The only way this would be possible would be if the past, present and future existed simultaneously. And if that were the case, we *would* exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously.



This doesn't make sense either. Clearly God has interacted with us in the past, and will do so in the future.



This is something new you are asserting. I've haven't been responding to this, as this isn't what you've been saying.



You haven't said this before. You have no reason to comment on my "unwillingness" to believe something is true that I haven't commented on.



In the same way that you make it possible for your children to rebel and die by having them. That's far different than choosing something certain to happen.

For example, if you were 100% certain your children would have Down syndrome, or some other terrible disease, or that they would be 100% certain to be psychopaths, and chose to have them anyway, that would be much different than your choosing to have children knowing these things were merely a possibility.



Yes it is. Much different. You really don't see the difference?



I disagree with the "insight."



This is the usual illustration for probability questions.



This is true.



This is false. Completely false.

What this means is simply that He never chose to sin.



Christ, and God, both knew that Christ was undertaking a risk in coming here. You appear to not believe this is the case.



My point all along is that Christ assumed a risk in coming here, and I've produced several quoted demonstrating this to be the case. I've never said anything about Jesus' expressing doubt. What good would that have done?



It's not simply that they conferred about it, but their emotions changed. In particular, Christ's changed. Before Christ was distressed. Afterwords He was calm. Why would He have been distressed when He knew all along God would agree?

Another problem is that God's decision is described as a "struggle." But how could God's decision have been described as a "struggle" if He was certain from eternity just what was going to happen at that moment, and just what He was going to do?

That there was a struggle with the decision means that God was considering two alternatives, either permitting Christ to come or not. That there were two alternatives possible means that there wasn't just one, which there would be if it was eternally certain what was going to happen.



Of course this is false. Anyone can see this.

Say you know you're going to get married tomorrow. You're going to assert this has zero effect on what you're going to do today?



It wouldn't make any sense for Christ to have been distressed if He knew that He was 100% certain He was going to be permitted to come. None of EW 125 makes any sense given your point of view.



I do understand your point. I was trying to explain the logical consequences of your view in small steps that could be easily followed.



Here I'm saying that your logic is poor in asserting that if Christ was at risk of failing, then surely there were times when He was nearly failing.

Regarding Gethsemane, here's a statement from "The Desire of Ages"



This is what I said, that the fate of humanity trembled in the balance. I think this is clear enough.

Why do you think God knowing how things played out means we were not free to choose as we please as things were playing out?

It appears you are beginning to grasp what I’ve been trying to say all along. What do you hear me saying?


God knew you and I would sin when He gave us life. According to you, a loving God would not give life to someone knowing they would sin. Why do you think God gave life to Hitler and Hussein even though He knew they would sin?


Every time Jesus mentioned it, He stated emphatically that He “will” succeed. You make it sound like He was telling a white lie. Why do you think Jesus chose not to tell the truth?

If God is merely reporting the facts, how can we have the power to hasten that which has already played out?

What word are you preferring to substitute in for "hasten"?

If it's played out, how can we choose to do differently than what we did choose?

Here's your first statement:

1."It appears you have mistaken me for someone who believes the future is fixed." i.e.

The future is not fixed.

Here's your second statement:

2.Apparently you have me mistaken for someone who believes God does not know the precise day and hour Jesus will return. i.e.

There is a set date for Christ's return.

These two statements are contradictory:

1.The future is not fixed.
2.There is a set date for Christ's return.

I don't know why you're asking the last question you asked.

As I stated, you haven't said this before. What you've said before is that God's experience of time has no impact on ours.



When was this? If you mean sin in general, this follows from being a member of fallen humanity, doesn't it? If you mean specific sins, He knew of the possibility, but as the future is "wide open," as you put it, He couldn't know this as a certainty, since we hadn't made any decisions regarding specific sins yet.



This isn't what I said. Why do you take things out of context, and put them in a different context to which they don't belong?

I asked why God would have preferred to create Lucifer if He were certain Lucifer would sin over some other creature God was certain would not sin. This isn't an equivalent situation to your question.



All humans since Adam sin. The only alternative would be to not have the human race exist at all, right?



This is crazy. No, I'm not making it sound like this, and this is a gross distortion of what EGW stated in saying that there was a risk involved in Christ's coming here.



I think it's best to leave these questions to God as to why He chose to reveal things at the time He chose to.

We make decisions in the present - not in the future. Unlike God, who experiences time in the past, present, and future simultaneously, we experience time in the present only.

Why do you say my view means the day and hour of Jesus' return is "set"? Do you think I'm saying God "set" the time? In what sense do you think it means the time is "set"?

You said, "This is something new you are asserting." Please explain what you think is "new".


Does it matter if God knew which sins we would surely commit? What are you implying? The point is He knew we would surely sin and He created us anyhow. God was not obligated to make you and I. The fact He did, is no different than creating beings, like Lucifer and Adam, He knew would sin. He was not obligated to create them.


Yes it is equivalent. You abhor the idea that God created Lucifer even though He knew Lucifer would surely sin. And now it sounds like you're saying it means nothing to God that He created you and I even though He knew we would surely sin because He doesn't know precisely which sins we will commit.


You're missing the point. God created people like Hitler and Hussein even though He knew they would surely sin. Do you find that repulsive? If not, why not?


Ellen also portrayed Jesus stating emphatically that He will succeed. Not once did she say otherwise. You have yet to post a quote where she or the Bible represent Jesus telling what you consider to be the truth about it. Your assumption that the "risk" quotes portray it is unfounded.

The weakness of your view is that it lacks biblical support, that is, nowhere in the Bible does it represent God expressing the idea He wasn't certain Jesus would surely succeed. Every time it is mentioned in the Bible it portrays God stating emphatically Jesus will succeed.

Such a fundamental truth that rests solely on SOP "risk" quotes is suspect at best. Lacking a plain "thus saith the Lord" your view lacks merit.


According to you, every time Jesus stated emphatically that He "will" succeed, every time He promised He "will" surely succeed, He wasn't telling them the truth. According to you, the truth is Jesus did not know He would certainly succeed, that He knew there was a chance He would fail.

Here's what you said before:



I underlined it. Here's what you just said recently that's new:



The underlined part is different. (At least, I don't recall seeing it before).

Regarding much of the rest, God did not directly create you or I or Hitler. God created Adam. We were procreated. God created a sinless being with free will. The rest of us were born into a fallen race. This *is* a very different situation.

Regarding Jesus' not saying He wouldn't succeed, I've never claimed that He didn't. I said there was risk involved in His coming. EW 125 makes it very clear what was going on. There was a meeting, Jesus was distressed, and on the third time He was relieved. Why? Because God made a decision that Christ could come, a decision which the angel related to EGW was a "struggle."

Under your view, none of this makes any sense.

Your reasoning is convoluted here to. It reminds me of the reasoning people use to disregard the Sabbath. Where does the Jesus say we should keep the Sabbath after His death they ask? Your argument is the same as theirs. It's a specious argument.



My view is that:

1.Christ took a risk in coming to save us.
2.Heaven was imperiled for our redemption.

Here's a "thus saith the Lord" to support this:



You have not even a semblance of an explanation for this. If your view were correct, that would mean that God was eternally certain from all eternity, to be redundantly clear, that heaven was not and never would be in any danger whatsoever. So how could God reveal through a prophet that it was imperiled?



Christ did succeed. So He was telling them the truth.



Well, this is obvious, given that Christ took a risk in coming here, and that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption, right? I mean, given that Christ could have failed, He must have known that, right?