Jesus took the risk of failure and eternal loss

Desire Of Ages, Page 131.2
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12

God's Life Pledged.

Think of it; God swore by Himself! That is, He pledged Himself, and His own existence, to our salvation in Jesus Christ. He put Himself in pawn. His life for ours, if we are lost while trusting Him. His honour is at stake. It is not a question of whether or not you are insignificant and of little or no worth. He Himself says that we are "less than nothing."2 He says that "we have sold ourselves for naught,"3 which shows our true value; but we are redeemed without money, even by the precious blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is the life of Christ; and the life of Christ bestowed upon us makes us partakers of His worth. The only question is, Can God afford to break or forget His oath? And the answer is that we have "two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie."4

EJW EC page 0112 paragraph 4 All Creation Given for Our Ransom.

Think of what would be involved in the breaking of that promise and that oath. The word of God, which brings the promise, is the word which created the heavens and the earth, and which upholds them. "Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these, that bringeth out their host by number; He calleth them all by name; by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not one is lacking. Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, my way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed away from my God?"1 The preceding part of this same chapter speaks of the word of God, which has created all things, and that it shall stand for ever, and the words are quoted by the Apostle Peter, with the additional statement, "And this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you."2

It is the word of God in Christ that upholds the universe, and keeps the innumerable stars in their places. "In Him all things consist."3 If He should fail, the universe would collapse. But God is no more sure than His word, for His word is backed by His oath. He has pledged His own existence to the performance of His word. If His word should be broken to the humblest soul in the world, He Himself would be disgraced, dishonoured, and dethroned. The universe would go to chaos and annihilation.

Thus the entire universe is in the balance to ensure the salvation of every soul that seeks it in Christ. The power manifested in it is the power pledged to the help of the weak. So long as matter exists, so long will the word of God be sure. "For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven."4 It would be a sad loss to you if you should fail of salvation; but it would be a far greater loss to the Lord if you should fail through any fault of His. Yea, more, every soul that rejects God's mercy, and goes to destruction is a loss to God. "We are His offspring,"5 and no father can see his offspring perish, and not suffer. Just as there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, so is their sorrow in heaven over every sinner that goes to destruction. God loves sinners even as He loves His only begotten Son, and He Himself has suffered more to save them than they can ever suffer.(pp 112, 113)

Abraham's great act of faith stands like a pillar of light, illuminating the pathway of God's servants in all succeeding ages. Abraham did not seek to excuse himself from doing the will of God. During that three days' journey he had sufficient time to reason, and to doubt God, if he was disposed to doubt. He might have reasoned that the slaying of his son would cause him to be looked upon as a murderer, a second Cain; that it would cause his teaching to be rejected and despised; and thus destroy his power to do good to his fellow men. He might have pleaded that age should excuse him from obedience. But the patriarch did not take refuge in any of these excuses. Abraham was human; his passions and attachments were like ours; but he did not stop to question how the promise could be fulfilled if Isaac should be slain. He did not stay to reason with his aching heart. He knew that God is just and righteous in all His requirements, and he obeyed the command to the very letter. {PP 153.3}

How much can we learn from something that did not happen? Can we draw concrete conclusions and deduce other truths? For example, can we conclude, based on what did not happen, that God did not know before the fact if Jesus would succeed on the cross?

How much can we learn from something that did not happen? Can we draw concrete conclusions and deduce other truths?

can we conclude, based on what did not happen, that God did not know before the fact if Jesus would succeed on the cross?

On another note, can we conclude, based on if Jesus had failed, that God would have allowed Jesus to live with humans isolated from the rest of the loyal universe?

If Jesus had failed would the rest of the universe have had any reason to remain loyal? If “free moral agents” (FMAs) have no reason to trust God would He continue to perpetuate their existence? If so, why?

I'm sorry, Tom, but I'm not sure what you think "risk" means in the context of God knowing in advance Jesus would succeed on the cross. There is no indication in the Bible of God not knowing. The prophecies make it clear Jesus would succeed. There is not one prophecy that even hints Jesus might fail. Obviously, therefore, the word "risk" in the SOP cannot mean God did not know in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed. Jesus also knew He would succeed because He believed the prophecies. To doubt them would have constituted failure.

The SOP quote you are referring to employs the word “sin” in a different sense. Sin, pardon, and repentance, in Lucifer’s case, before he was convicted of wrongdoing, cannot mean the same things they mean nowadays.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. (COL 196)

In the light of the fact that the Bible didn't give any hint of failure, I agree that we would need to harmonize what EGW said in regards to risk to the Bible.

I think that God was pretty confident that Jesus would succeed, more than just knowing what would happen IF He succeeded. The propechies are pretty clear about that. Now that I think of it, our ideas about what would happen if Jesus failed are based mainly on extrapolation and interpolation, rather than a plain Thus saith the Lord.

The SOP quote you are referring to employs the word “sin” in a different sense. Sin, pardon, and repentance, in Lucifer’s case, before he was convicted of wrongdoing, cannot mean the same things they mean nowadays.

Remember that Christ risked all. (COL 196)

possibility of loss or injury: peril (Webster's)

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!

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.

Jesus also knew He would succeed because He believed the prophecies. To doubt them would have constituted failure.

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?

IOW, God's knowledge of what Jesus could do (conditionality) is a separate issue from His knowledge of what Jesus would do (trust and faith).

When we change the spiritual virtue of "trust and faith" to a cold ability of "foreknowledge" we have changed all that is "divine" into "corruption".

