MM: What does “eternal loss” refer to?

TE: Christ’s, as a human being, could have been eternally lost. What else could it mean?

MM: What about His divinity? In what sense would Jesus as God have been eternally lost? What about the unfallen beings? How would Jesus’ failure have affected them? Would they have continued to serve God faithfully as if nothing had happened?

Why are you asking all these questions? What do they have to do with the assertion "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss"?

………………………….

MM: You have not improved upon your position by insisting “risk” doesn’t imply or include death. It undermines the importance of His death.

TE: It cannot mean physical death for quite a number of reasons. If you don’t see this, I’m very surprised.

MM: How can the risk of dying have nothing to do with it?

Because physical death does not result in eternal loss. Neither is it failure. She wrote that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Why are you confusing this with physical death? Surely you know there's a resurrection.

The appropriate death of Jesus means everything to us and the rest of the universe. By disassociating the death of Jesus from the risk He took you are undermining His great sacrifice.

I have no idea what you're thinking. Ellen White wrote "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." This is so simple, even a child can understand it. You seem to be going everywhere except to what the statement actually says. Risk. Failure. Eternal loss. This isn't hard to understand.

………………………….

MM: I assume you agree that since Jesus’ “death” was inevitable whether He failed or succeeded that, according to your view, there was no risk involved, so far as death is concerned. Do you agree? You might be tempted to ignore this point, but please humor me. Thank you.

TE: No, I don’t agree. Instead of using the word “risk,” why don’t you try writing out your question with what risk means, which is the possibility of loss. If you write out your question in this way, I think the answer to it will be obvious to you.

MM: My point is simple. According to your view of risk there is no risk if the outcome is known and negative.

MM, do you read what I'm writing? It appears to me that you're not paying attention. I've said the same thing over a dozen times now. Risk is the possibility of loss. I've never said anything other than this. It's not my view of risk, it's what risk is, how risk is defined. I've never said that risk is anything other than this. I've never said that there is no risk if the outcome is known and negative. I've only said that risk is the possibility of loss.

With this in mind you should be able to agree that since the death of Jesus’ humanity was inevitable there was no risk or possibility of loss. Do you? I am talking about His death as a loss, not about the resulting eternal loss. His death and His eternal loss are two different, albeit related, aspects of risk.

Since your premise is wrong, there's nothing I should agree to.

……………………………

MM: “If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved.” Jesus’ death on the cross was positive, therefore, there was no risk. Right?

TE: Let’s address what you mean by risk. When you say, “there was no risk,” what do you mean? No risk of what?

MM: I am basing it on your statement - “If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved.” Based on this qualification, Jesus did not take a risk. Why? Because His death on the cross was known to be positive. Nowhere does the Bible or the SOP speak of Jesus’ death as negative.

A risk of what?

…………………………….

MM: “If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected.” Are you suggesting that Deity can be entombed in a way that Jesus would have ceased to exist?

TE: Humanity can have been entombed. Diety cannot die, so has no need to be resurrected.

MM: What did you mean by - “If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected.” What does the resurrection of Jesus as God have to do with it? Deity did not die, was not entombed, needed no resurrection. Do you agree that if Jesus had failed He would have “shed” His human body and reverted back to His pre-incarnate divine self?

Sister White writes that had Christ failed, the stone would never have been removed from the tomb. That's the general idea. I don't remember the exact quote. I can't go beyond that. You're going into speculative areas.

………………………………

MM: “The risk that she is speaking of has to do with failure and eternal loss. Not physical death.” You have yet to describe what you think failure and eternal loss entails.

TE: I wasn’t asked to do so, was I? So why should I have done so?

MM: After all this, are you going to make me ask? Didn’t my comment imply asking you to address?

Your comment was phrased in such a way as to imply that one should have expected me to have described this. If all you wanted was an answer to your question, you should have just asked it, without adding an unwarranted implication. Something along the lines, "Please explain what you think failure and eternal loss entails" would have been good.

I think failure implies Christ's sinning. I think eternal loss involves Christ's never being resurrected.

......................

MM: (a) The “risk” Jesus took in volunteering to save us included at least two negative outcomes: 1) Jesus would have been banished from heaven, and 2) All created free moral agents throughout God’s vast universe would have been destroyed.

TE: Christ had to convince the Father to allow Him to come. It was a struggle for God to agree. Your assertion that Christ would have been banished from heaven had He not volunteered certainly does not agree with these points.

