There are some things that Christ didn't know while here on earth in His humanity. At that time Christ, for example, didn't know the hour of His second coming. He said only the Father knew that.


The key words are "but my Father only."

This would tell me that the Father knew even then, even before Gethsemane and Calvary, the day and the hour of the second coming of Christ. If Christ would have failed, then how could this be? The answer is simply that Christ could have failed, however, the Father saw that Christ wouldn't fail. I am stressing the Father, as Christ while on this earth in His humanity may also not have known this in the same way that Christ also didn't then know the day and the hour of His own second coming.

On another note, Christ spoke with certainty in regards to the whole plan of salvation and in regards to His second coming. I do not see any implication of risk or uncertainty in any of His words that are recorded in the Bible.

I’ve asked this before, but... If Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," how is it that the fate of humanity still trembled in the balance in the Gethsemane? Even if this referred just to Christ's decision when man sinned, in which way could Christ's decision have been "uncertain"? In which way could it have been "something to which doubt pertains"?

Tom, supposing that the future for God was like a TV rerun, how could this have diminished the fierceness of the battle between Christ and Satan on this earth? If it couldn't have diminished the fierceness of the battle, and if Christ was vulnerable to Satan's attacks (and He was, otherwise the temptations would have been a farce), how could there be no threat posed to Christ?

Tom, this is speculation.

Yes, it is pure speculation on Tom's part as I see nothing in that quote, which I have now quoted here.


I see nothing of risk here, however, I do see a struggle on the Father's part as to whether or not to put His Son through such pain, suffering, and sacrifice.

How does God's foreknowledge come into play here, Tom, or others may ask? That was probably the main part of the struggle, as the Father saw what Christ would go through for the human race. Even though the Father knew that He would consent to this, nevertheless, there was still a struggle on the Father's part to give such consent.

TE: 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.

MM: Are you labeling my question "rhetorical" because you agree with with me that God nowhere said such a thing? If so, then how can you defend a position that is unbiblical?

TE: 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.

MM: I agree. Jesus really could have sinned - but He didn't. Her comment was made 2,000 years after Jesus succeeded on the cross, so you cannot use it to prove Jesus almost sinned, that He barely succeeded. If that's not what you're saying then what are you saying?

TE: 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.

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.

TE: 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.

MM: I disagree.

TE: 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.

MM: Jesus possessed the ability to sin. No one is arguing against this fact. Since Jesus never even got close to failing what good does it do us to know Jesus could have sinned, that the risk was real? I am very convinced that Jesus' ordeal was beyond human comprehension. But I know He succeeded with flying colors. He did not barely make it, as you seem to be implying.

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.

MM: Are you labeling my question "rhetorical" because you agree with with me that God nowhere said such a thing? If so, then how can you defend a position that is unbiblical?

You are making, to my view, an exceedingly odd argument here. I presented something from the Spirit of Prophecy, with which you disagree, which is "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." You are arguing that this is "unbiblical" because God never said this in Scripture.

This is what you're doing, isn't it? If it's not, would you please explain what you are doing. Before responding, I want to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

TE: 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.

MM: I agree. Jesus really could have sinned - but He didn't. Her comment was made 2,000 years after Jesus succeeded on the cross, so you cannot use it to prove Jesus almost sinned, that He barely succeeded. If that's not what you're saying then what are you saying?

It's irrelevant when she wrote it. Truth does not change with time. She wrote that Christ "could have sinned." She didn't write that He "almost sinned" or "barely succeeded." What I'm saying is just what she said. I don't know why you are wishing to change her words. She wrote:

a)God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. This is described as a "more fearful risk," then earthly parents take when there children are born into the world.
b)Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen.
c)Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

This is what I've been saying, every word of which is not original to me.



It would be helpful if you would refrain from changing the words and expressions being used. She didn't write that God "had not idea" but that God "sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal lost." I'm not stretching this to mean anything different than what it actually says.

TE: 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.

MM: I disagree.

You have not basis for doing so. When she corrected people, it was because of things they actually believed, not that they didn't believe. Waggoner did not believe Christ was physically unable to sin. He never argued that. He argued from a logical standpoint, using argument similar to the ones in these posts. You cannot construe her corrections to mean that Christ had the physical ability to sin, because that was never a point under discussion.

You write, "I disagree," but given no reason why. This is an entirely sound argument I am presenting.

TE: 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.

MM: Jesus possessed the ability to sin. No one is arguing against this fact. Since Jesus never even got close to failing what good does it do us to know Jesus could have sinned, that the risk was real?

If you will read her statements in DA 49, DA 131 and COL 196 you will see what good it does it, as she plainly explains it. Look at the end of the respective paragraphs, and you will see the reason.

I am very convinced that Jesus' ordeal was beyond human comprehension. But I know He succeeded with flying colors. He did not barely make it, as you seem to be implying.

You're reading things into her words she did not intend.

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.

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.

Tom, please quote where an inspired writer wrote that God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. Nothing you have quoted so far says God did not know. Please show us where Jesus was close to failing, where He almost sinned; something that justifies saying God did not know. If no such quotes exist, then why are you insisting the risk Jesus took means God did not know ahead of time if Jesus fail or succeed?

If you read the accounts of "Gethsemane" and "Calvary" in "The Desire of Ages" you can see how terrific the struggle was. EGW writes that the fate of humanity hung in the balance. She writes that "heaven itself" was imperiled.

As I've pointed out many times, "risk" means "the possibility of loss." This is further emphasized in EGW's phrase "the risk of failure and eternal loss." So when she wrote that "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" that means that it was possible for Christ to have suffered failure and eternal loss.

Given that if God knows with 100% certainty that something will happen implies that the given thing is 100% certain to happen, it cannot be the case that God knew with 100% certainty that Christ would not fail, or else God could not have revealed to us that He sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

Can you explain to me which part of the logic here you're having difficulties with? I'll spell it out point by point, and you can tell me which point you disagree with.

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.

Which one of the points are you not perceiving to be true?