He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right. {EW 126.1}

T:What I've said is that love entails risk, and God was aware of the possibility that His creatures (any of them) might reject His love. What's wrong with phrasing things this way?

M:There’s nothing wrong with me saying you think God did not, yea, could not, know with absolute certainty exactly which FMAs would surely sin.

Your statement above implies it. I believe the exact opposite of what you believe, that is, I believe God knew precisely which FMAs would surely sin.

T:Again, the quotes you omitted make it clear that God did not know with absolute certainty which FMAs would sin and die.

M:Which quotes? Are you referring to the “risk” quotes? Please repost the quotes you believe clearly portray God expressing He “did not know with absolute certainty which FMAs would sin and die.”

M:"But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

1. In "yet it" what does the "it" refer to? Obviously “it” refers to “the defection of man, with all its consequences”. The content and context disallows the assumption she meant the “possibility of man’s sinning”.

2. In "for" what does "for" refer to? “For” answers why “the defection of man, with all its consequences” “did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose”. Again, the content and context disallows the assumption she meant “God was dependent upon sin in order to establish His throne in righteousness”.

T: What I've said is that love entails risk, and God was aware of the possibility that His creatures (any of them) might reject His love. What's wrong with phrasing things this way?

M: There’s nothing wrong with me saying you think God did not, yea, could not, know with absolute certainty exactly which FMAs would surely sin.

T: That's certainly better than saying that God had "no idea." What God knew, and knows, is that *any* free moral agent may choose to be lost.

M: Your statement above implies it. I believe the exact opposite of what you believe, that is, I believe God knew precisely which FMAs would surely sin.

T: This leads to many problems. For example:

1.Descriptions such as EW 125 become ridiculous.
2.It contradicts the idea that Christ, or God, undertook a risk.
3.It's contrary to the idea that Christ "could have come 'ere now."
4.It's contrary to the idea that we can hasten Christ's coming.
5.It's contrary to the idea that God was not in any way responsible for the entrance of sin.
6.It's contrary to the idea that the entrance of sin is a mystery.

It's also contrary to God's character, as God's character is not such that He would set into motion a course of action which could only inevitably result in sin. Why would He do that? You have no answer to this question, which is no fault of yours, as there is none.

T: Again, the quotes you omitted make it clear that God did not know with absolute certainty which FMAs would sin and die.

M: Which quotes? Are you referring to the “risk” quotes? Please repost the quotes you believe clearly portray God expressing He “did not know with absolute certainty which FMAs would sin and die.”

T: The risk quotes, EW 125, the GC quote that explains how sin came about are several that come to mind.

M:"But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

1. In "yet it" what does the "it" refer to? Obviously “it” refers to “the defection of man, with all its consequences”. The content and context disallows the assumption she meant the “possibility of man’s sinning”.

T: No it doesn't. EGW's counsel is that we consider all of her statements on a subject together, just as we should do with Scripture. EW 125, the risk texts, that we can hasten Christ's coming, that Christ could have come before now, that the entrance of sin is a mystery, that God was in no way responsible for the entrance of sin all argue against the idea that Adam and Eve were destined to sin.

2. In "for" what does "for" refer to? “For” answers why “the defection of man, with all its consequences” “did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose”. Again, the content and context disallows the assumption she meant “God was dependent upon sin in order to establish His throne in righteousness”.

T: If you're saying that she is saying that the fall of man would not deter God in His purpose to establish His throne in righteousness, I agree with this. However, this leaves my question unanswered, which is why God would create beings He was certain would sin. That makes no sense. Any good being wouldn't do that. Any good being would choose not to create evil beings.

T: Couldn't God establish His throne in righteousness without creating beings He was certain would sin?

M: Regarding this “mystery” the only inspired statements we have at our disposal are the ones I posted above.

T: No they aren't.

M: They simply say that for an eternity God knew which FMAs would sin and that He had a plan in place to deal with the great controversy. None of the inspired passages venture to explain why God chose to create the FMAs He knew would certainly sin.

T: They don't even say what you're claiming, let alone give a reason for something they don't say. But this is besides the point, as far as my question is concerned. Forget about the statement, and think for yourself please. What sense would it make for God to create creatures He was certain would sin? It doesn't make any sense, does it? You interpret a text in a certain way, and won't give it up, because that's what you think the text means. This doesn't seem like a good approach to me. It's certainly not one inspiration teaches us to take. Instead we should use common sense and reason, comparing inspired texts with other inspired texts, and believe something that makes sense. God doesn't want us to believe things that have no reason for being so. If we can't explain why we believe something to be the case, alarm bells should be sounding: We might not have something right here.

T: MM, your reasoning would contradict inspiration. We're clearly told that Christ could have sinned, that there was risk involved in His mission. This means the chance was > 0 that Christ would fail. There's no way to get around this.