MM: Read it again. I am addressing what if Jesus had failed here on earth.

TE: You’re saying Christ would have been banished from heaven is He had failed here on earth? If that’s what you’re meaning to say, you’re using the word “banished” incorrectly. To say that Christ would have been banished from heaven implies that Jesus was in heaven. But if you are talking about Jesus’ failing while He was on earth, then He wouldn’t have been in heaven. I was assuming you were using the word “banished” correctly, which is why I interpreted what you wrote the way I did.

MM: Interesting. What I mean is, if Jesus had failed here on earth He would not have been allowed to return to heaven. He would have been imprisoned here. Do you agree with points 1 and 2 above?

Had He failed, the stone would have remained where it was. Christ would have remained in the tomb. That's what I recall Sister White saying.

TE: Are you suggesting that when Ellen White wrote, “God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss” that what she meant was “If Christ hadn’t succeeded, God would have destroyed all FMA’s”? I’m having trouble following what you’re wishing to communicate here.

MM: What I am attempting to communicate is that if Jesus had failed here on earth, there would been at least two negative results: 1) Jesus would not have been allowed to return to heaven, and 2) God would have been forced to eliminate (not punish) all FMAs. Do you agree?

No. I don't see any sense to this (speaking of point 2). I don't see why you would think that Jesus' failure would force God to eliminate FMA's.
………………………………

MM: “There's no reason for the unfallen worlds to have been destroyed had Christ not volunteered to save us. That would be unjust. They had done nothing wrong.” Please see my last post.

If Jesus had not volunteered to save us, several questions come to mind:

1. What would God have done with mankind? Would He have allowed them to live on in hopelessness until they self-destructed?

TE: FW addresses this question, around pp. 18-21 I think (pretty sure)

MM: I assume you are referring to the following quote. If this is the quote you have in mind, how does it address my point?

FW 21
And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression. {FW 21.2}

Your question was, what would God have done with mankind? The quote provides the answer to that question. You quoted a portion of the quote. There's more detail there, if you're interested in looking at it.

…………………………….

2. What would God have done with the evil angels?

TE: Allowed them time to develop the principles of their government, as DA 758 explains.

MM: Are you suggesting that evil angels would have accomplished what Jesus did on the cross?

This is a really strange question, and "strange" is being very charitable. I think it would be better if you explained your thinking before coming up with questions like this out of the blue, especially offensive questions.

Tom, the following quote depicts Jesus explaining His life and death and resurrection to the holy angels. Please note that He explained it to the angels before Genesis 3:15 was declared to our first parents.

Again, nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does Jesus express doubt or uncertainty regarding the details and outcome of His earthly mission. He always confidently stated that He would succeed. Such confidence, however, does not take away from the “risk” He took while sojourning here on earth.

Okay, I change my mind. Disregard how I initially addressed your premises. Here it is again.

...........................

A.If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen.

By starting this premise off with the word “if” you are implying there are times when God does not know ahead of time how the future will play out. I believe God knows ahead of time how everything will play out because He knows the future like He knows the past. Thus, God is 100% certain how everything will play out, and everything is 100% certain to play out accordingly.

B.Risk means there is a chance of loss; that is, a greater than 0% chance that a given event will occur which results in loss.

True. But when we factor in God’s ability to know the future like He knows the past “risk” means more than what it means to those of us who know nothing about the future outcome of a given event. But just because God knew with 100% certainty that Jesus would succeed in saving us, it didn’t diminish the “risk” Jesus experienced during His earthly sojourn. In this case, “risk” didn’t mean God was uncertain if Jesus would fail or succeed.

C.Because God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, there was a greater than 0% chance that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss.

God did not send His Son to live and die for us not knowing if He would fail or succeed. The “risk” Jesus took was real. He could have sinned. He could have failed. But God knew He would succeed. Jesus knew He was going to continue succeeding until His death on the cross. He never once doubted it. But knowing so did not diminish His experience. He still sweated great drops of blood.

D.Therefore it could not be the case that God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure or eternal loss.

False. The fact God repeatedly declared that Jesus would succeed in saving us is evidence He knew with 100% certainty that Jesus would succeed. He never once doubted it. Knowing so, however, did not lessen the agony of soul God felt as Jesus suffered and died.

I wrote a long answer to this, and after writing it, it occurs to me that a much simpler response is adequate.