I think they're the same. Trust and faith from Christ's perspective translates to foreknowledge of His victory from God's perspective. Same goes with our trust and faith.

Trust and faith from Christ's perspective translates to Trust and faith of His victory from God's perspective. Same goes with our trust and faith.

When we change the spiritual virtue of "trust and faith" in a person, to a cold ability of "foreknowledge" of future events, we have changed all that is "divine" into "corruption".

Second, your argument did not become more agreeable to me by repetition. It looks the same as before.

Third, I believe the dichotomy between trust and faith and foreknowledge is unwarranted. Just because foreknowledge is objective does not make it cold or corrupt, and it does not mean that it is not based on the subjective virtues of trust and faith.

Foreknowledge of future events is what is cold; for by nature it has to be based on “events” and not on what you know about a person.

I know in advance that given a choice, my son would eat an orange instead of a carrot. Is that corrupt?
I know in advance that if a toddler grabbed a toy away from my daughter, she would give it up rather than grabbing the toddler by the neck and choking him. Is that corrupt?

The examples given do not correlate with knowledge of future events, but of knowing your son’s preference on those two things, or your daughter’s response in such a case. It does not deal with knowing what choices if any and when they will face as events.

Faith and trust, however sees the value of the person to make a judgment regardless of circumstances and choices, or otherwise the extent to which one can be entrusted with.

I think you are romanticizing something that is plain and straightforward.

Hmmm, that is strange; was God romanticizing when he found fault with the Israelites in that they were not of faith. Paul also finds fault with their knowledge because it was not of faith, declaring that they were ignorant of God’s righteousness because they were not of faith.

• Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
  Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
  Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;

The problem rather appears that there is lack of understanding the weight of “faith” as opposed to “knowledge”. They had “the knowledge apart from faith”. “Faith” is still the “stumbling stone”. Do you relate to your wife by faith and love or by knowledge? How would you rate your relationship if it was based on foreknowledge of future events?

Do you ever find God saying, "If this, then it could be that, but it could the other thing, or maybe..."?

Yes, God does this. For example, when Moses was worried about appearing before Pharaoh, God gave him signs to perform. God said to Moses, "If they will not believe you," God said, "or heed the first sign, they may believe the latter sign." (Ex. 4:8)

I think God was saying what He said, that perhaps they would respond to the first sign, and if they didn't, then they might react to the second.

If things were as you are suggesting, that our choices are fixed completely by our character, then our being saved or not saved would not be dependent upon our choice as the primary cause, but upon the factors that predetermined what choice we would make. Our salvation would be due to factors beyond our control.

An open future may, mistakenly, appear to be limiting God, but that's not the case at all. The reverse is true, because God, rather than having to worry about one set of circumstances (that which is already determined), must take into account a myriad of possibilities. Within the limitless possible consequences of decisions that we may make, and their impact upon others, and the decisions they may make, etc. God is able to take all of that into account and work His will. It takes far greater intelligence to manage things in an open environment like that than in a fixed one.

Third, I believe the dichotomy between trust and faith and foreknowledge is unwarranted. Just because foreknowledge is objective does not make it cold or corrupt, and it does not mean that it is not based on the subjective virtues of trust and faith.

Foreknowledge of future events is what is cold; for by nature it has to be based on “events” and not on what you know about a person.

I know in advance that given a choice, my son would eat an orange instead of a carrot. Is that corrupt?
I know in advance that if a toddler grabbed a toy away from my daughter, she would give it up rather than grabbing the toddler by the neck and choking him. Is that corrupt?

The examples given do not correlate with knowledge of future events, but of knowing your son’s preference on those two things, or your daughter’s response in such a case. It does not deal with knowing what choices if any and when they will face as events.

Faith and trust, however sees the value of the person to make a judgment regardless of circumstances and choices, or otherwise the extent to which one can be entrusted with.

I think you are romanticizing something that is plain and straightforward.

Hmmm, that is strange; was God romanticizing when he found fault with the Israelites in that they were not of faith. Paul also finds fault with their knowledge because it was not of faith, declaring that they were ignorant of God’s righteousness because they were not of faith.

Lack of faith is not romantic in the least.

What is that supposed to say? Did you not kind of flip there? You were proposing something "romantic", not something "not romantic".

What I am referring to is your contention that lack of knowledge is somehow virtuous; that knowledge is corrupt.

What I am contending against is a knowledge that does not allow for faith or love.

1. In what sense was Jesus "an exile"?

What I am referring to is your contention that lack of knowledge is somehow virtuous; that knowledge is corrupt.

What I am contending against is a knowledge that does not allow for faith or love.

In that case, you are contending alone because that is so NOT what I'm talking about. If you read my comments, you will see that the knowledge I'm speaking about, is knowledge that encompasses those things.

Now that I think about it, virtually every prophecy depended on Christ's success, except for "You shall surely die."

But is she using the word "exile" in the normal sense? That is, was Jesus banished from heaven? For example, Lucifer was exiled from heaven.

As far as I'm concerned, foreknowledge in the realm of human behavior must necessarily be based on the person's faith in God, and in God's faith in His own knowledge of our characters.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine Jesus as an exile from heaven. His connection to the Father was dynamic. Their communion and fellowship was real and abiding. There is nothing about it that reminds me of an exile.

Also, if Christ had failed resulting in the immediate destruction of the human race, what about Enoch, Elijah, and Moses? Would they have also been destroyed?

