It is the danger or peril you are exposed to which determines the chance of loss. Anyway, she doesn't seem to make a distinction between the two. And, in fact, both words apply to all of us humans who don't posses omniscience, including Jesus.

Repeating my argument from before:

1.If God is certain an event will occur, say X, then X is certain to occur.
2.If X is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur.

If God (and Jesus) was (were) certain Jesus would succeed, then God (Jesus) undertook no risk in coming to this earth. For there to be a risk means there must be a chance of failure. For there to be a chance of failure, it cannot be the case that God was certain that failure was impossible.

The definition of temptation is something you have free choice to deal with - you can choose one side or the other. The fact that someone (in the case, God) knows beforehand which side you will take doesn't interefere with your free choice.
The point about my breaking-the-leg question is that no peril is unreal just because God knows it (and its outcome) beforehand. Temptation involves a real peril.

So it seems that you are saying that Jesus took the risk, or at least He thought He did, while God knew ahead of time He wouldn't fail and so God saw no risk and therefore, gave permission for Jesus to go through with it.

Well, the issue I was raising was not why they rebelled but their feeling of uncertainty. It changed. You agree. How can the unfallen angels be "certain" Jesus would not fail, if Jesus didn't know? Did the angels have some inside information which Jesus did not have before He risked all?

But then you say Jesus (part of the Godhead) did know ahead of time which angels would rebel, but did not know He would succeed on earth? Or was this part supernaturally kept hidden from Him, thereby creating an artificial sense of risk?

I'm not sure why you quoted passages about Adam in response to my comment about Lucifer. But the DA quote, while it does say they knew of the apostasy of Satan, it also only says they foresaw the existence of sin. An interesting side note is the paragraph above what you quoted says God's character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan.


Would you be saying the God supernaturally intervened with Jesus? If not, would you be saying there was some chance of Jesus failing?

But the question is, does God know? Would it be possible for God not to know?

Interference is not the question, and never was. Of course there's no interference involved; nobody would suggest that. This is intuitively obvious.



Of course not. This hasn't been suggested.



More to the point, temptation involves a chance of failure. That's the issue: uncertainty.

If it's absolutely certain that some event will happen, say X, then there is no chance that X will not happen. If there is no chance that X will not happen, then it cannot be said that there is a risk that X will happen. In the case of our discussion, this means that God (or Christ) undertook no risk in Christ's coming to this earth, given the chance of His failing was 0.

So the first question to ask is, when God sent Christ to this earth, was there a chance Christ would fail?

The argument in regards to temptation is similar. For a temptation to be real, there must be a chance of failure. So an analogous question would be, if it is certain that you will not fail, is there a chance that you will fail? It seems rather silly to ask this question, but this is the whole point. If there's no chance of failure, then there's no chance of failure. If there's no chance of failure, then there is no uncertainty, and no temptation. Temptation implies uncertainty (there must be the possibility of failure).

Also, just btw, there must be the possibility of success, and this is guaranteed by the promise that we will not be permitted to be tempted beyond that which we are able.

I'm not sure what you're wanting to say here.



She appears to me to be using the words correctly, according to their regular definitions. There's a difference between "risk" and "danger," and her writings reflect that.



And to God as well. Our knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with whether our risk, or danger, is real or not. It would impact our idea, or sense, or estimation, of what our risk or danger was, but not its reality. Even if we knew nothing whatsoever about our risk or danger, it would still be there. All the time people die without any inkling that they were in danger.

In regards to Jesus, He was omniscient when He made the decision to come here. At that point, if He was certain He would succeed, then He undertook no risk. After becoming a human being, assuming a lack of omniscience at that point, He could forgotten what He knew before, that He was not under any risk, but this would just be a lack of knowledge; it wouldn't change the reality of His risk in any way. So if He was under no risk when He made the decision to come here, He didn't undertake any risk just because He forgot something He used to know.

Can a rapist just bound to the electric chair be tempted by seeing a beautiful woman among the spectators? There is nil chance that the possible temptation could amount to more than wetting his pants.

If one is tempted to rob a bank, but prevented from doing so by the bank guards, one has still fallen to temptation. Temptation begins in the mind. That one is physically prevented from doing that which one has purposed to do in one's mind does not mean that one has not fallen to the temptation.

Again, the Father knows the future like history, like a rerun. Therefore, His knowledge of the future is based on what happened not on what will happen. In the same way reading a history book does not alter the way things played out in real time, so too, the fact God knows the future like history does not alter the way things play out in real time. The fact the Father and the Son knew with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed should make it clear we're talking about Beings who possess supernatural abilities, and, as such, we cannot treat their knowledge of the future using natural models or logic. The same holds true of people reading a history book so far as their impact on the outcome is concerned.

Nevertheless, knowing Jesus would succeed in no way diminished or eliminated the risks He faced. We are, after all, talking about a Being who possesses supernatural abilities, which defies all human logic and understanding of time and space, and opens possibilities not normally possible. Which, among many things, means He could have failed, thus disproving normal human logic. Since Jesus is God, He is capable of doing things only God can do, namely, experience an outcome that contradicts God's supernatural ability to know the future like history.