view is no better.


Ellen White’s way of expressing herself in the quotes doesn’t suggest a possibility, but a certainty. However, I’m not going to discuss this. The point is that, under your perspective, God was aware, very aware, completely aware of the possibility of sin, which is my point above. If you consider that God is responsible for sin because He knew sin would occur, it’s not by saying that He knew that sin might occur but hoped it wouldn’t that you will be able to exempt Him from any responsibility.


If God had undertaken a positive action to create all the other creatures but not to create creature 1, He would have acted differently in relation to creature 1. He would have “undertaken a negative action” in relation to him. This should be obvious, and this is my point.


In both cases (certainty or possibility), you would have brought an evil person to the world, and in the second case you knew the risk involved.


A similar question could be asked: What good being would choose to bring into existence a being that could become evil? What perfect being would choose to make a risky decision which might turn out badly?
I sincerely don’t see your view as solving the problem, or as bringing a satisfactory answer to the questions you propose. This is specially true of Adam and Eve. Why bring a new race into existence at that moment? It doesn’t make any logical sense.

Her main point is that God was not at fault for the existence of sin. It is true that one of the possible explanations that could be given for the existence of sin would be if there were some reason that perfectly created beings should sin. And so she discusses that, and eliminates it. But this is not the only possible reason that can be given for the existence of sin. He point is not that just this reason is not a reason for the existence of sin, but that there is no reason for the existence of sin.



From our previous discussions, you have argued that if God had refrained from creating beings He knew would sin, then He would not be respecting the wrong choices that beings with free will make. So in order for there to respect for wrong choices, there has to be wrong choices, and beings that would make those wrong choices would have to be created. Therefore sin exists because once God decided to create beings with free will, it was necessary to create beings that would make wrong choices, so that these wrong choices could be respected.

The position you are taking makes sin an inevitable result of God's creating beings with free will. If this weren't the case, then you should be able to postulate some scenario under which God could create beings with free will without sin being inevitable. Can you present such a scenario?





Surely you know that if you have a child, there is some chance it will get a terrible disease. No one has a 100% chance of having a child that has no chance of developing such a disease. I'm assuming you made a choice to have a child, even though you knew there was a chance of its obtaining a terrible childhood disease. So this is a choice you actually did make, assuming you chose to have a child. I'm assuming you would not have made this choice had you been certain it would have gotten a terrible disease. Assuming these assumptions are true, the problem is not the same for you.



That doesn't mean they can't break under a lesser weight. This is very poor logic. A bridge can be build to support a 4 ton truck, but can collapse under the weight of a 2 ton truck. This does in fact happen with real life bridges.

The chances of cables breaking in these stress tests are assessed in terms of probability. There will always be some small chance that a cable could break, or that an airplane will crash, or that a bridge will collapse, or any other engineering process you can think of. There's no such thing as a 0% chance of failure.



I explained what the legal standard is. The worker is *not* culpable, unless he breaks that standard, and acts contrary to what a prudent person could reasonable be expected to do. There is no such thing on this earth of being able to build something you know is 100% sure not to fail. This just isn't reality.

Reality is that engineering processes have a risk of failure. Reality is that an engineer that builds a bridge, or a building, knows there is a chance it can collapse. A doctor that performs a surgery knows the patient might die. A computer system that monitors vital information for hospital patients may have a bug in it and mix up the information, or crash altogether. A million of these scenarios can be given. Unless a person acts recklessly, knowing there is some reason for a bad result to occur beyond the normal probabilities ordinarily attached to these events, he is not held responsible.

If what you are suggesting were true, no one would ever lose a law suit based on any unfortunate event that occurred.



The illustration does the opposite of what you are intending. It does show my view is better, because, in the real world, a person who does something knowing that a bad result will occur *is* held to be responsible, whereas a person who does something knowing that a bad result might occur *is not* held to be responsible ( unless the person had reason to believe that the probabilities involved were not ones that one ordinarily expect.)



I demonstrated this is not the case. She used the qualifying words "should" and "any." I also demonstrated that your idea of the future is not consistent with hers, shown by statements such as "all heaven was imperiled for our redemption," a statement incompatible with your view and other examples.



This does exempt Him from responsibility. He created beings with free will, that He knew might use that free will in a way different than He wanted. This is inherent in creating beings with free will. There is no way around this, other than by not creating beings with free will at all. Why should God by held responsible for an event that He had no reason to assume would occur?

On the other hand, if He created beings He knew would sin, then how can He be exempted?

It's the same thing for us. If we do something that leads to a bad result when we have no reason to assume the bad result will occur, we are not held responsible. However, if we do something we know will lead to a bad result, we are held responsible.