In the light of the fact that the Bible didn't give any hint of failure, I agree that we would need to harmonize what EGW said in regards to risk to the Bible.

It's coming to a place where if someone posts here "Good morning" it would be turned into a debate over whether it is a good morning because God sees it will be a good morning, or if God does not see that it would be a good morning.

How did we become so convinced that the future of the human race depended on what happened on the cross?

But Mrs. White in her Great Controversy lets us know...

Paul preaching it as he did might

Can you give the reference for that? I'd like to dig.

We must not forget that the gospels were written decades after the events they describe.

There is no question that Paul found it to be important.

Romans 6:5 - For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

The “risk” Sister White wrote about is purely hypothetical.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.(COL 196)

How do we reconcile the following insights?

LHU 76
When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. {LHU 76.2}

1SM 256
Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope. {1SM 256.1}

Since Jesus did not fail, it is pointless to ask "What if ...."

If God was uncertain as to whether or not Jesus would succeed on the cross He would not have consented to creating FMAs in the first place.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!(DA 49)

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12.

"Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!

Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

MM, in general what you wrote about the risk being hypothetical, and there never being an instant when God did not know what would happen, doesn't make sense. If God always knew exactly what would happen, the risk would not be "hypothetical," but rather "non-existent."

In other words, what EGW should have written is: God did NOT send His Son at the risk of failure and eternal life. Remember, Christ did NOT risk all. Heaven was NOT imperiled for our redemption. This would agree with your assertions.

Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The response of the saved is in relation to the success of Jesus on the cross - not to the hypothetical "risk".

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12.

we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss.

How does this all play out in the prophetic utterance of Genesis 3:15 that was uttered by God Himself?

Quote:

Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Was this also an uncertain prophecy in relation to the risk factor?

Nowhere in the Bible is the idea of risk implied.

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131)

The value of a soul, who can estimate? Would you know its worth, go to Gethsemane, and there watch with Christ through those hours of anguish, when He sweat as it were great drops of blood. Look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross. Hear that despairing cry, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Mark 15:34. Look upon the wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. (COL 196)

I do find it interesting though that even though EGW uses the word "risk", I do not see such a word or thought expressed in the Sciptures, therefore, seeing that we ae to harmonize the writings of EGW with the Sciptures, we had better take another look at what the word "risk" really means in her writings.

There is a prospect before us of a continued struggle at the risk of imprisonment, loss of property, and even of life itself, to defend the law of God, which is made void by the laws of men.--Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 712.

With what relief does he hear in the distance its first faint cry! Following the sound, he climbs the steepest heights; he goes to the very edge of the precipice, at the risk of his own life. Thus he searches, while the cry, growing fainter, tells him that his sheep is ready to die. (GW 182)

There is a prospect before us of a continued struggle, at the risk of imprisonment, loss of property and even of life itself, to defend the law of God.--5T 712

In the context of the quote, it's neither of these that the redeemed respond to:



The redeemed respond to this:



It is not "hypothetical" risk that the redeemed respond to, but the actual risk Christ undertook. Really, how could she have articulated the idea any more clearly?

I disagree. They respond to the fact Jesus "was slain". Here is what is said:

"Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12.

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then ... (DA 131)

Again, Jesus did not fail on the cross. God knew Jesus would succeed. No matter what people post to prove God did not know Jesus would succeed on the cross it is simply not true.

5Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

6O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Christ came to save fallen man.... Jesus came to teach men of the Father, to correctly represent him before the fallen children of earth. Angels could not fully portray the character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work. {ST, January 20, 1890 par. 6}

He could have sinned; He could have fallen.

Anyway, if you read the context of the statement, you will see that her point is that while an angel could not fully reveal God's character, Christ, God's only Son, could not fail to do so.

Please look at my post 3 above now. I did address your question. However, you have not answered mine. What does "Christ could have failed. Christ could have sinned" mean? Doesn't it mean that He could have failed.

I'm curious as to why you think I haven't answered your question when I answered it when you asked it, and then directed you to the post where I answered it the second time you asked.

Just because I do not believe the "risk" concept proves God does not know in advance how things will play out it does not mean I also believe there no risk involved.

The idea that Jesus could have failed in no way means God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. That's an unbiblical jump to conclusion. Yes, the potential for failure was real. But not even for a nanosecond was Jesus ever close to failing. Jesus didn't barely succeed on the cross. He triumphed magnificently.

Because I don't see an answer there that solves the dilemma.

1) Christ could have sinned. (That one's too obvious.)
2) Christ could not fail to reveal God's character.

Given just that, we must conclude that it is possible to reveal God's character while sinning. Agreed?

I believe that God's law is an accurate transcript of His character. Therefore, to fully reveal God's character all the time is to fully keep the law all the time. What's the risk?

I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily. We know not what is before us, and if we did, it would not contribute to our eternal welfare. God gives us an opportunity to exercise faith and trust in the great I AM. . . . Our Saviour says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). Fifteen hundred years before Christ laid off His royal robe, His kingly crown, and left His position of honor in the heavenly courts, assumed humanity, and walked a man among the children of men, Abraham saw His day, and was glad. "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (verses 57, 58). . . . {TMK 12.2}

Tom, show me one Bible text where God says, "I'm not sure if Jesus will fail or succeed on the cross."

