Consequently, since existence is inherently better than non-existence, it stands that the Divine Essence should not favor the worst during creation but should instead bring forth the best. Thus, it is unjust for God to allow things to remain in non-existence rather than bringing them into being, even if His loving Wisdom remarked to the traitor, for whom the law pronounces woe: “It would have been better for you not to have been born.” To be considered equivalent to the blameless may seem appealing to the sinner; however, it holds no approval in God’s judgment. For those who deserve punishment, the absence of suffering would not equate to goodness, diverging sharply from God's justice. Similarly, the very act of creation is a manifestation of divine goodness and is entirely fitting for God, despite the fact that some beings, through their free choices, have exchanged the best for the worst, putting the marvelous and salvation-oriented creation of God at risk by making decisions that turn the best into the worst.
Moreover, if the Divine is eternal, existing forever within its own unchangeable nature, and if all that came into being is subject to endless transformations, then to argue that God should not have created those destined to sin implies a belief that either humanity should not have been created or that humanity should have been formed immutable and unchanging. This conclusion leads to either the complete exclusion of the human race from existence or a demand for man to possess a divine nature, a line of thought that borders on madness and impiety. In addition, that which does not exist cannot be inherently good, whereas those who abide in sin can indeed become good, for the distinction between good and evil is clear and honored by the blessed. Furthermore, the assertion that if some individuals were intended to fall into sin, they should not have been created at all, suggests that sin must have dominated God's creation prior to its occurrence. If it holds true that God must cease creating due to anticipated sinfulness, then sin undeniably has overpowered His creative work.
It is inherent to human will and choice to sin, while it belongs to the Creator to create. Why, then, after abandoning the true cause of sin, attribute it to the Innocent? Even in the realm of such misguided reasoning, one cannot justify a judgment that those who are inclined to sin should not have been granted existence by the Creator. Such an individual seems to harbor resentment when sinners are punished, while simultaneously demanding punishment for those who have not yet sinned, effectively seeking to prevent future sinners from existing and thus excusing those already guilty of sin from retribution, a principle foreign to both human and divine justice. The fact that no one faces punishment prior to sinning stands as a common judgment among all people, consistent with divine law; the demand for punishment after unrepented sin serves as a testament to God’s justice and His disdain for evil.
Therefore, does not one who chooses to think contrary to the prevalent view, failing to honor that which reflects God’s justice and His aversion to wickedness, indict themselves with profound folly and irreverence? What do you assert? Must man be created as immovable towards sin in order to evade punishment? Do you not subconsciously acknowledge that humanity must have been fashioned resistant to sin so as to ensure that those who triumph in their struggles are deserving of honor? If a rational being, one who does not delight in sin and wishes to evade its consequences, is faced with the choice between two paths—whether to strip from the victors their crowns in order to absolve the sinner from punishment, or to uphold the honor of the righteous—would it not be far more desirable to see the champions adorned with the crowns of valor while the wrongdoer receives due retribution?
Moreover, does the creation of mankind alone trouble you, or does the existence of incorporeal, immaterial, and immortal beings elicit your discontent? For among these celestial hosts, one, the devil, willingly fell and became the author of all evil, leading others astray in like manner. In contrast, those immortal beings who remain steadfast in their loyalty to God, by maintaining their own rank and beauty, do not only remain pure; they also serve as helpers for humanity in good deeds and in fulfilling the Divine will. The fallen angels tremble in fear, distancing themselves from the sign of the cross—the very instrument through which salvation was achieved—while those who surround the throne of God, as much as created nature allows, witness reflections of this blessed and awe-inspiring sight. The former are destined for eternal punishment due to their actions, while the latter, who respect and exercise their will towards the good, are rewarded with unparalleled joy and everlasting bliss.
At this point, you may question why this evil entity emerged, along with those who fell with him. You might argue that since God is good, He should have preemptively excluded such creatures from existence, believing that it would have been better for them to face non-existence than inevitable torment. If your reasoning follows this logic, you might then extend the same argument to all creation, saying it would have been better for the earth, once formed, to remain still, or to have avoided the catastrophic floods described in Scripture, rather than being adorned by waters that once concealed it (Gen. 1:2). Should the air, which came into being pure and beneficial, have succumbed to a morbid state, negatively impacting those it was meant to heal? If their origin dictated a change in nature, and not merely this but also affected all linked aspects, then surely, it would have been best had nothing at all been created.
Thus, what conclusion does one reach when they undermine all creation—both mental and material—while not sparing even the inanimate? Do they recoil at the creation of humanity, or do they seek a different God and Creator (may He have mercy on us), mocking the One who produced all things, with shameless bravado, implying ignorance of what is best? What can be said about seeking another God and Creator? One who assumes a position of arrogance and folly, striving to correct the Divine order, attempts to dismantle in the souls of others the concept of God that they have already destroyed within themselves. In conclusion, I believe what has been articulated here provides sufficient insight into both the missing elements and a compelling case for those who have long contested these truths.
THEOSIS