It appears to me that you are assuming that God created creatures without any thought about what He was doing. Like something popped into His mind, and that was that. A more reasonable assumption, it seems to me, is that God gave considerable thought to each and every creature He was going to create. For each creature, there would have been many decisions to make. How much intelligence, what kind of intelligence, what gifts/talents to give, etc. etc. Assuming this is true, then there are many possible creatures that could have been created for any given creature. God would not have been treating creature #1 differently in any way other than deciding not to create a creature He knew would sin.



In one case you bear responsibility, and in the other you don't.



You, to name one, assuming you have children. (I'm giving you credit for being a "good being" )



God decided to create man before Lucifer rebelled. It was the discussions God was having with Jesus regarding the creation of man that was the meeting that left Satan wondering why he wasn't included in the discussions. So is what you are proposing that would have made more sense (given my perspective) is that God should have changed His mind about creating man at all? Or that He should have waited until after the GC was decided before creating man? I'm not sure what it is you think would have made logical sense.

Be that as it may, assuming the chance of man's rebelling was small, I'm not seeing why God is not completely exonerated under this perspective. Instead of creating beings He knew would sin, He created beings who might (although unlikely) sin. God took a small risk, as opposed to setting into motion a course of events that could only have one outcome.

Tom, I had already quoted 3 passages showing that Ellen White refers to the fact that there is no excuse for a perfect creature choosing to sin: TMK 15.4; RH March 9, 1886; and ST April 28, 1890.

Here we have another passage:

“What was it caused Satan to rebel? Was there any just reason that could be assigned for his sin? The place where sin originated has been pointed out, but the reason for sin cannot be found; for there is no reason for its existence. It is written of Satan, 'Thou wast perfect in all thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.' All who apostatize are destitute of any real excuse.” {ST, September 18, 1893 par. 2}

The one you quoted, from GC, also supports what I’m saying:

“It is impossible to so explain the origin of sin as to give a reason for its existence. ... Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in nowise 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. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given.” {GC88 492.2}

So I see no basis for saying that my view gives an explanation for sin.


No, of course not! If God saw that in the future none of His creatures would make wrong choices, wrong choices didn’t have to exist for God to respect them (and this, of course, is the scenario where God could create beings with free will without sin being inevitable). But once God saw that wrong choices would be made, eliminating the possibility of their existence couldn’t be classified as respect for them, could it?


No. I was going to speak about this yesterday, but I always opt for concision. No, my child was conceived accidentally (doctors alleged my husband was infertile and had to be submitted to a surgery to correct the problem. I got pregnant before the surgery ) But if I had had the option, I think the moment would never have arrived when I would say, Now I will have a child (exactly because I was afraid to have a child with some kind of problem). Well, my child was born with a heart problem and, of course, I refused to have any more children. So, if everybody thought like me, the human race would have been extinct long ago.


No. I would opt for not bringing a child to the world if I knew it would be born with some kind of physical or mental problem, because I would feel guilty about that, but I would have no problem in having a child who would later get a disease.


Owing to the fact that the cable wasn’t well fastened, or owing to a natural wear or deterioration of the cable, or owing to a miscalculation, but a new cable made to support a certain weight won’t break under a lighter weight. This is obvious.


If you were (or should be) aware that the cable might break, of course you are not exempt from responsibility in the accident. We see this everyday on television – for instance, in the case of the roof of a shopping center or of a church, for instance, which collapses, of course there will be an investigation to ascertain who is to blame for the accident.


In the sentence just before the one you are referring to, she says, “He did not work to bring about a certain condition of things, but He knew that such a condition would exist.” She doesn’t say “could” exist or “might” exist, but “would” exist.
As to the “heaven imperiled for our redemption,” do you really wish to go back to the discussion about the three hebrews and all that? I don’t.


He can’t be exempted in either case, but it seems we won’t agree on that.


How can it be that you have “no reason” to assume the bad result will occur, but make a plan in case it occurs? If there is “no reason” there should be no plan.


No, there are not many possible creatures that could have been created for any given creature. There’s just one. Different traits or gifts would be given to a different creature, and so on.

Why do you think sin arose? Because of how much intelligence, what kind of intelligence, what gifts/talents the creature possessed, etc.? No, of course not. None of these traits had any effect in the creature’s choice to sin.

“God made him [Lucifer] good and beautiful, as near as possible like Himself.”--RH Sept. 24, 1901.

Lucifer was, among all creatures, the creature who most resembled God. How could there be many creatures like that? And what do you think God could or should have made differently in him that would make him not to choose sin?


Yes, that would make much more sense under your perspective.