You're still not dealing with the argument. Here's the argument:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen.
B.Risk means there is a chance of loss; that is, a greater than 0% chance that a given event will occur which results in loss.
C.Because God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, there was a greater than 0% chance that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss.
D.Therefore it could not be the case that God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure or eternal loss.

Here is your contradiction:

Quote:
C, which you assert to be true, states "there is a greater than 0% chance that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss."

If D. is False, as you assert, then we have the following:

i.God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure and eternal loss.
ii.A) states "If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen."
iii.Therefore is was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure and eternal loss.
iv.Thus the probability the Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss was exactly 0.

This contradicts C, so you have contradicted yourself, MM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You agree with what you stated previously regarding B and D, which is that B is true and D is false. However, you didn't state what your opinion is regarding A and C. Are you wishing to change your opinion and deem either A or C as false? If not, then you need to deal with the reasoning, the logic, above that explains why your assertion that D is false leads to a contradiction if you assert that A, B and C are true.

Again, nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does Jesus express doubt or uncertainty regarding the details and outcome of His earthly mission. He always confidently stated that He would succeed. Such confidence, however, does not take away from the “risk” He took while sojourning here on earth.

I'm not sure what you're wanting to say here. Was it possible for Christ to fail? If it was, then Christ took a risk. If it wasn't, then He didn't.

If God knew with certainty that Christ wouldn't fail, then God knew there wasn't any risk, because risk is, by definition, the possibility of failure. So if God knew there wasn't any possibility that Christ could fail, then, which is just repeating the same thing in other words, God knew there wasn't any risk. If God knew there wasn't any risk, then there wasn't.

Similarly, to assert that there was risk, is to assume that God knew there was risk, because God knows everything. So if God knew there was risk, God knew there was a possibility Christ could fail, which means that God could not have been 100% certain that Christ would succeed.

I didn’t realize I misunderstood your position. I just assumed “death is the result of sin” means sin is what causes them to suffer and die. So, which is it? Is it sin that punishes and destroys sinners according to their sinfulness in the lake of fire? Or, is it the unveiled glory of God that causes them to suffer and die?

…………………………….


Elsewhere you have stated that only the death of Jesus on the cross was able to eliminate the last link of sympathy that existed in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan. Now you seem to be implying God could have accomplished it some other way. But you emphatically reject the idea that Adam and Eve could have accomplished it by refusing to eat the forbidden fruit. I don't understand your position.

…………………………..



MM: Sure it does. Do you disagree with what I posted above? The loyal angels did not question the love and goodness of God. What they were unsure about was whether or not obeying the law caused unrest, if it deprived people from realizing their full potential. By faith they believed, but God promised to prove it, first through Adam and Eve, but then through Jesus and finally through the 144,000. Do you agree?

………………………….


Again, we disagree as to what causes sinners to suffer and die in proportion to their sinfulness in the lake of fire. Your view seems to imply that sin, not God, causes sinners to suffer and die. But then you hasten to add it is the unveiled glory of God that causes it. Which is it?

You also seem to be saying that only the death of Jesus could have effectively prevented the evil seed of rebellion from arising in the hearts of the loyal angels. But you also insist God could have accomplished it lots of other ways, that even if Jesus had not volunteered to save us or even if Jesus had failed in His attempt to save us, that God could have accomplished it some other way. Which is it?

………………………………


“God had sworn by Himself that Jesus would succeed.” And yet you insist God was not 100% certain if Jesus would fail or succeed. How could He swear by Himself that Jesus would succeed?

I didn’t realize I misunderstood your position. I just assumed “death is the result of sin” means sin is what causes them to suffer and die. So, which is it? Is it sin that punishes and destroys sinners according to their sinfulness in the lake of fire? Or, is it the unveiled glory of God that causes them to suffer and die?

We've spoken about this in great detail in the past. You don't remember? Sin is what causes the wicked not to be able to bear the glory of God.

Elsewhere you have stated that only the death of Jesus on the cross was able to eliminate the last link of sympathy that existed in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan.

No, I didn't state that. See the comment on necessity and sufficiency below.

Now you seem to be implying God could have accomplished it some other way.

I said, given that man did not fall, I believe it's possible that God could have answered the questions involving unfallen worlds and the angels in some other way than by Christ's death.

But you emphatically reject the idea that Adam and Eve could have accomplished it by refusing to eat the forbidden fruit.

No, I didn't emphatically reject this idea. I didn't reject it at all. I asked you to explain what your position was. I wasn't understanding the reasoning behind your statements that Adam and Eve could have accomplished what the death of Christ did, especially in the context of DA 764, which is from "It Is Finished," which is where you looked to have been quoting from.