M: ”Could” and “would” have different definitions. Jesus could fail and Jesus would fail mean two different things. Jesus could fail is true, but Jesus would fail is not true.

T: No one said anything about "Jesus would fail." What was said was that Jesus might fail, that is, there was a >0 change that He might fail.

M: By the way, you said it is preposterous to say Jesus might not keep His promise. And I agree.

T: Why then did you say there was a risk He might not keep His promise that He will come? This is something which has no risk attached to it.

M: However, Jesus made His promises before He failed or succeeded on Calvary. So, why do you believe “I will come again” but not “I will rise again”? Isn’t the first promise dependent on the second? How can we believe the first promise if we cannot believe the second?

T: Clearly if Jesus wasn't resurrected, He couldn't come again. EGW tells us if Christ had sinned, the rock in front of His tomb would never have been removed. Before He succeeded in His earthly mission, there was risk He might not come again. You're asserting there was no risk where inspiration says there was, and asserting that there is risk where inspiration does not say there is.

T: Why? My point has been that there was risk involved. I've never claimed that God or Jesus Christ stated these things. Why should I produce evidence for something I've neither claimed nor believe to be true?

M: What’s not true? If neither the Father nor the Son plainly said it (as opposed to supposedly implied it) why do you believe it?

T: Through a prophet they revealed there was risk involved to Christ's mission, so I believe it.

M: The risk and peril passages do not portray Ellen quoting the Father or the Son.

T: So what? Not every truth is establish by a direct quote from the Father or the Son.

M: And yet I quoted Jesus Himself personally stating emphatically 12 different times “I will” succeed. Why are you unwilling to take Jesus at His word?

T: Inspiration tells us there was risk involved. We should just ignore this fact? Jesus Christ expressed confidence He would succeed, but He was aware of the risk involved. Or do you think Jesus Christ thought there was no risk to what He was doing?

T: ??? This is just another example of contradiction. If there was risk involved, then Jesus could have sinned. When Waggoner argued similarly to how you did, EGW point blank corrected him, saying precisely what I said, using exactly the same argument I did.

M: Please post the exchange between Ellen and Elliot.

T: Sorry, this would take too much time to try to find. Basically Waggoner was arguing that because Christ had perfect faith, He couldn't fail. Ellen White corrected Him, and Waggoner made the correction in the Jan. Signs of the Times, which later became "Christ Our Righteousness," later changed (so as not to conflict with the book A. G. Daniels wrote by the same name) to "Christ And His Righteousness."

PS - EW 125 does not portray the Father or the Son admitting they were uncertain Jesus would succeed.

T: It portrays them not being certain what the future was, or the whole event doesn't make sense. If there was no risk involved, why the distress?

M: What they experienced in present time and space was real. The fact God also exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously did not add to or take away from what they experienced. God experiences time and space in the present. He cannot interact with FMAs in the past or future. He can only observe and know what has happened and what did happen.

T: This doesn't address the problem. The problem is that your view regarding the future (and that would include Christ, in EW 125, as this is before His incarnation) doesn't jibe with the event. If God was eternally certain what Christ was about to do, and likewise Christ, the whole meeting would be a sham. None of what was related in EW 125 would make sense.

M:Could choose to be lost and would choose to be lost are different realities. You’re saying God could not know who would choose to be lost. He had no way of knowing it. If He had been asked, “Who will choose to be lost?” You say He would have answered, “Any one of them or none of them. I have no idea exactly who will choose to be lost. The risk is worth it. I hope none of them sin and die.”

1.Descriptions such as EW 125 become ridiculous.
2.It contradicts the idea that Christ, or God, undertook a risk.
3.It's contrary to the idea that Christ "could have come 'ere now."
4.It's contrary to the idea that we can hasten Christ's coming.
5.It's contrary to the idea that God was not in any way responsible for the entrance of sin.
6.It's contrary to the idea that the entrance of sin is a mystery.

It's also contrary to God's character, as God's character is not such that He would set into motion a course of action which could only inevitably result in sin. Why would He do that? You have no answer to this question, which is no fault of yours, as there is none.

