TE: The thing we need to keep fixed is the truth that God's decisions are perfect. Your view or my view of things might be wrong, but we can agree that God's decisions are correct.

MM: I agree. The fact FMAs rebelled does not mean God made the wrong decision. This is true whether we view it from my perspective or yours. Do you agree?

By the way, the only reason you think the form of my logic is faulty is due to the fact you believe my view means God could have chosen not to create Lucifer.

No, your faulty logic has nothing to do with this. The cause of the faulty logic was the form of your argument, not its content. Your argument is like the magic 8 ball example I provided. You have an implicit assumption of what you want to prove, which is what makes it circular.

I have repeatedly attempted to demonstrate that no such option was available to God.

Of course there were options available to God. He's God. He could have made a different creature if He wanted to, or not have made Lucifer. He didn't *have* to make Lucifer. God has free will, doesn't He? He made Lucifer because He wanted to.

The fact God is perfect is proof that what He did, in spite of the fact FMAs rebelled, was the only viable option available to Him.

No, it's not at all! I don't what your reasoning is here, but I can disprove your statement easily.

You are assuming that there the only way God could make a choice to do something is if there was only 1 viable option avaiable to Him. But God is able to make choices from more than 1 viable option. There could have been many viable options available to choose from, and God chose the best one. Or there could have been several equally viable options, and God chose one of the equally viable options.

There is absoluately no reason to assume that because God made a certain choice, that was the only choice God could have made.


---

TE: God foresaw the possibility of the poor choices [FMAs were capable of making], but did not expect them to make these choices.

MM: I have some questions about this idea:

1. Elsewhere you wrote that God knew how the future would play out but that He didn't know how each individual would behave. Here you seem to be saying the opposite, that God did foresee their individual choices. How do you reconcile these two conflicting observations?

You're not taking context into consideration. The statements I made had a context. If you included the context, the conflict goes away.

2. If He foresaw their bad choices, how, then, could He regret it?

He foresaw the possibility of their making bad choices, and regretted when those bad choices were actually made.

What specifically did He regret? Creating them? Or, their bad choices?

Both, it seems, from Genesis 6.

3. If He foresaw them making bad choices, why did He create them?

Same as 1.

4. If He foresaw them making bad choices, why didn't He expect it? Was He surprised? Did He see it coming?

Same as 1.

5. If He didn't expect them to sin, what else happens that God didn't expect?

I quoted to you from Isaiah 5. That's one thing.

How can we be sure God is right about the future?

Because God is trustworthy. He doesn't lie.

Will the future play out in a way God doesn't expect?

If by "the future" you mean some specific statement that God has made, such as that sin will not arise a second time, the answer is "no."

MM: Why would God regret a decision He made if it was a good one?

The result of a decision does not change a good decision into a bad one. What makes a decision good depends upon the information you have on hand at the time you make it.

If it wasn't a good one, what was it?

Of course it was a good one.

Was it a bad decision?

No.

If not, what kind of decision was it?

A good one.

An uninformed one?

No. It seems to me just your first question above would have been enough.


Quote:
MM: What is about the language God used in Eden that leads you to conclude He knew right where Adam was, and that He knew Adam had indeed eaten the forbidden fruit?

TE: Is it clear that God was engaging Adam and Eve in a conversation.

Who was there to witness what happened? Who else but God could have known the things that were said in Genesis?

MM: Tom, you're not answering my question. I'm talking about the words God used, not what you think they mean.

What? Didn't God use words to convey a meaning? How can I talk about the words God used without talking about their meaning?

The obvious meaning of the words God used do not reflect what you say they mean. Why do you feel so free to make His words say something they clearly do not mean?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Anyway, back to what I said. I think you missed my point. God was the one who witnessed what happened. This was communicated to Moses. Moses wrote it down. It's obvious to the reader of the story that God knew where Adam and Eve were, because He told Moses!

I believe this is an example of God pretending not to know something in order to relate to us on our level. You seem to disagree with this observation. Do you?