MM: Sure it does. Do you disagree with what I posted above? The loyal angels did not question the love and goodness of God.

I think they didn't question this until Satan began to raise questions about it.

What they were unsure about was whether or not obeying the law caused unrest, if it deprived people from realizing their full potential.

This was one of the issues Satan raised. The principle issue, I think, is whether God acted from a basis of self-interest or not. The answer to that question pretty much answers every other question. Sister White states that the cross forever answered this question (i.e., it answered the question of whether God acted in self-interest, the answer being "no," of course).

By faith they believed, but God promised to prove it, first through Adam and Eve, but then through Jesus and finally through the 144,000. Do you agree?

Not really. At least not quite how your stating it. However, I'm open to any quotes you may have on this. In particular, I'd be interested in quotes that have to do with how Adam and Eve would demonstrate the truth about God, disproving the issues that Satan had raised. Simiarly for the 144,000. I don't believe the angels have any doubts regarding God anymore, since Calvary. In the above referenced quote, Sister White said something like the question if God acted in self-interest was forever answered by the cross. The angels and unfallen worlds have already been eternally secured by what Jesus Christ did. They are not dependent upon the 144,000 in any way. I'm just saying this of myself; it's not clear to me that you are asserting anything contrary to what I'm saying here.

Again, we disagree as to what causes sinners to suffer and die in proportion to their sinfulness in the lake of fire. Your view seems to imply that sin, not God, causes sinners to suffer and die. But then you hasten to add it is the unveiled glory of God that causes it. Which is it?

The glory of God is His character. I think when the wicked come into contact with God, that His goodness causes them pain, along the lines of what is described in GC 543. I'll quote a bit of it:



The pain they feel is proportional to the sin they've committed not for any arbitrary reason (i.e. arbitrary = imposed, or not related to cause and effect) but because the more sin there is, the more pain when light and truth (the glory of God) come into contact with it.

You also seem to be saying that only the death of Jesus could have effectively prevented the evil seed of rebellion from arising in the hearts of the loyal angels.

No, I didn't say that. I never said "only." I've noticed you are not careful in distinguishing between necessity and sufficiency. This has come up in a number of threads. I'll explain.

Let's say that kemotherapy can cure a certain cancer, and does so. A person is cured. The fact that the person was cured by kemotherapy does not prove that the person could not have been cured in some other way.

From DA 764, and other places, we know that the death of Jesus did prevent the evil seed of doubt ("doubt" is the word used in DA 764, as I recall, not "rebellion," although this doesn't matter) from arising. However, the fact that the death of Jesus accomplished this does not imply anything one way or the other regarding whether or not God could have accomplished this in some other way.

We have explicit statements that there was no other way to save man than by the death of Jesus, but no such statements regarding unfallen worlds or angels. We have statements of sufficiency, but not of necessity.

But you also insist God could have accomplished it lots of other ways, that even if Jesus had not volunteered to save us or even if Jesus had failed in His attempt to save us, that God could have accomplished it some other way. Which is it?

You should read more carefully. I'm very careful in what I write. I never said, let alone "insisted", that God could have accomplished it in some other way, let alone lots of other ways. I said God MIGHT have been able to accomplish it in some other way. We don't know. God hasn't told us.

“God had sworn by Himself that Jesus would succeed.” And yet you insist God was not 100% certain if Jesus would fail or succeed. How could He swear by Himself that Jesus would succeed?

Because He had faith in His Son. His swearing was based on faith and character, not His ability to see the future. This sounds like something John B. would say. Haven't heard from him in quite a while.

They have everything to do with it. Since Jesus is God and cannot die what does “eternal loss” mean, what does it entail? I believe if Jesus had failed at least two things would have happened, the results of which would have been eternal: 1) Jesus would have been banned from heaven, and 2) God would have been forced to eliminate FMAs. What do you think “eternal loss” would have looked like if Jesus had failed?

…………………………………..


Sure it does. If Jesus had died because He failed to save us, then His death would have resulted in Him experiencing eternal loss.


Again, you are divorcing the death of Jesus from the risk of eternal loss He incurred when He came here to save us. I don’t understand how can you do this.

………………………….


Here is what you posted about risk:

“Risk has to do with the possibility of loss. If there is not possibility of loss, there is no risk. If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved. If the outcome of the given event is known to be negative, then there is a risk involved.”