"Ages before His incarnation, Christ distinctly chose His position. He foresaw His life of humiliation, His rejection and crucifixion, His victory over satanic agencies, His victory over death and the grave. He saw the world flooded with light and life, and heard the song of triumph sung by the millions rescued from the hold of Satan." {1NL 41.7}

Tom, show me one Bible text where God says, "I'm not sure if Jesus will fail or succeed on the cross."

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen ...

In that case, a proper online forum study would be to look for all the Bible and EGW quotes on the subject of could Jesus have sinned, could Jesus have failed versus all the Bible and EGW quotes in relation to the foreknowledge of God in whether or not God saw that Jesus would not sin and would not fail.

If you're familiar with Early Writings, there's a seen there where Christ had to go in three times to convince the Father to send Him. The reason for God's reluctance is not that He loves us any less than Christ, but because He was aware of the risk.

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost, and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {EW 149.2}

At first the angels could not rejoice; for their Commander concealed nothing from them, but opened before them the plan of salvation. Jesus told them that He would stand between the wrath of His Father and guilty man, that He would bear iniquity and scorn, and but few would receive Him as the Son of God. Nearly all would hate and reject Him. He would leave all His glory in heaven, appear upon earth as a man, humble Himself as a man, become acquainted by His own experience with the various temptations with which man would be beset, that He might know how to succor those who should be tempted; and that finally, after His mission as a teacher would be accomplished, He would be delivered into the hands of men, and endure almost every cruelty and suffering that Satan and his angels could inspire wicked men to inflict; that He would die the cruelest of deaths, hung up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner; that He would suffer dreadful hours of agony, which even angels could not look upon, but would veil their faces from the sight. Not merely agony of body would He suffer, but mental agony, that with which bodily suffering could in no wise be compared. The weight of the sins of the whole world would be upon Him. He told them He would die and rise again the third day, and would ascend to His Father to intercede for wayward, guilty man. {EW 149.3}

Do you see any hint of risk in the above EGW quote? It says that Christ held nothing back from the angels. If there were the type of risk of failure that you are referring to, then wouldn't Christ have held something back? This is one of the reasons why we need to look at the whole picture, rather than at a few pieces of the whole picture.

Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 127)

Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 127)

When God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his only son,

Isaac was NEVER Abraham's [bonly[/b] son. That would be Ishmael.

There was only one occasion on which Abraham had an only son. What was the boy's name?

Gen. 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Again, making a decision and implementing it are two different things.

Hadn't Christ already decided to die for man? Why then the struggle in Gethsemane?

About the "few hours of mental anguish", I would say that the great question involved was the separation between the members of the Godhead, which occurred for the first and only time in all eternity.

The awful moment had come--that moment which was to decide the destiny of the world. The fate of humanity trembled in the balance. (DA 692)

If there was any risk, if there was any imperilment to heaven itself, it would have been only if Christ had decided not to go through with it.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

The awful moment had come--that moment which was to decide the destiny of the world. The fate of humanity trembled in the balance. (DA 692)

Under the scenario you are suggesting, Daryl, how could it possible be said that the fate of humanity trembled in the balance? Something which "trembles in the balance" is something which uncertain, something to which doubt pertains, not something certain.

When the angel said it was a struggle for God as to whether or not to allow Christ to come, the meaning is not simply that God suffered in making the decision, but *that the decision was in doubt.*

Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. Angels were so interested for man's salvation that there could be found among them those who would yield their glory and give their life for perishing man. "But," said my accompanying angel, "that would avail nothing." The transgression was so great that an angel's life would not pay the debt. Nothing but the death and intercession of God's Son would pay the debt and save lost man from hopeless sorrow and misery. {EW 127.1}

Tom, show me one Bible text where God says, "I'm not sure if Jesus will fail or succeed on the cross."

MM: Again, Tom, her risk statements were not intended to prove that God had no idea if Jesus wold fail or succeed on the cross. You are stretching it to mean something it doesn't say.

MM: You are also arguing it means God didn't know if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. Which is an unwarranted jump to conclusion.

TE: I don't know why this logic is hard to follow. I'll try again.

a)If God knows something will happen with 100% certainty, then it will certainly happen.
b)If something will certainly happen, then no risk can be said to attach to it.

The word "risk," means the possibility of loss. If there is no possibility of loss, there is no risk.

When Ellen White wrote that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, this means there was the possibility that Christ would not succeed. This is further substantiated by her writing, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen."

There is no unwarranted logic here.

Again, nowhere does it say in the Bible or the SOP that God admitted ahead of time that He wasn't sure if Jesus would fail or succeed. There was no doubt in God's mind. Thus far you have not addressed these facts. You have ignored them. You labeled them "rhetorical". However, the fact you cannot quote God admitting He didn't know is positive proof against your theory.

The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race. It then existed in the purpose and by the promise of God; and through faith, men could become its subjects. Yet it was not actually established until the death of Christ. Even after entering upon His earthly mission, the Saviour, wearied with the stubbornness and ingratitude of men, might have drawn back from the sacrifice of Calvary. In Gethsemane the cup of woe trembled in His hand. He might even then have wiped the blood-sweat from His brow and have left the guilty race to perish in their iniquity. Had He done this, there could have been no redemption for fallen men. But when the Saviour yielded up His life, and with His expiring breath cried out, "It is finished," then the fulfillment of the plan of redemption was assured. The promise of salvation made to the sinful pair in Eden was ratified. The kingdom of grace, which had before existed by the promise of God, was then established. {GC 347.2}