What I disagree with is your trying to equate this incident with when God tells us that He is frustrated, or other things which are contrary to your philosophy. There is nothing in the text to indicate that God isn't frustrated, didn't actually regret a decision He made, wouldn't change His mind, etc. There is something in the text in Genesis to indicate that God was asking a rhetorical question. We know that God knows where Adam and Eve were (how else could the story have been told? Besides, the idea that God didn't know where Adam and Eve is is absurd on the face of it. The idea that God gets frustrated is not absurd, as people take different opinions on it. People do not take different opinions on whether or not God knew where Adam and Eve were.) We do not know that God does not really feel frustrated.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say God really did feel frustrated. How would He tell us? Or say He really will change His mind on what He's going to do, based on how circumstances develop. How would He tell us that? Wouldn't He use exactly the language that He used?

Quote:
MM: I agree with you regarding the other texts you cited. What is your point? What do you think it means? I believe God foresaw the bad decisions FMAs would make, and that He has regretted their decisions from the beginning, before He created them. But this regret did not prevent Him from creating them.

TE: There is nothing in Scripture that presents the idea you are presenting. Scripture never presents God as regretting something that hasn't occurred yet. He, just like we, regrets things after they occur.

MM: From your perspective, God would have foreseen what actually happened as one of many possible outcomes. Are you suggesting God didn't feel anything when He foresaw it as a possibility? That it didn't cause Him to stop and wonder, What if?

God did stop and wonder, as you put it. The Plan of Salvation was the remedy to the what if.

What I am saying is that God did indeed know in advance that FMAs were going to rebel, and that it caused Him to stop and ponder. He had strong feelings about it. But He chose to create them anyhow. The end result was worth it: 1) A minority of FMAs will be redeemed, and 2) FMAs will see a side of God's character that will guarantee they will never choose to rebel again.

Why didn't He simply refrain from creating beings He knew would rebel?

Your perspective really makes God look bad. Your idea is that God was willing to put us through all the pain, suffering and misery we go through, because it was "worth it". It wasn't "worth it" if there wasn't any need for it.

MM: The fact FMAs rebelled does not mean God made the wrong decision. This is true whether we view it from my perspective or yours. Do you agree?


MM: I disagree, Tom, but for reasons you deem circular. Options are only available to beings who aren't sure what is right and best. Since God is perfect, there can only be one perfect way to do things. If there is more one than one perfect way to do things, it means everything is perfect, which means there is no one right and best way to do it. God is no longer perfect, and Satan accusations might be true.

I believe there was only one right and perfect way available to God, and that's the way He did it. God doesn't make mistakes. He doesn't do things He later regrets because it didn't turn out they way He had hoped.


MM: I disagree. The evidence God made the right and best choice is the fact He implemented it. I realize you believe this circular reasoning, and I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact we are talking about God. You are assuming other options were just as viable, but without biblical support. What options? There is nothing to indicate God bounced around several options and finally decided on one, which happened to turn out horribly wrong.


MM: Maybe so, but do you believe "God foresaw the possibility of the poor choices [FMAs were capable of making], but did not expect them to make these choices"? Or, do you believe "God knew how the future would play out but that He didn't know how each individual would behave"?


MM: Okay. So, you agree God foresaw specific individuals making specific bad choices, but to decided to create them anyhow hoping they wouldn't make those bad choices, is that right?


MM: Okay.


MM: Talk about circular reasoning, Tom. Aren't you guilty, too? "Because God is trustworthy. He doesn't lie." What?

For 6,000 years the future has played out in ways God didn't expect it to. So, how can we be sure what He says about the future after the GC is right? How can we be sure it won't turn out in a way He isn't expecting?

Your answer seems to be, "Because God is trustworthy. He doesn't lie."

What? Where is the evidence, from your perspective, that God is trustworthy, that He can foresee the future accurately, that we can believe it when He tells us about the future?

Tom,

How can you be so sure this is not another conditional prophecy?