1. See 128858.

2. The “risk” quotes do not say God did not know Jesus would surely succeed.

3. The “ere this” quotes do not say God does not know the exact day and hour.

4. Same as above.

5. Knowing who would sin does not make God responsible for sin.

6. The fact Lucifer chose to sin is a mystery.

Sin is a mysterious, unexplainable thing. There was no reason for its existence; to seek to explain it is to seek to give a reason for it, and that would be to justify it. Sin appeared in a perfect universe, a thing that was shown to be inexcusable.—ST April 28, 1890. {TA 30.1}

God had a knowledge of the events of the future, even before the creation of the world. He did not make His purposes to fit circumstances, but He allowed matters to develop and work out. He did not work to bring about a certain condition of things, but He knew that such a condition would exist. The plan that should be carried out upon the defection of any of the high intelligences of heaven—this is the secret, the mystery which has been hid from ages. And an offering was prepared in the eternal purposes to do the very work which God has done for fallen humanity.—ST March 25, 1897. {TA 30.2}

The entrance of sin into heaven cannot be explained. If it were explainable, it would show that there was some reason for sin. But as there was not the least excuse for it, its origin will ever remain shrouded in mystery.—RH March 9, 1886. {TA 31.1}

While He was with them, He sought to impress upon them the knowledge there was for them in the mysteries of the kingdom of God. He would have them see that it was an evidence of His love for Him to lift the veil of the future, and make them the depositaries of knowledge concerning events to come. But much He had told them had been dimly comprehend, and much would be forgotten. He told them that after His crucifixion and ascension the Holy Spirit would open many things to them, and give them a better understanding of what He had tried to tell them. He would still continue to reveal sacred truth to them, and His Spirit would more fully impart truth to them. {11MR 87.3}

Jesus did not answer His disciples by taking up separately the destruction of Jerusalem and the great day of His coming. He mingled the description of these two events. Had He opened to His disciples future events as He beheld them, they would have been unable to endure the sight. In mercy to them He blended the description of the two great crises, leaving the disciples to study out the meaning for themselves.--DA 628 (1898). {LDE 32.2}

Moses was shown future events, especially those connected with the first advent of Jesus Christ. He was shown important, thrilling scenes in the life of Christ, and the very places where these scenes would be enacted. He saw his humble birth, and the angels proclaiming the glad tidings to the shepherds, "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Moses saw that Christ had exchanged his majesty and splendor for the manger of Bethlehem. He heard the joyful voices of the shining host of Heaven break forth in that divine song, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." He saw the Saviour of the world humbly walking through the streets of Bethlehem, divested of kingly honors, without pomp or grandeur. He saw the manner of his rejection by the proud and corrupt Jewish nation. They despised and rejected Him who had come to give them life. Here was their only star of hope. He saw the great agony of the Son of God in the garden of Gethsemane, and the betrayal of Jesus into the hands of a mob which was infuriated by Satan. He saw the cruel mockings and scourgings instigated by his own nation, and their last crowning act of nailing him to the cross; and Moses saw that, as he had lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of God was lifted up on the wooden cross. He saw him bleeding and dying, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life. {1SP 340.1}

Grief, amazement, indignation, and horror, were depicted on the countenance of Moses, as he viewed the hypocrisy and satanic hatred manifested by the Jewish nation against their Redeemer, the mighty angel who had gone before their fathers, and wrought so wonderfully for them in all their journeyings. He heard his agonizing cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" He saw him rise from the dead, and walk forth a triumphant conqueror, and ascend to his Father escorted by adoring angels. The gates of the city were opened by angels, who welcomed their divine Commander back with songs of glory and everlasting triumph. Moses' countenance changed, and shone with a holy radiance, as he viewed the glory and triumph of Christ. How small appeared all his hardships, trials, and sacrifices, when compared with those of the divine Son of God! He rejoiced that he had chosen to suffer affliction with the people of God, and in a small measure be a partaker with Christ of his sufferings. {1SP 341.1}

M:"God had a knowledge of the events of the future, even before the creation of the world. . . He knew that such a condition would exist." "Would exist" not might exist!

Also, everything God showed Moses played out precisely the way God said it would. How did God know it would surely play out that way?

And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem
and people of Judah,
judge between me
and my vineyard.
4 What more was there to do for my vineyard
that I have not done in it?
When I expected it to yield grapes,
why did it yield wild grapes?

(Isa. 5)

T: Couldn't God establish His throne in righteousness without creating beings He was certain would sin?

M: Regarding this “mystery” the only inspired statements we have at our disposal are the ones I posted above.

T: No they aren't.

M:They most certainly are. None of the passages you have posted are dealing with the same subject.

M: They simply say that for an eternity God knew which FMAs would sin and that He had a plan in place to deal with the great controversy. None of the inspired passages venture to explain why God chose to create the FMAs He knew would certainly sin.

T: They don't even say what you're claiming, let alone give a reason for something they don't say. But this is besides the point, as far as my question is concerned. Forget about the statement, and think for yourself please. What sense would it make for God to create creatures He was certain would sin? It doesn't make any sense, does it? You interpret a text in a certain way, and won't give it up, because that's what you think the text means. This doesn't seem like a good approach to me. It's certainly not one inspiration teaches us to take. Instead we should use common sense and reason, comparing inspired texts with other inspired texts, and believe something that makes sense. God doesn't want us to believe things that have no reason for being so. If we can't explain why we believe something to be the case, alarm bells should be sounding: We might not have something right here.