If they steadfastly repelled his first insinuations, they would be as secure as the heavenly messengers. But should they once yield to temptation, their nature would become so depraved that in themselves they would have no power and no disposition to resist Satan. {PP 53.2}

Even when he was cast out of heaven. Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since only the service of love can be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of the worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice of God in the destruction of Satan. Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion have been utterly eradicated. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, he must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question. {PP 42.3}

Satan's rebellion was to be a lesson to the universe through all coming ages--a perpetual testimony to the nature of sin and its terrible results. The working out of Satan's rule, its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority. It would testify that with the existence of God's government is bound up the well-being of all the creatures He has made. Thus the history of this terrible experiment of rebellion was to be a perpetual safeguard to all holy beings, to prevent them from being deceived as to the nature of transgression, to save them from committing sin, and suffering its penalty. {PP 42.4}

Our first parents, though created innocent and holy, were not placed beyond the possibility of wrongdoing. God made them free moral agents, capable of appreciating the wisdom and benevolence of His character and the justice of His requirements, and with full liberty to yield or to withhold obedience. They were to enjoy communion with God and with holy angels; but before they could be rendered eternally secure, their loyalty must be tested. At the very beginning of man's existence a check was placed upon the desire for self-indulgence, the fatal passion that lay at the foundation of Satan's fall. The tree of knowledge, which stood near the tree of life in the midst of the garden, was to be a test of the obedience, faith, and love of our parents. While permitted to eat freely of every other tree, they were forbidden to taste of this, on pain of death. They were also to be exposed to the temptations of Satan; but if they endured the trial, they would finally be placed beyond his power, to enjoy perpetual favor with God. {PP 48.4}

If God had exercised His power to punish this chief rebel, disaffected angels would not have been manifested; hence, God took another course, for He would manifest distinctly to all the heavenly host His justice and His judgment. {SR 17.1}

The Father consulted His Son in regard to at once carrying out their purpose to make man to inhabit the earth. He would place man upon probation to test his loyalty before he could be rendered eternally secure. If he endured the test wherewith God saw fit to prove him, he should eventually be equal with the angels. He was to have the favor of God, and he was to converse with angels, and they with him. He did not see fit to place them beyond the power of disobedience. {SR 19.2}

When Adam and Eve were placed in the beautiful garden they had everything for their happiness which they could desire. But God chose, in His all-wise arrangements, to test their loyalty before they could be rendered eternally secure. They were to have His favor, and He was to converse with them and they with Him. Yet He did not place evil out of their reach. Satan was permitted to tempt them. If they endured the trial they were to be in perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels. {SR 24.2}

They told them that Satan purposed to do them harm, and it was necessary for them to be guarded, for they might come in contact with the fallen foe; but he could not harm them while they yielded obedience to God's command, for, if necessary, every angel from heaven would come to their help rather than that he should in any way do them harm. But if they disobeyed the command of God, then Satan would have power to ever annoy, perplex, and trouble them. If they remained steadfast against the first insinuations of Satan, they were as secure as the heavenly angels. But if they yielded to the tempter, He who spared not the exalted angels would not spare them. They must suffer the penalty of their transgression, for the law of God was as sacred as Himself, and He required implicit obedience from all in heaven and on earth. {SR 30.2}

Could one sin have been found in Christ, had He in one particular yielded to Satan to escape the terrible torture, the enemy of God and man would have triumphed. Christ bowed His head and died, but He held fast His faith and His submission to God. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10. {DA 761.1}

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. {DA 761.2}

Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner. {DA 761.4}

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. {DA 761.5}

Through Jesus, God's mercy was manifested to men; but mercy does not set aside justice. The law reveals the attributes of God's character, and not a jot or tittle of it could be changed to meet man in his fallen condition. God did not change His law, but He sacrificed Himself, in Christ, for man's redemption. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Cor. 5:19. {DA 762.1}

Memory recalls the home of his innocence and purity, the peace and content that were his until he indulged in murmuring against God, and envy of Christ. His accusations, his rebellion, his deceptions to gain the sympathy and support of the angels, his stubborn persistence in making no effort for self-recovery when God would have granted him forgiveness --all come vividly before him. He reviews his work among men and its results--the enmity of man toward his fellow man, the terrible destruction of life, the rise and fall of kingdoms, the overturning of thrones, the long succession of tumults, conflicts, and revolutions. He recalls his constant efforts to oppose the work of Christ and to sink man lower and lower. He sees that his hellish plots have been powerless to destroy those who have put their trust in Jesus. As Satan looks upon his kingdom, the fruit of his toil, he sees only failure and ruin. He has led the multitudes to believe that the City of God would be an easy prey; but he knows that this is false. Again and again, in the progress of the great controversy, he has been defeated and compelled to yield. He knows too well the power and majesty of the Eternal. {GC 669.2}

The aim of the great rebel has ever been to justify himself and to prove the divine government responsible for the rebellion. To this end he has bent all the power of his giant intellect. He has worked deliberately and systematically, and with marvelous success, leading vast multitudes to accept his version of the great controversy which has been so long in progress. For thousands of years this chief of conspiracy has palmed off falsehood for truth. But the time has now come when the rebellion is to be finally defeated and the history and character of Satan disclosed. In his last great effort to dethrone Christ, destroy His people, and take possession of the City of God, the archdeceiver has been fully unmasked. Those who have united with him see the total failure of his cause. Christ's followers and the loyal angels behold the full extent of his machinations against the government of God. He is the object of universal abhorrence. {GC 670.1}