MM: Tom, the fact God regretted His decision implies He felt, at least after the fact, that it was a bad decision. Do you agree?

From my perspective, however, God never regretted His decision to create FMAs. As a child of God, I find it comforting to know that my Father does not regret creating me, that He isn't thinking it was a mistake to create me.


MM: You keep insisting your interpretation of the words God used is right, that what YOU think they mean IS what they mean, because God told Moses what happened in Eden.

You're not making sense, Tom, which is not like you. It seems to me you are assuming it is obvious God knew right where Adam was and that He knew Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit. But I don't see it in the context of the passage itself. Nor do I see it in the words God used.


MM: I have always agreed with you that when God expresses regret and frustration He is relating to us on a level we can understand. It is like God thundering from Sinai. He acted in a way they could understand. Circumstances forced Him to display feelings He didn't actually feel at the time. Or, like God addressing Elijah. Do you think God felt like thunder and fire? Or, did He feel like a "still small voice"? Or, like God and Abraham and others. Did God always express His true thoughts and feelings?

Did God truly regret creating FMAs? No. Not for one minute. Did God really want to destroy the children of Israel and start all over with Moses? No. He was testing Moses. Not for one moment did God truly feel the way He was acting in the presence of Moses. It was all a game, an act, to test Moses.

God is love. Not some of the time, but all of the time. He has never regretted His decision to create FMAs. He loves us with an everlasting love. "How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together." (Hose 11:8)


MM: But my question is, Did God feel anything? Did He foresee Himself having feelings of regret when He foresaw FMAs rebelling?


MM: Tom, the same thing is inherent in your view. God foresaw FMAs rebelling, and yet He chose to create them anyhow hoping they wouldn't rebel, because the risk was worth it.

Part 1



We take it for granted that God does not make wrong decisions, so nothing that has happened should lead to the conclusion that God made a faulty decision. If we take a position that leads to this conclusion, then our position is what we need to question. This is what I've been arguing.



The circular reasoning was a different argument. This one is just an unfounded assumption.



God doesn't have less options availabe to Him because He's God, but more. We are limited in the number of options we have because we are finite. God *chooses* among the limitless options He has what is best. It is His choosing what is best that makes Him perfect, not not having any options to choose from.



This doesn't follow. There's no reason a perfect being can create certain things perfectly in more than one way.



I'm not following this. If there is more than one perfect way to do things, it means everything is perfect?



God is only not perfect if there is a better way to do things than what He did. If there is a way which is equally as good, and He chose between equally good options, He can still be perfect.



This is just a belief. There's no evidence for this, or, at least, you haven't presented any. What you are suggesting about God certainly doesn't fit with how He made us, who were created in His image.



It's certainly true that God doesn't make mistakes, but according to God, He does regret when things turn out differently than He hoped. For example:

Quote:
MM: The fact God is perfect is proof that what He did, in spite of the fact FMAs rebelled, was the only viable option available to Him.

TE: No, it's not at all! I don't what your reasoning is here, but I can disprove your statement easily.

You are assuming that there the only way God could make a choice to do something is if there was only 1 viable option avaiable to Him. But God is able to make choices from more than 1 viable option. There could have been many viable options available to choose from, and God chose the best one. Or there could have been several equally viable options, and God chose one of the equally viable options.

There is absoluately no reason to assume that because God made a certain choice, that was the only choice God could have made.

MM: I disagree. The evidence God made the right and best choice is the fact He implemented it. I realize you believe this circular reasoning, and I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact we are talking about God.

Circular reasoning has nothing to do with God. It has to do with logic. I illustrated the circular reasoning with the magic 8 ball example. I don't have time to repeat it now, but you could look at that to see what was circular. You're having a wrong idea about what I said was circular reasoning.

You are assuming other options were just as viable, but without biblical support.

This is the way logical arguments work. You make an assumption, and then reason from that assumption. My assumption was that God could was not forced to create Lucifer. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Your assumption seems to be that God was forced to create Lucifer, that He had no choice. That would certainly seem to be less Biblically defensible than my assumption, which is that God, being God, had the power to do whatever He wanted to do.

