Tom, you are vehemently defending a view that is indefensible. The fact God nowhere says He didn't know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross is indirect proof against your view. And the dozens of places where God confidently declares that Jesus would succeed on the cross is direct proof. Also, calling my question rhetorical is an admission your view is unbiblical. There is no relationship between the risk Sister White wrote about and your view of God's foreknowledge.

MM, what does, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen" mean?

It simply means Jesus possessed no advantage not available to us, that He was just like us. As God He could not sin, but as a man He possessed the ability to sin. In any case, it certainly says nothing about whether or not God knew ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross.

BTW, you are still avoiding answering my question - Why?

Are you talking about avoiding the rhetorical question? I'm avoiding it because it's rhetorical. I asked you to explain why you were asking it (I would answer it if you provided some evidence it's not rhetorical), but you didn't answer.

Regarding the assertions, "He could have sinned. He could have fallen," your suggestion that this means only that Christ had the ability to sin doesn't work for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the context of her statements, when she says such things, is always one of "this is something which really could have happened," not one of Christ's having some given physical ability.

Secondly, when Waggoner argued that Christ could not fail, using arguments very similar to the ones being used here, Ellen White corrected him, explaining that Christ could have failed. The issue was never one of physical ability; even unfallen Adam possessed the physical ability to sin. The issue is the reality of the conflict that Christ faced; the reality of the danger, of the risk. This is why she used expressions such as "more fearful risk," "risk of failure and eternal loss," "heaven itself was imperiled" and so forth.

Actually, for her to make the statement that Christ had the ability to sin would have been pointless. Certainly to make an issue out of this would have been pointless, as this has never been under dispute.

That is, when Ellen White corrected Waggoner, it could not have been to straighten him out regarding Christ having the physical ability to sin, because Waggoner wasn't arguing that point. Her correction has to be in the context of something Waggoner was actually saying. Do you follow this? If not, I can try to explain it in more detail.

Tom, you are vehemently defending a view that is indefensible.

I'm being far less vehement than you are. Just look at the tenor or your posts vs. mine. This is very easy to see.

Truth doesn't need vehemence; just evidence.

The fact God nowhere says He didn't know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross is indirect proof against your view.

Not if one reasons from cause to effect. If when God knows with certainty that a thing will happen, that means the thing will happen (which you agree with), then the probability that said thing will happen is 100%. Therefore the risk is 0. But this is not possible, because God has revealed to us that there was a risk. This is direct proof for the position I've been stating. The fact that Bible neglects to say something means nothing. It's not evidence of any sort. The Bible nowhere says that the fall of Lucifer did not occur the way Ellen White says it does. Using your argument, the fact that the Bible doesn't reference it would be "proof" that her account is wrong.

You are presenting an argument that has no weight.

And the dozens of places where God confidently declares that Jesus would succeed on the cross is direct proof. Also, calling my question rhetorical is an admission your view is unbiblical. There is no relationship between the risk Sister White wrote about and your view of God's foreknowledge.

The relationship is as I've explained. "Risk of failure and eternal loss" means, by definition, that the probability of Christ's failing was greater than 0. You are asserting that there was no possibility of failure. That's in direct contradiction to what Ellen White wrote. In addition to the risk passages, she also flat out wrote "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen."

It's not possible for her to have explained these ideas any more clearly than she did. You can choose to disagree with them, as you have, but if you are going to pit Scripture against her, please at least recognize what you are doing.

Take a look at your argument. I demonstrate from the Spirit of Prophecy that Christ could have failed. This is taken from statements which say that God took a risk in sending Him, and that she flat out stated that He could have sinned; He could have fallen. She also corrected Waggoner when he presented an argument that Christ could not fail.

Now you are asking me to show you proof from Scripture that what I demonstrated Ellen White said is true. You are arguing that because Scripture is silent on the question, this means that Sister White is wrong.

I disagree. First of all, the fact that Scripture is silent on the issue means nothing other than that Scripture is silent on the issue. Secondly, Sister White is not wrong. She is correct; Christ could have sinned, He could have fallen, and God *did* take a risk in sending His Son.

Regarding your rhetorical question, it's obviously rhetorical. The fact that I choose not to address a rhetorical question is not evidence of anything, other than I choose not to answer your rhetorical question.

You have produced absolutely no evidence that your question is not rhetorical, even though I have repeatedly asked you to do so. I will once again state that if you can produce some evidence that your question is not rhetorical, then I will answer it.

You can't go only with the EGW quotes, or even the Bible quotes, to establish a doctrine, or a belief, but must look at all the other quotes relative to that belief or doctrine, to be certain that you are on solid ground, rather than on shaky ground.

Gentlemen, if I may interject for a moment. Jesus was the second Adam. The bible states so plainly. If Jesus had no opportunity or possibility for sin, then He was not sinless, but rather lived a controlled existence far different from ours. Saying Jesus couldn't sin is just another demonic ploy to minimize what Jesus did infact do for us. He lived a perfect life for us though tempted in every point. He died an innocent death to pay the penalty for the sins we committed.

Happy Passover

You can't go only with the EGW quotes, or even the Bible quotes, to establish a doctrine, or a belief, but must look at all the other quotes relative to that belief or doctrine, to be certain that you are on solid ground, rather than on shaky ground.

Quotes other than the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy? What did you have in mind, Daryl?

I should have worded my post better, therefore, here it is again:

You can't go only with those EGW quotes, and/or even those Bible quotes, to establish a doctrine, or a belief, but must look at all the other EGW quotes, and/or other Bible quotes relative to that belief or doctrine, to be certain that you are on solid ground, rather than on shaky ground.

Which quotes?