Since Jesus’ death was positive, not negative, according to your view of risk, there was no risk. Right?


Sure there is. The premise of my question is based on your view of what constitutes risk and what does not. Do you agree?

……………………………


No risk! Based on your view of risk, there was no risk. Jesus death is a positive thing, therefore there was no risk.

…………………………….


What does the stone remaining in place have to do with the Deity of Jesus? True, His human form would have decayed in the tomb, but, as you say, Deity did not die and therefore did not require resurrection. Deity is omnipresent and cannot be constrained by a tomb. There is nothing speculative about it.

Here’s how we got here:


You are divorcing the death of Jesus from the risk of eternal loss that He incurred. I don’t see how you can do this.

………………………………


Thank you. I am surprised, though, that you do not also believe it involves the death of Jesus and the destruction of the human race, including those in heaven already.

......................


Thank you. But how can an omnipresent God be confined to a tomb, to a planet, to a universe?

……………………………..


Elsewhere you pointed out that only the successful death of Jesus on the cross could have effectively eliminated the seed of rebellion, that only His death could have severed the last link of sympathy in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan. Based on these insights, isn’t it logical to conclude that Jesus’ failure would have resulted in the seed of rebellion arising in the hearts of FMAs, thus forcing God to deal with them the same as evil angels?

………………………………


I read it all, but it doesn’t address the issue. Instead, it explains how Jesus’ success on the cross empowers believers to use their gifts to the honor and glory of God. My question is: What would God have done with mankind if Jesus had refused to save them? Would He have allowed them to live on in hopelessness until they self-eliminated, until they destroyed themselves from off the face of the earth? If so, what would that have accomplished?

…………………………….


Sorry it offended you. I didn’t mean it that way. I’ll rephrase the point. If Jesus had not volunteered to save us, what would have become of the evil angels? What purpose would it serve to allow them to cohabitate the planet with fallen humans? How would it have disproven Satan’s accusations about the kingdom and character of God and His law? What would they have done that would have eventually helped the loyal angels to understand God allowing them to suffer the consequences of sinning without fearing God?

Please keep in mind what you have posted elsewhere, that you believe only the successful death of Jesus on the cross could have effectively eliminated the seed of rebellion, that only His death could have severed the last link of sympathy in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan. If Jesus had not died on the cross, how would God have accomplished what only the death of Jesus could accomplish?

They have everything to do with it. Since Jesus is God and cannot die what does “eternal loss” mean, what does it entail? I believe if Jesus had failed at least two things would have happened, the results of which would have been eternal: 1) Jesus would have been banned from heaven, and 2) God would have been forced to eliminate FMAs. What do you think “eternal loss” would have looked like if Jesus had failed?

I already addressed this.

MM: You have not improved upon your position by insisting “risk” doesn’t imply or include death. It undermines the importance of His death.

TE: It cannot mean physical death for quite a number of reasons. If you don’t see this, I’m very surprised.

MM: How can the risk of dying have nothing to do with it?

TE: Because physical death does not result in eternal loss. Neither is it failure. She wrote that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Why are you confusing this with physical death? Surely you know there's a resurrection.

MM:Sure it does. If Jesus had died because He failed to save us, then His death would have resulted in Him experiencing eternal loss.

Sorry, I'm not following you.

Again, you are divorcing the death of Jesus from the risk of eternal loss He incurred when He came here to save us. I don’t understand how can you do this.

Sorry, I'm not following you.

MM: Here is what you posted about risk:

“Risk has to do with the possibility of loss. If there is not possibility of loss, there is no risk. If the outcome of the given event is known to be positive, there is no risk involved. If the outcome of the given event is known to be negative, then there is a risk involved.”

Since Jesus’ death was positive, not negative, according to your view of risk, there was no risk. Right?

Risk of what? "Positive" in the above context has to do with loss, not with a thing being good or bad, which looks to me to be how you're taking it. If you are speaking of Christ's death in terms of a loss of life, then there was risk. In fact, the risk was 100% that Christ would lose His life.

MM: With this in mind you should be able to agree that since the death of Jesus’ humanity was inevitable there was no risk or possibility of loss. Do you? I am talking about His death as a loss, not about the resulting eternal loss. His death and His eternal loss are two different, albeit related, aspects of risk.

TE: Since your premise is wrong, there's nothing I should agree to.

Sure there is. The premise of my question is based on your view of what constitutes risk and what does not. Do you agree?