Satan sees that his voluntary rebellion has unfitted him for heaven. He has trained his powers to war against God; the purity, peace, and harmony of heaven would be to him supreme torture. His accusations against the mercy and justice of God are now silenced. The reproach which he has endeavored to cast upon Jehovah rests wholly upon himself. And now Satan bows down and confesses the justice of his sentence. {GC 670.2}

"Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? for Thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest." Verse 4. Every question of truth and error in the long-standing controversy has now been made plain. The results of rebellion, the fruits of setting aside the divine statutes, have been laid open to the view of all created intelligences. The working out of Satan's rule in contrast with the government of God has been presented to the whole universe. Satan's own works have condemned him. God's wisdom, His justice, and His goodness stand fully vindicated. It is seen that all His dealings in the great controversy have been conducted with respect to the eternal good of His people and the good of all the worlds that He has created. "All Thy works shall praise Thee, O Lord; and Thy saints shall bless Thee." Psalm 145:10. The history of sin will stand to all eternity as a witness that with the existence of God's law is bound up the happiness of all the beings He has created. With all the facts of the great controversy in view, the whole universe, both loyal and rebellious, with one accord declare: "Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints." {GC 670.3}

1. According to you, risk involves uncertainty. If the outcome of something is known with 100% certainty then no risk is involved.

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.

2. In the case of Jesus, however, the outcome would have been the same if He failed or succeeded. That is, He would have died.

If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected. He came at the risk of "failure and eternal loss." The difference between Christ succeeding and failing is the "eternal loss" part of the phrase.

3. Either way, therefore, the death of Jesus was 100% certain. Using your limited definition of “risk”, therefore, there was no risk.

Christ's physical death was not what the risk entailed, but "eternal loss." You would need to rephrase your previous two points to speak of "eternal loss" rather than "death."

EGW wrote that God sent His Son "at the risk of failure and eternal loss" not "at the risk of failure and physical death."

4. Divinity, or Deity, cannot die. Thus, only the humanity of Jesus would have died had He failed or succeeded. So, again, using your limited definition of “risk” there was no risk.

The definition of risk I'm providing is simply the definition of risk. It's not limited. Anyone who deals with risk knows what it is. If you have any acquaintances who deal with risk, such as an accountant, or actuary, or someone who deals with risk management, finances, or investments, you can verify with them what the meaning of risk is. Or you could look at a dictionary.

I'm not sure why your rambling off course here. What Ellen White wrote was very specific. She wrote "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." The risk that she is speaking of has to do with failure and eternal loss. Not physical death.

5. What did the “risk” involve? What would the consequences have been if Jesus had failed to save us?

According to Ellen White, the consequences would have been "failure and eternal loss." She also writes that "heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption."

What would the consequences have been if Jesus had not volunteered to save us?

The human race would have been lost without Christ.

(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.

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.

(b) The “risk” Jesus would have taken if He had not volunteered to save us involved two negative outcomes: 1) All created free moral agents throughout God’s vast universe would have been destroyed, and 2) The Godhead would have been lonely.

Why are you putting "risk" in quotes? That's not necessary, and misleading. Ellen White did not write, "God sent His Son at the 'risk' of failure and eternal loss" but "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." No quotes.

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. Why are you asserting this? Also, this appears to me to have nothing whatsoever to do with the point we are discussing, which is that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. I'm not seeing why your bringing up the subject of what would have happened to unfallen worlds had Christ not volunteered to save us.

(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.

God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.
It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe.
(DA 759)

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.
(DA 758)

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.

MM, I demonstrated that you contradicted yourself. For you convenience, here are points A through B:

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:



You responded to this simply “I disagree.” That’s not an adequate response.

The above argument is perfectly sound. If you disagree, you should demonstrate some fault with the argument.

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. Jacob, after his night of wrestling with the Angel, exclaimed, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen. 32: 30. (DA 107)

At first the angels could not rejoice; for their Commander concealed nothing from them, but opened before them the plan of salvation. Jesus told them that He would stand between the wrath of His Father and guilty man, that He would bear iniquity and scorn, and but few would receive Him as the Son of God. Nearly all would hate and reject Him.

He would leave all His glory in heaven, appear upon earth as a man, humble Himself as a man, become acquainted by His own experience with the various temptations with which man would be beset, that He might know how to succor those who should be tempted; and that finally, after His mission as a teacher would be accomplished, He would be delivered into the hands of men, and endure almost every cruelty and suffering that Satan and his angels could inspire wicked men to inflict; that He would die the cruelest of deaths, hung up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner; that He would suffer dreadful hours of agony, which even angels could not look upon, but would veil their faces from the sight.

Not merely agony of body would He suffer, but mental agony, that with which bodily suffering could in no wise be compared. The weight of the sins of the whole world would be upon Him. He told them He would die and rise again the third day, and would ascend to His Father to intercede for wayward, guilty man. {EW 149.3}

There is no contradiction with "C". C just asserts what follows from the definition of risk. You agreed that C is true.

The contradiction occurs because of your asserting that C is true while D is false. That's not logically possible, as the argument demonstrates.

The argument is sound. In order to logically disprove the argument, you would either have to argue that the premises are false, or that the reasoning from premise to conclusion is not valid.

You have done neither of these things. You have accepted the premises, A through C, but denied the conclusion, without making any attempt to demonstrate that the reasoning above is not valid.

As of now, the contradiction stands, as demonstrated, and still hasn't been addressed.

