Duplicate post.

Again, the Bible nowhere says God was uncertain Jesus would succeed. In fact, more to the point, the Bible emphatically represents God being absolutely certain Jesus would succeed - this is a foundational point. That Ellen White, while speaking under inspiration, never contradicts the Bible is another foundational point. You seen to be implying the Messianic prophecies obviously imply conditionality (even though the language employed is empathic and positive) because you believe God was uncertain Jesus would succeed.

I'm sure I would be unable to present anything to meet your request.

But what I find interesting is how you are saying Ellen White's use of "risk" means something else. Now, I have to admit, I say that the Bible regarding God does such. For example, God says that He killed Saul, but now we both now know where in the Bible He didn't, but withdrew and ceased protecting him. Such examples would indicate other places where God is acting against His character may not be as said.

So, it's possible that may be the case with Ellen White. In supporting such conclusion, could you present related examples of where Ellen White says one thing, but doesn't mean what it appears she means? That is, given the word "risk", you say it doesn't mean the all implied implications of the word. Can you give an example of such level where she says otherwise as the Bible says otherwise of what killed Saul?

Again, there are many who have inferred this from nothing but Scripture. And for we Adventists, the SOP makes a number of clear statements in this regard.



Many disagree with your assertion here, and it contradicts the SOP as well.



Exactly! Which casts doubt upon your assertion suggesting a contradiction.



No, this is backwards.

The Scriptures present God as taking risks in general. In regards to Christ, the only way in which God could NOT have been taking a risk by sending Christ would be if there was no chance that Christ could have fallen in his conflict against Satan and temptation. Your view:

1.God was absolutely certain that Christ would succeed.
2.Therefore it was absolutely certain that Christ would succeed.
3.Therefore Christ could not have failed in His battle against Satan and temptation.

The reason I say the following is backwards:



is because I am not reasoning that because I believe God was uncertain that Jesus would succeed that it follows that conditionality is involved in the Messianic prophecies. I am reasoning that the temptations which Christ confronted were real, and that He could have fallen to them. Therefore God could not have been certain that Christ would succeed (see points 1-3 above).

Kland, what I'm saying is that Ellen's use of the word "risk" does not mean the Father was uncertain Jesus would succeed. The risk was real.

Tom, please post plain Bible passages depicting the Father being uncertain Jesus would succeed or fearing that Jesus would fail.

Mike, please ask me questions that indicate you've read what I've written.

If God was certain that Jesus would succeed, then there was no change that Jesus would fail. That's simple logic. That means there was no risk.

Could you explain what you mean by that statement?
Do you see risk relating to uncertainty? If not, what do you think "risk" means?

I hear you saying it is possible to conclude from the Bible alone that the Father feared Jesus would fail. Have I misunderstood your point?