M:I agree we should incorporate sanctified common sense in our quest to understand truth. However, some passages are so plain they stand as foundations of fact for understanding other passages which are not as plain. For example, that God knew Lucifer and Adam would surely sin is so plainly stated it serves as a foundation of fact. But why God chose to create them has not been plainly stated.

T: MM, your reasoning would contradict inspiration. We're clearly told that Christ could have sinned, that there was risk involved in His mission. This means the chance was > 0 that Christ would fail. There's no way to get around this.

M: ”Could” and “would” have different definitions. Jesus could fail and Jesus would fail mean two different things. Jesus could fail is true, but Jesus would fail is not true.

T: No one said anything about "Jesus would fail." What was said was that Jesus might fail, that is, there was a >0 change that He might fail.

M:You wrote, “This means the chance was > 0 that Christ would fail.” You said “would fail”. I merely pointed out it wasn’t true.

You seem to agree with me. I understand, of course, that you believe there was a chance Jesus might deliberately choose to sin or abandon the plan of salvation.

Please point to a time when Jesus was close to sinning or close to abandoning the plan of salvation. And provide inspired support for it. Thank you. By the way, Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane wasn’t about wanting to abandon the plan of salvation; instead, it was about asking if there was some other way to implement it.

M: By the way, you said it is preposterous to say Jesus might not keep His promise. And I agree.

T: Why then did you say there was a risk He might not keep His promise that He will come? This is something which has no risk attached to it.

M:Apparently, according to you, there was a risk at the time He promised it.

M: However, Jesus made His promises before He failed or succeeded on Calvary. So, why do you believe “I will come again” but not “I will rise again”? Isn’t the first promise dependent on the second? How can we believe the first promise if we cannot believe the second?

T: Clearly if Jesus wasn't resurrected, He couldn't come again. EGW tells us if Christ had sinned, the rock in front of His tomb would never have been removed. Before He succeeded in His earthly mission, there was risk He might not come again. You're asserting there was no risk where inspiration says there was, and asserting that there is risk where inspiration does not say there is.

M:Since both promises were made before Calvary, obviously you believe there was a risk He wouldn’t be able to keep either one. Do you see what I mean?

T: Why? My point has been that there was risk involved. I've never claimed that God or Jesus Christ stated these things. Why should I produce evidence for something I've neither claimed nor believe to be true?

M: What’s not true? If neither the Father nor the Son plainly said it (as opposed to supposedly implied it) why do you believe it?

T: Through a prophet they revealed there was risk involved to Christ's mission, so I believe it.

M:Ellen never said the Father or the Son doubted Jesus would surely succeed.

She always emphatically stated it in the affirmative. None of the passages you posted say otherwise. Her saying there was a risk is not the same thing as her saying neither one knew Jesus would surely succeed. Mere implication is not sheer truth.

T: Inspiration tells us there was risk involved. We should just ignore this fact? Jesus Christ expressed confidence He would succeed, but He was aware of the risk involved. Or do you think Jesus Christ thought there was no risk to what He was doing?

M:Again, the fact Jesus could fail is not the same thing as saying neither the Father nor the Son knew Jesus would surely succeed.

In fact, the fact Jesus emphatically stated over and over again He would surely succeed is convincing evidence He knew He would succeed. Or, do you think He withheld the whole truth? If so, to what purpose?

T: Sorry, this would take too much time to try to find. Basically Waggoner was arguing that because Christ had perfect faith, He couldn't fail. Ellen White corrected Him, and Waggoner made the correction in the Jan. Signs of the Times, which later became "Christ Our Righteousness," later changed (so as not to conflict with the book A. G. Daniels wrote by the same name) to "Christ And His Righteousness."

M:I happen to know Ellen was arguing against the idea that it was impossible for Jesus to sin. As you know, I agree with her that Jesus could have sinned if He had wanted to.

The fact is, He never once wanted to sin, and He also knew He never would choose to sin. Yes, He was tempted in all points like we are, however, being tempted to sin and wanting to sin are two entirely different realities.

T: This doesn't address the problem. The problem is that your view regarding the future (and that would include Christ, in EW 125, as this is before His incarnation) doesn't jibe with the event. If God was eternally certain what Christ was about to do, and likewise Christ, the whole meeting would be a sham. None of what was related in EW 125 would make sense.

R:Again, God’s knowledge of the future reflects what happened in the present.

It does not add to it or subtract from it. His knowledge of the future does not affect His experience in the present.

He can’t say, “I already know how this plays out so I better act my part so it can play out accordingly.” Everything plays out normally and naturally as if God does not exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously.