From a previous conversation, you wrote



When you come across quotes with which you disagree, which use words like "sin," "pardon," "repentance," or in this case, "risk," you conclude, rather than that the idea you hold might be wrong, that the words mean something different than what they normally mean.

Since we communicate through words, I don't know how to continue the discussion with you. I think it's obvious that you know what "risk" means, and that you just don't agree with the idea she is expressing.





"Imperiled" isn't difficult to understand, is it? It doesn't agree with your idea of the future though. If the view you are suggesting were true, that God looks at what would happen like a T.V. rerun, clearly there wouldn't be any peril.

There are many who understand that the Bible conveys the idea that God took risks who aren't SDA's, and thus do not need EGW to prove this point. In fact, wouldn't you agree that's it's generally the case that the truths Ellen White wrote are Scriptural? (that is, sustainable by Scripture).

If one accepts the Spirit of Prophecy as a plain "Thus saith the Lord", God has revealed a fair amount about this. Certainly enough for us to know the risks He took were real, and the stakes involved were enormous.

Of course the SOP is authoritative, but I don't know of much there that directly describes what would have happened if Jesus failed. There's even less in the Bible.

The predictive prophecies in the OT all talk about Christ's success, as far as I know. There's nothing there that even hints of failure.

Of course, they can be viewed as conditional. But I don't see any reason to think that God thought it was probabilistic. IOW, though God saw it's conditionality, He also seemed to know which condition would be fulfilled. In fact, He knew it well enough to get Enoch, Elijah, and Moses in advance.

And the SOP passages that speak of the consequences of Christ's failure, aside from humanity's doom, seem to only extrapolate the results based on God's hatred for sin. There's nothing I know of that even mentions what role Christ's divinity would play in that disastrous event.

I'm sure if God thought it was important for us to know (assuming we could even understand it), he would have told us more details. But (for me) it's enough to know that God took a great risk to redeem us, risking He whom He loved most dearly. This tells us a lot about God.

As you can see, Tom, I am not the only one who finds it difficult to believe God did not know in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. Again, even Jesus knew He would succeed. To doubt it would have been failure. The fact He succeeded is evidence He did not doubt it.

The word "risk" in the SOP, therefore, cannot imply God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed. In fact, neither can it mean God does not know if mankind will fail or succeed at fulfilling the prophecies regarding the 144,000. There is no doubt in God's mind that mankind will succeed.

To answer the title of this thread - The question is pointless. It is rhetorical at best. The "risk" God took in saving mankind is deeper than whether God knew if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. If God had thought for one moment Jesus might fail on the cross He would not have given His consent. God is not a gambler. He knows the beginning from the end. There is more to the word "risk" than meets the eye.

As you can see, Tom, I am not the only one who finds it difficult to believe God did not know in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross.

You're the only one who takes the approach that if there is something you don't agree with, then words such as "sin," "pardon," "temptation," and "risk," must mean something different.



I don't think anyone else would write something like what I've quoted here. Of course people have different perspectives on this question, but your approach towards reconciling what you believe with the evidence presented (i.e. words must mean something different than they do nowadays) is unique.

These are, after all, common words, that even children understand.

Again, even Jesus knew He would succeed. To doubt it would have been failure. The fact He succeeded is evidence He did not doubt it.

As I pointed out, when Waggoner presented a similar argument, he was corrected by Ellen White, who emphasized that Christ could have failed. Now if Christ could have failed, He surely knew that. Ellen White enjoins us:



We can't remember something we don't believe to be true.

The word "risk" in the SOP, therefore, cannot imply God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed.

Your argument is fallacious. As I pointed out, Waggoner made a similar argument, and was corrected. Your "therefore" does not follow. She emphasized that Christ *could* have failed, therefore the word "risk" in the Spirit of Prophecy has its ordinary meaning:



Note that "peril" is given as a synonymn, which word Ellen White also uses ("all heaven was imperiled for our redemption")

In fact, neither can it mean God does not know if mankind will fail or succeed at fulfilling the prophecies regarding the 144,000. There is no doubt in God's mind that mankind will succeed.

This is a different issue. It's true that mankind will succeed, or, more accurately, God will succeed, but the timing is open.

To answer the title of this thread - The question is pointless. It is rhetorical at best. The "risk" God took in saving mankind is deeper than whether God knew if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. If God had thought for one moment Jesus might fail on the cross He would not have given His consent.

This is where you underestimate God's love. God *did* know the risk, and He did give His consent. It was because of this risk that God struggled. (how else would we understand that it was a struggle for God to give His Son; is He any less loving or willing for us to be saved than Jesus -- that suggestion doesn't make much sense, does it?).

Take a look how Ellen White responds as she realizes the depth of love that led God to undertake such a risk:



God is not a gambler. He knows the beginning from the end. There is more to the word "risk" than meets the eye.

Your perspective simply doesn't mesh with hers. "No risk" is different than "a more fearful risk." Under your perspecitive there is no need to wonder or be astonished. It limits the wonders of God's love.

I mean, just think of the statement as it's actually articulated. Knowing that for just one, for just Mike, God was willing to risk (and not only willing, but actually did risk) His only Son! The thought is too wonderful to capture! How does one even begin to describe such a love as this?

Could and would mean very different things.

Of course they are different things. Why are you making this point?

What MM is saying, and I'm leaning in the same direction, is that God knew that Jesus would not sin.

What Waggoner said was that Jesus could not sin. That is wrong, and EGW corrected him.

But since we agree that they're different things, we should also conclude that Waggoner's error is a completely different topic from the discussion at hand. IOW, God's knowledge of what Jesus could do (conditionality) is a separate issue from His knowledge of what Jesus would do (foreknowledge).

WDYT?