To repeat, in order to address it, you either need to show how one of the premises are not true, or show how the reasoning from premises to conclusion is not valid.

MM: The reason God did not punish and destroy the evil angels is because it would have caused the seed of rebellion to ripen within the loyal angels.

TE: Right. Because if God had allowed Satan to reap the full result of his sin, it would have appeared that God was killing him rather than that his death was the result of his sin. The death of Christ made clear that death is the result of sin itself, not of God’s killing the one who sins.

MM: Oh, that’s right, I forgot you believe sin, and not God or God’s glory, punishes and destroys sinners in the lake of fire. Because of our fundamental differences on this key point this aspect of the discussion is destined to be a dead end.

TE: This is a poor response. Above all, it's sarcastic. Secondly, it's wrong, and since we've already discussed this in such detail, you must know this to be the case. It's hard to believe that you could forget what my position is. How many times have I quoted DA 107 to you?


Why are you misrepresenting my position?

Another problem with your response is that it doesn't take into account the context of DA 764, which is the context of your comments and my response. It specifically says that "the glory of God, who is love, will destroy them."

MM: They did not understand Satan's accusations and needed time to watch them unfold and mature. Had our first parents resisted his initial attack it would have served to convince the loyal angels that their allegiance was not misplaced.

TE: The quotes you are using are from “It Is Finished” which explain that the death of Christ accomplished the things you are talking about. How would the obedience of Adam and Eve have accomplished what the death of Christ accomplished?

MM: If Adam and Eve had been successful, Jesus would not have died on Calvary. Are you suggesting that the evil angels would have somehow accomplished what Jesus did on the cross? What other option is there?

TE: I'm not suggesting anything. I asked you a question about what you were suggesting. That you can't see another option doesn't mean that God couldn't see other options.

MM: I believe the success of Adam and Eve would have disproven Satan’s accusations. It would have proven that the law can be obeyed, that obedience produces peace and happiness, not unrest and discontentment.

It would have proven that obeying the law does not prevent us from realizing our full potential as FMAs. That’s what needed to be proven and demonstrated in order for God to punish and destroy the evil angels without causing the seeds of rebellion to arise in the hearts of unfallen beings.

TE: That's not what DA 764 is discussing, though.

MM: However, if Jesus had failed, that last link of sympathy would have ripened into open rebellion, thus forcing God to destroy all FMAs.

TE: Why do you say this? The last link of sympathy would have been broken had God destroyed Satan. That’s from “It Is Finished.”

MM: Only if Adam and Eve had succeeded or if Jesus had succeeded. Did you mean to say, “The last link of sympathy would NOT have been broken had God destroyed Satan.”

TE: No. I meant what I wrote (actually, what Ellen White wrote). She wrote that if God had allowed Satan to suffer the full result of sin, that would have resulted in an evil seed of doubt arising, because it would not have appeared that this was due to sin but rather due to God's destroying him. If God had actually destroyed him, it ceratinly would have appeared to the angels that God was destroying him, which would have resulted in an evil seed of doubt arising, as she stated. The death of Christ avoided the evil seed of doubt arising because it demonstrated, in a way that would not be misinterpreted by the holy angels, what the result of sin is.

TE: If Jesus had failed, that would have shown that Satan’s accusations were true, and that God was selfish. Is that what you have in mind? If not, why are you thinking FMA’s would have rebelled?

MM: Yes, that’s what I had in mind. “… if Jesus had failed, that last link of sympathy would have ripened into open rebellion, thus forcing God to destroy all FMAs.” Do you agree?

TE: I agree that this MIGHT have happened. Actually, I don't this matters. If Jesus had failed, the results would have been unimaginably bad. It blows the mind to even think about it. God had sworn by Himself that Jesus would succeed.

A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them.

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?

TE: 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?

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: 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.

TE: 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 positive [edited to change from negative to positive].

TE: 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.

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.

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.

TE: 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?

TE: 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: In the case of Jesus, however, the outcome would have been the same if He failed or succeeded. That is, He would have died.

TE: If Christ had failed, He would not have been resurrected. He came at the risk of "failure and eternal loss." The difference between Christ succeeding and failing is the "eternal loss" part of the phrase.

MM: Either way, therefore, the death of Jesus was 100% certain. Using your limited definition of “risk”, therefore, there was no risk.

TE: Christ's physical death was not what the risk entailed, but "eternal loss." You would need to rephrase your previous two points to speak of "eternal loss" rather than "death." EGW wrote that God sent His Son "at the risk of failure and eternal loss" not "at the risk of failure and physical death."

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?

TE: 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?

TE: 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?

TE: 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}

TE: 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?

TE: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Satan trembled as he viewed his work. He was alone in meditation upon the past, the present, and his future plans. His mighty frame shook as with a tempest. An angel from heaven was passing. He called him and entreated an interview with Christ. This was granted him. He then related to the Son of God that he repented of his rebellion and wished again the favor of God. He was willing to take the place God had previously assigned him, and be under His wise command. Christ wept at Satan's woe but told him, as the mind of God, that he could never be received into heaven. Heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven would be marred should he be received back, for sin and rebellion originated with him. The seeds of rebellion were still within him. He had, in his rebellion, no occasion for his course, and he had hopelessly ruined not only himself but the host of angels also, who would then have been happy in heaven had he remained steadfast. The law of God could condemn but could not pardon. {SR 26.1}

When Adam and Eve were placed in the beautiful garden they had everything for their happiness which they could desire. But God chose, in His all-wise arrangements, to test their loyalty before they could be rendered eternally secure. They were to have His favor, and He was to converse with them and they with Him. Yet He did not place evil out of their reach. Satan was permitted to tempt them. If they endured the trial they were to be in perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels. {SR 24.2}

Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

Another deception was now to be brought forward. Satan declared that mercy destroyed justice, that the death of Christ abrogated the Father's law. Had it been possible for the law to be changed or abrogated, then Christ need not have died. But to abrogate the law would be to immortalize transgression, and place the world under Satan's control. It was because the law was changeless, because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts, that Jesus was lifted up on the cross. Yet the very means by which Christ established the law Satan represented as destroying it. Here will come the last conflict of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. {DA 762.5}

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.