What I pointed out is that her main point was that God was not responsible for the existence of sin. Certainly if there was a reason for one the creatures He created to sin, that would be an excuse. But this is just one possible way that the existence of sin could be excused.

She is not simply saying the existence of sin cannot be explained in this one way. It can't be explained by any way.



There's no connection between a creature's not have a reason to sin and your view offering an explanation for sin. I never claimed your view was implying that God created creatures that had a justification for sinning.



But this isn't possible, correct? This is just tossing out something that couldn't have happened.



Wouldn't the "once God saw" have been the same moment that God thought about creating beings with free will? There wasn't any period of time where God thought of creating beings with free will, and God didn't know that if He did sin would arise, is there? (this is from your perspective, I'm asking).

Assuming there was no time lag, He knew that some of them would make wrong choices. From what you have been arguing, God had to create these creatures He foresaw would make wrong choices. You have been saying if He didn't, then He would be respecting free will. This is what I understand you to have been saying.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then it follows that once God decided to create beings with free will, sin had to exist.

Regarding your having children, it was gracious of you to share your story with me. I wasn't meaning to be personal. My point was that *any* child can be born with a terrible childhood disease. Medical science is not at a point (and probably never will be) that a doctor can tell you that your child has a 100% chance of being born healthy. If you knew your child would be born with a heart problem, it would be reckless to choose to have a child, and, thank goodness, you are not being reckless. But if you had no reason to believe your child was any more likely to be born with a heart problem than any other child, you would not be doing anything wrong if you chose to have a child.

So there is a difference between making a decision that can result in something that has a small chance of occurring vs. a result that will certainly occur.



It's not obvious and it can happen. There is not a 100% chance that the cable will not break. This isn't reality.



There's no problem in being aware that the cable might break. The problem would be in being aware that there was a greater chance than normal that it would break.



This was my point. The sentence immediately after clarifies her thinking. She wasn't shifting from a deterministic idea of the future to a non-deterministic one from one sentence to the next.

In general, Ellen White's view of the future was not deterministic. This is a part of one's framework. It's not something that comes and goes. The statements about "Christ could come before now," heaven being imperiled, God taking a risk in sending His Son, Christ risking all, Christ being disappointed He could come in 1903, and such demonstrate her view of the future was not deterministic.



You have a better memory about these conversations than I do. For me, it would be like having it the first time. I really have no idea what your reaction to the statement that heaven was imperiled for our redemption would be. It seems very clear to me that if it has been settled in the mind of God for all eternity that heaven would never be in any danger whatsoever, He could hardly have revealed that it was in danger.



It's just like a person choosing to have a child that might have some birth defect, but has no reason for thinking so. If such a person can be exempted, than so can God. It's the same logic.



If you go out on a boat, doesn't it make sense to have a life jacket? You don't expect anything to go wrong, but being prepared for an emergency is prudent.



Why not?



Why? It seems to me that a billion or more different beings could have been created in the place of Adam. Why not? Why would it have to be Adam? Surely God was capable of creating a being with your or my DNA in place of Adam (or Eve). The same could be said for the billions of humans that have existed. God could have created a being with any of these DNA's, or DNA He could have thought of.



I think there's no reason why sin arose.



From my perspective, God had no reason to expect that Lucifer would sin.

Speaking from yours now, either it was inevitable that a creature with traits like Lucifer would sin or it isn't. If it isn't, then God should have created a creature with traits like Lucifer had that He foresaw would not sin. If it is, then God should not have created a creature with those traits.



From my perspective, God did not expect that man would sin. I trust that God made a good decision. He has demonstrated the ability to make good decisions.

Had God thought there was an undue risk that man would sin, He wouldn't have created Him. God has demonstrated His character through Jesus Christ, and a being with this character would not, I believe, create beings He expected would sin.

We don't have access to all the information God had available to Himself at the time He made the decision, but based on the evidence He has given us in His word, I believe He would not have made a reckless or poor decision. I think when we see all the information He had available, we will agree that the decision was a good one.

A question that I just have to ask is, isn't a smaller chance of a bad thing happening better than a larger chance? I've suggested that the chance of sin happening was remote, like 0.000001% or something like that.

Wouldn't even a 49% chance of a bad thing happening be better than a 50% chance? I'm not understanding (meaning it just blows my mind) how it can be thought that a 0.000001% chance of something bad happening is just as bad as a 100% chance of something bad happening.

In the five quotes existent about this subject, she points out just one aspect. Therefore, it’s this aspect she has in mind. You claim my view gives an explanation for sin in an aspect that never occurred to Ellen White. What she is saying clearly is that God was not responsible for the poor choice made by some of His creatures.


Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying. God created His creatures perfect, but, although perfect, they were just finite. A finite being, with limited knowledge and experience, will not always make the same perfect decisions an infinite being, with all knowledge and wisdom, would make.
God’s creatures were created knowing only good, while God, of course, knew good and evil – He knew what would be the result of making a wrong choice, of choosing evil. He also knew that one of His creatures would make that wrong choice and, thereby, lead many others to make that wrong choice too. But He determined to overrule sin for good, and thus permitted sin to happen. By so doing, He not only demonstrated that He respects the choices of His creatures. He also demonstrated what is the result of wrong choices, and the nature of His infinite love. By this means He made the universe eternally secure.
So yes, God decided not to prevent sin from happening. But this doesn’t mean He is responsible for the existence of sin. Sin, in all cases, was a poor choice made deliberately, despite God’s warnings about its results. So there is no excuse for sin. This is what I see Ellen White as saying.


A creature with traits like Lucifer would be Lucifer - that good being God created as near as possible like Himself. A creature with traits like Rosangela would be Rosangela. But Rosangela's traits cannot determine her choices, otherwise many would present this as an excuse on the Day of Judgment.


Of course there may be a difference in the degree of responsibility, but a smaller chance of something happening, or the mere hope that something bad doesn’t happen, doesn’t exempt the person from responsibility.
As I said in my post #92851, “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.”

Here's the GC quote:



This points out:

1.It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence.
2.Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin.
3.There was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion.
4. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given.
5.It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it.
6. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin.

You've been emphasizing point 3, but points 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are all also true, and stand by themselves. Your argument would make these points untrue, each one. It would be possible to explain sin as to give a reason for its existence. God would be responsible for the existence of sin. A reason for the presence of sin could be given. It wouldn't be unaccountable, and a cause could be shown for its existence.

The cause would be as follows. God, in creating beings with free will, foresaw that some of these creatures would make wrong choices, if He created them. In order to respect these wrong decisions, God created these creatures.

Regarding your statement "You claim my view gives an explanation for sin in an aspect that never occurred to Ellen White." I understand you to mean "Your claim that my view gives an explanation for sin is an explanation (or aspect) that never occurred to Ellen White." I'm not so sure this is true. Perhaps the exact form of your view and my argument, yes, she might never have thought at that, but it seems clear to me that Ellen White did not view sin as something inevitable, and I think she would have raised these same points, as applicable, as *any* explanation for sin which would make sin inevitable would be taken to task.

I'm skipping your middle comment, which I particularly liked (for being a good explanation of your ideas) so I can consider it some more.



Ok, if you think that an individual is defined by its traits, then God should have refrained from creating a creature with those traits, since a creature with those traits would inevitably sin. (since that creature would, by definition, by Lucifer, and Lucifer would certainly sin)



So your idea regarding my view is that if God foresaw that there was a 1 in a million chance of sin occurring, then He would not be exempt from responsibility, since there was still some chance that sin would occur, although, God would have much less responsibility (like a million times less, or, perhaps more accurately, infinitely less) under my view than yours. The only way God could be totally exempt from responsibility would be if there were no chance of sin occurring. This seems to be what you are saying.

I disagree with this idea. I understand that God created beings He knew could sin, but He had good reason to expect that this would not happen. His decision was like the decision of a parent choosing to have a child, knowing there is a chance the child could be born with a birth defect (but not an abnormal chance). I don't see how such a parent could be held responsible for having done anything wrong, unless you think no parents should have children, because no parent can be absolutely sure their child won't be born without a birth defect.

I don't see how God, from my perspective, could be considered to have done anything wrong.

This was good! You've done a nice job here putting together related ideas, which gives a feel for what you're thinking. Most of this I understand what you're saying, and think is OK, except for this:



I think this is the crux of the matter. The problem I see with your perspective it that it's not simply that God decided not to prevent sin from happening but that God did something to cause sin to happen.

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. I can't think of any example that would be an exception to this, can you?

Saying that God did not do something to prevent sin is not going far enough. This would be OK to say if the creatures that would sin already existed, and God had nothing to do with their existence. But the creatures did not exist! God created creatures that He knew would sin, and that's where the problem is. NOT that God didn't prevent them from sinning (which He couldn't do, and respect free will, as you've been correctly pointing out).

Also, jumping back to something else, which you may have addressed, but I don't remember this, so sorry if I'm making you repeat something.

I asked you if you could postulate some scenario by which free will beings could have been created without sin existing. If you cannot do so, then it seems to follow that the creation of beings with free will necessitate the existence of sin.

So these are 2 problems I see with your perspective. To summarize:

1)God did something that would of necessity result in something bad happening when He had alternatives which would not have led to this outcome.
2)The creation of beings with free will necessitates the existence of sin.