This assumes your understanding of the Father's view of the future is correct and that my understanding is incorrect. If I'm right, and you're wrong, then the Father knows with absolute certainty how everything will play out because hindsight is 20/20. He reports the facts after the fact.


Again, reporting the facts after the fact does not alter real time. The Father does not report what will happen; instead, He reports what happened.


Peril is in the eyes of the beholder. From the Father's point of view (the future is like history) Jesus succeeded and heaven is not in danger. Also, from the very beginning, unfallen beings have been absolutely certain the Father and the Son will win the GC. They have never doubted it. So, in what sense was heaven in peril?


When you read a history book on WWII do you fear the Nazis will win the war? No, of course not. Do you believe the world is in peril or in danger of losing to the Nazis? No, of course not. But for those who lived through it, there was a time when they felt imperiled because they didn't know with absolute certainty how it would play out. However, if God had told them the outcome in advance, would they have felt uncertain and imperiled? No, of course not.

Nevertheless, saying heaven was imperiled and at risk of eternal loss is not equivalent to saying the Father did not know with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed. Reporting the facts after the fact does not alter how things played out in real time. Nowhere in the Bible does it represent the Father or the Son feeling uncertain Jesus would succeed. Indeed, the very opposite is true. Every time the Bible mentions Jesus' Messianic mission it makes it 100% clear Jesus will succeed.

Saying conditionality is implied or inherent assumes the Father does not know the future like history. And if you're understanding of the Father's view of the future is correct, then truly we and heaven are in peril, in grave danger. Why? Because the future is unknown and uncertain, and God cannot promise with absolute certainty "affliction shall not rise up the second time."

The principle is laid out in Jer. 18. I don't see how your view of things can harmonize with what Jer. 18 is saying.



In this case, Jer. 18 just looks to be false. How could God change His mind in regards to what He's going to do, based on the response of the people, given your perspective?



Even if it were true that God saw the future as if it were the past, this wouldn't actually make the future the past. There is still an order in which events occur. For example:

A.God sees what will happen (Jesus overcomes all temptation).
B.God says what will happen (Jesus overcomes all temptation).
C.Jesus overcomes all temptation.

In the case of B, God is NOT reporting what happened, but what He sees will happen, *as if* it were something that had already happened. There's still an order of events that needs to be maintained.

The point that I'm getting at, however, is that if there was no chance that Christ would fail, then His temptations were not real. Do you agree with this point? To put it another way, in order for a temptation to be a real temptation, there must be the chance of failure.



If heaven was not in danger, why would He reveal through a prophet that it was?



You say heaven was not in danger, from God's perspective, yet here God reveals that it was.



The quote explains the sense. Christ could have failed. He risked all. Heaven was in danger because of the risk that Christ took.

No, of course not. How could it? In a general sense, how can anything an FMA believes negate any quote regarding anything about any other subject than what FMA believes? That is, say a quote says X, and an FMA believes something else. X is still true, right? The fact of X being true isn't dependent upon what one believes about it.

What were you thinking when you asked this question?

Tom, we're getting nowhere. I believe the Father and the Son both knew with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed on the cross. The Messianic prophecies describe Jesus succeeding. While here in the flesh Jesus said He would succeed. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Father or the Son were uncertain Jesus would succeed. Unfallen beings are absolutely certain God will win the great controversy. Not one of them feel at risk or in peril wondering if Satan will win. You seem to believe otherwise.

Now that the distinction between peril and risk are clearer in my mind, I think I can express myself better. God permitted Christ to meet a real peril in facing the conflict with Satan. He was exposed to the threat of failing. However, I believe God knew Christ would be victorious.
The word “risk” seems to be used by Ellen White as a synonym of “peril.”

He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! {DA 49.2}

In which way the fact that God knows whether I will be successful in each of my temptations make my temptations any less real?

Here's the argument you said you agreed with:



Let X be some temptation that you have. If God is certain that you will overcome this temptation, then it is certain that you will. If it is certain that you will overcome the temptation, then there is no chance that you won't, and the temptation, by definition, is not a real temptation, because a real temptation means you might fail. But it's not possible for you to fail, because God is certain that you will succeed, and everything God is certain will occur is certain to occur.

So we have a contradiction. How do we resolve the contradiction? There's two ways. Either the temptation isn't real (i.e., it's not possible for you to fail), or God isn't certain that you will overcome it.

Then there was no chance Christ would fail. This follows from the argument you said you agreed with. Given there was no chance Christ would fail, neither Christ nor God undertook any risk.



They are related words. "Risk" means the possibility of loss. "Peril" means "danger."



Yes, Christ met the enemy, which put Him under peril, like others. It wasn't certain He would succeed. COL 196 tells us that Christ risked all, and that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. Therefore it wasn't certain that heaven was not in any danger. But how could heaven be in danger? There's only one possibility, and that is that Christ could have failed.

I believe that Christ risked all, and heaven was imperiled for our redemption. You're right; we disagree.