A.If God is 100% certain that a thing will happen, that thing is 100% certain to happen.

True.

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.

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.

True.

D.Therefore it could not be the case that God was 100% certain that Christ would not suffer failure or eternal loss.

False. Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does God admit that He didn't know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed to save us. God declared dozens of times that Jesus would succeed. The risk of failure was real, but God knew Jesus would succeed, and He said so over and over again.

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.

Then we disagree, again. BTW, your formula did not take into consideration other definitions of "risk". Rosangela has attempted to explain it, but you have rejected it. When speaking of "risk" after the fact, as in this case, the definition of "risk" includes the fact God knew Jesus would succeed. God said so dozens of times in the OT and NT. But in this regard He did not expect people to believe Him simply because He said so; instead, He choose to prove it - thus Jesus did exactly what God said He would do, that is, He succeeded.

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.

Then we disagree, again.

The difference is, I have presented a logical argument for my position, and have demonstrated that you have contradicted yourself.

BTW, your formula did not take into consideration other definitions of "risk".

You agreed with my statement in B.

Rosangela has attempted to explain it, but you have rejected it.

I understand what risk is. I have spent much of my professional life dealing with risk which has necessitated my understanding risk well. Risk does not have to do with hypothetical threats or abilities, but with probability. The statement "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" means there was a non-zero probability that Christ would suffer failure and eternal loss, just as B stated.

When speaking of "risk" after the fact, as in this case, the definition of "risk" includes the fact God knew Jesus would succeed. God said so dozens of times in the OT and NT. But in this regard He did not expect people to believe Him simply because He said so; instead, He choose to prove it - thus Jesus did exactly what God said He would do, that is, He succeeded.

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.

MM, I've present a sound argument, and have demonstrated that you contradicted yourself. The argument is sound. Simply re-asserting stuff you've already asserted before is just admitting you have no answer to the argument presented.

Tom, continuing to ignore this point is not going to make it go away. Eventually you will have to address it. Your “logic” breaks down in light of the fact you cannot produce a single quote where God admits He did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed to save us.

Also, consider the following observations:

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

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

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.

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

(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.

If Christ had not volunteered to save us, why would all created free moral agents throughout God's universe have been destroyed? I can see why the devil, his fallen angels, and Adam and Eve would have been destroyed, but I can't see why all the other sinless free moral agents would have also been destroyed with them.

Because, in light of Satan's accusations against the kingdom and character of God, the fate of the entire universe hung upon the outcome of one or the other of two future events: 1) Adam and Eve succeeding in their initial encounter with Satan, and 2) Jesus succeeding on the cross if Adam and Eve failed in Eden. The SOP verifies these insights. Are you unfamiliar the quotes?

It was the death of Jesus that disproved Satan's accusations and confirmed the faith of loyal FMAs in God. Had Jesus failed, the loyal FMAs would have no basis to believe God and disbelieve Satan. Such a state of things would have resulted in every FMA rebelling against God, which would have led to God having to destroy them. Of course, God would not have waited for things to end in hopeless rebellion. He would have been forced, out of love and respect, to destroy them immediately upon Jesus' failure.

I think it would be appropriate to quote some sample EGW quotes regarding this.

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.

MM, your reasoning is a bit off. There's a difference between necessity and sufficiency. The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that Christ's death was sufficient for the safeguarding of the universe. It did win the Great Controversy.

However, she nowhere states that the Great Controversy would have been lost had Christ not been crucified. *We* would have been lost, that's for sure. But there's no reason to assert that unfallen worlds would have been lost had Christ not been crucified. There aren't any Ellen White quotes which state that.

To repeat, there are EGW quotes which state that Christ's death safeguarded the universe and that His death won the Great Controversy. There are no EGW quotes which state that the unfallen worlds would have been lost had Christ not been crucified.