What options? There is nothing to indicate God bounced around several options and finally decided on one, which happened to turn out horribly wrong.

God, being God, could do whatever He wanted to do. If I, being finite and infinitely more stupid than God, can think of other options, then surely God could think of them.

There is plenty of evidence in Scripture that God considers options He has avialable to Him. Do you disagree with this?


Quote:
TE: God foresaw the possibility of the poor choices [FMAs were capable of making], but did not expect them to make these choices.

MM: I have some questions about this idea:

1. Elsewhere you wrote that God knew how the future would play out but that He didn't know how each individual would behave. Here you seem to be saying the opposite, that God did foresee their individual choices. How do you reconcile these two conflicting observations?

TE: You're not taking context into consideration. The statements I made had a context. If you included the context, the conflict goes away.

MM: Maybe so, but do you believe "God foresaw the possibility of the poor choices [FMAs were capable of making], but did not expect them to make these choices"?

Yes.

Or, do you believe "God knew how the future would play out but that He didn't know how each individual would behave"?

Quote:
2. If He foresaw their bad choices, how, then, could He regret it?

TE: He foresaw the possibility of their making bad choices, and regretted when those bad choices were actually made.

MM: Okay. So, you agree God foresaw specific individuals making specific bad choices, but to decided to create them anyhow hoping they wouldn't make those bad choices, is that right?

Quote:
What specifically did He regret? Creating them? Or, their bad choices?

TE: Both, it seems, from Genesis 6.

MM: Okay.

Quote:
3. If He foresaw them making bad choices, why did He create them?

TE: Same as 1.

4. If He foresaw them making bad choices, why didn't He expect it? Was He surprised? Did He see it coming?

TE: Same as 1.

5. If He didn't expect them to sin, what else happens that God didn't expect?

TE: I quoted to you from Isaiah 5. That's one thing.

MM: How can we be sure God is right about the future?

TE: Because God is trustworthy. He doesn't lie.

MM: Will the future play out in a way God doesn't expect?

TE: If by "the future" you mean some specific statement that God has made, such as that sin will not arise a second time, the answer is "no."

MM: Talk about circular reasoning, Tom. Aren't you guilty, too? "Because God is trustworthy. He doesn't lie." What?

For 6,000 years the future has played out in ways God didn't expect it to. So, how can we be sure what He says about the future after the GC is right? How can we be sure it won't turn out in a way He isn't expecting?

Your answer seems to be, "Because God is trustworthy. He doesn't lie."

What? Where is the evidence, from your perspective, that God is trustworthy, that He can foresee the future accurately, that we can believe it when He tells us about the future?

The whole Great Controversy is about resolving the question if God is trustworthy. When you ask if we can be sure something God said was true, then that's a question of character. Certainly I do not have the power to foresee what will happen after the judgment. I have no alternative but to take God's word for it (or not, if I choose to disbelieve Him). So this question is a question of character, and I'm not being circular in my reasoning because a question involving one's character is well answered by asserting that the character of the individual in question is trustworthy.

We determine whether prophecies are conditional or not by their context. The context of this statement does not seem to me to indicate that it is conditional.

But I don't consider at all Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as conditional prophecies, yet you consider them as conditional.

I do? What was my thinking? I don't recall discussing this. Off the top of my head, I would say that resurrection was conditional upon Christ's not sinning, since the SOP tells us the stone would have remained in the tomb if Christ had sinned, and repeatedly tells us that Christ could have sinned. So I see some conditionality there. However, I'm not seeing the conditionality involved with the crucifixion.

However, be that as it may, what I wrote was that how one determines if a prophecy is conditional or not is by looking at the context. The fact that we may disagree regarding some specific prophecy as to whether it's conditional or not doesn't mean that's not the method we would use. I think we both agree as to the methodology involved.

Regarding the prophecy that sin will not arise again, I think we would both agree that this is not a conditional prophecy, based on the the methodology we both agree on.