MM: Be that as it may, you still haven't explained why Jesus described in precise detail exactly what would happen during His earthly sojourn and that He would succeed at saving us.

This is not at all mysterious. God can see every possibility, including what would happen if Jesus succeeded. This is the only possibility we need to know about.

If, as you insist, God did not, could not, know with certainty that Jesus would succeed, why, then, did He say so over and over again throughout the OT and the NT?

Why wouldn't He?

Why is it that He never once expressed doubt or uncertainty about it?

Why would He?

You seem to be asking me why God inspired the Bible writes to write certain things and not others. I cannot speak for God on this question. I can only speak of what God did reveal.

God did reveal to a modern day prophet that He sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. As to why He didn't do so earlier, with one of the Scripture writers, how could I possibly know that?

Could it be that the risk concept Sister White introduced 1,900 years after Jesus succeeded on the cross does not imply God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross?

I don't see how. It's like 2 + 2 = 4.

A.If God knows a certain thing will happen with 100% certainty, then that thing will happen.

B.God knew Christ would succeed with 100% certain.

C.It is certain Christ would succeed.

D.Therefore, there is no risk that Christ would fail.

This seems to follow, like 2 + 2 = 4. Do you see any error here?

Could it be that you have drawn the wrong conclusions?

Could it be that you have drawn wrong conclusions?

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.

TE: Sin is what causes the wicked not to be able to bear the glory of God.

MM: This implies that sin would not cause a sinner to suffer and die if they were able to avoid the unveiled glory of God. This poses a possible problem. Why didn't Satan die in the presence of Jesus when He granted him an audience after he was cast out of heaven?

From the assumptions you've laid out, it's pretty obvious that it's because Jesus veiled His glory.

TE: 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.

MM: At this point, I'm basing it on the fact Adam and Eve would have been in perpetual favor with God and the loyal angels if they had successfully resisted Satan's initial attack. This insight implies that loyal angels would also have been in perpetual favor with God, thus indicating that they would have been impervious to the seeds of doubt or rebellion. Do you see what I mean?

No, not really. God created millions of worlds, all of which were in favor with God. The holy angels were already in favor with God. Why would the angels be dependent upon Adam and Eve in order to be in favor with God? The seeds of doubt, spoken of in DA 764, had to do with the angels misunderstanding the cause of Satan's death, misinterpreting it as being due to God rather than as the inevitable result of sin. How would Adam and Eve had helped make this clear to the unfallen angels?

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}

TE: 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.

MM: What do you think the following quote means in light of these ideas?

Just what it says. The angles could still learn more; they're not omniscient. There's nothing in the quote that in any way suggests that they had any doubts related to God or any uncertainty in regards to Satan's character.

MM: “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?

TE: 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.

MM: If Jesus had failed, how, then, would God have been able to maintain the loyalty of the holy angels? How could they trust Him if what He swore proved to be wrong?

I don't know why you're wanting to pursue this. Who knows what would have happened? It would have been bad, that's for sure.

God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.(DA 764)

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. (DA 761)

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 758)

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

MM: Tom, I’m sorry, but I’m still not clear on what you believe. Do you think sin, all by itself, causes sinner to die the second death? Or, must it come in contact with the unveiled glory of God before it causes them to die?

Sin results in death. Here is a description of what happens:



We’ve been over this many times. Why are you now confused?

Also, why didn’t the great controversy end when Jesus returned to heaven? Why didn’t Jesus cast the evil angels into the lake of fire at that time? What is it that the loyal angels still did not understand?

The Gospel has not been preached to all the world. Man has not made a decision as to whom he will believe. Also, there are lessons which unfallen angels and worlds can learn. As to what specifically angels do not understand, that would be impossible for me, a human being, to answer, wouldn’t it?

MM: Finally, it blows my mind that anyone can believe God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. I could not worship a god like that. I could not trust Him. It sounds too reckless.

I think rather than rejecting a depiction of God’s character which doesn’t conform with your perceptions of God, you should consider modifying your view of God’s character to harmonize with the evidence. You seem very unwilling to modify any viewpoint you have. For example you resort to redefining common words like “sin,” “repent,” “pardon,” and risk when necessary. I think that’s too bad.

What Ellen White wrote is very clear.
a)God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
b)All heaven was imperiled for our redemption
c)Christ could have fallen. He could have sinned.

I’m sorry you see these things as negative. I see that this says something wonderful about God, that He would be willing to take such a risk. When one considers that for just one, just Mike or Tom, God would have sent His Son for us, it boggles the mind.

Ellen White shared this awe, as one can see in her comments. For example:



Notice how she ends this: "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!” This is just how I react. Not “I cannot worship a god like this” but "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!”

All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost.(DA 758)

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. (DA 764)