Risk is the possibility of loss. This is not "my view." If you have any acquaintences which are accountants, or actuaries, of deal with investements, finance, or risk management, ask them what risk is. Or look at a dictionary.

Since the death of Jesus' humanity was inevitable the risk of His loss of life was 100%.

Thank you. I am surprised, though, that you do not also believe it involves the death of Jesus and the destruction of the human race, including those in heaven already.

Of course it involves the death of Jesus. If He would not be resurrected, He would remain dead. I'm surprised you would reason from my statement that Jesus would not be resurrected that this does not involve His death. I made no comment regarding the human race. I wrote that had Jesus failed, the results would have been indescribably bad. God has told us very little regarding this. I've not felt a need to speculate about this.

Thank you. But how can an omnipresent God be confined to a tomb, to a planet, to a universe?

That's a good question. How could an omnipresent God become a zygote?

Elsewhere you pointed out that only the successful death of Jesus on the cross could have effectively eliminated the seed of rebellion, that only His death could have severed the last link of sympathy in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan.

I never said "only" in reference to angels.

Based on these insights, isn’t it logical to conclude that Jesus’ failure would have resulted in the seed of rebellion arising in the hearts of FMAs, thus forcing God to deal with them the same as evil angels?

It's possible that the loyal angels might have rebelled. Then again, they might not have.

I read it all, but it doesn’t address the issue. Instead, it explains how Jesus’ success on the cross empowers believers to use their gifts to the honor and glory of God. My question is: What would God have done with mankind if Jesus had refused to save them? Would He have allowed them to live on in hopelessness until they self-eliminated, until they destroyed themselves from off the face of the earth? If so, what would that have accomplished?

It is there in the quote. You quoted a part of it. The human race would have ceased to exist apart from Christ's entering our race. That's right there in the quote. My reading of the quote is that had the plan of salvation not been instituted, man would have immediately perished. That seems very clear to me from the quote.

Sorry it offended you. I didn’t mean it that way. I’ll rephrase the point.

I appreciate and accept your apology.

If Jesus had not volunteered to save us, what would have become of the evil angels?

The same thing that will become of them given that Christ did come. They would have been given the opportunity to demonstrate the viability of their government, and they would have failed, because the principle of selfishness doesn't work.

What purpose would it serve to allow them to cohabitate the planet with fallen humans?

The fallen humans would have ceased to exist, so there would have been noone with whom to cohabitate.

How would it have disproven Satan’s accusations about the kingdom and character of God and His law?

It wouldn't have. God would have had to have done something else.

What would they have done that would have eventually helped the loyal angels to understand God allowing them to suffer the consequences of sinning without fearing God?

The loyal angels were never the ones who made clear the consequences of sinning. Christ did this.

Please keep in mind what you have posted elsewhere, that you believe only the successful death of Jesus on the cross could have effectively eliminated the seed of rebellion, that only His death could have severed the last link of sympathy in the hearts of loyal angels toward Satan.

You're adding the "only" again.

If Jesus had not died on the cross, how would God have accomplished what only the death of Jesus could accomplish?

In some other way. I can't say anything beyond this because God hasn't told us.

TE: You agree with what you stated previously regarding B and D, which is that B is true and D is false. However, you didn't state what your opinion is regarding A and C. Are you wishing to change your opinion and deem either A or C as false? If not, then you need to deal with the reasoning, the logic, above that explains why your assertion that D is false leads to a contradiction if you assert that A, B and C are true.

MM: Perhaps it would help if I reworded your formula to reflect what I think is true and right:

A. God is 100% certain how everything will play out, and everything is 100% certain to play out accordingly.

B. The disciples did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross, therefore, they believed there was a greater than 0% risk that He would fail.

C. Both the Father and Jesus knew with 100% certainty that He would succeed on the cross. Not once, therefore, did either one of them doubt it.

D. Even though both the Father and Jesus were 100% certain He would succeed, it did not diminish the agony of soul that both of them suffered during His intense ordeal.

Now, based on this new and improved formula, do you still think I am contradicting myself? Just in case you accuse me of missing the point or being illogical or whatever, please bear in mind I do not believe that the risk of failure and eternal loss Jesus incurred while He was here in any way implies God did not know with certainty if Jesus would fail or succeed. Because God is God He can know Jesus will succeed and still suffer agony of soul as His only begotten Son suffered and died. No amount of logic and no cleverly crafted formulas can change these amazing facts.