M: Tom, John 3:16 makes it clear Jesus knew He would succeed on the cross.

T: No it doesn't. Jesus knew there was a risk involved in what He was doing.

M:Jesus became a human and, as such, He possessed the necessary traits and attributes to sin and fail. However, just because Jesus could have sinned and failed it does not mean He had no idea He would certainly succeed. Again, where in the Bible does Jesus specifically say, There is a chance I will fail? In the past, you have answered this question by citing unrelated passages and then insisted a similar principle serves to answer my question. By the way, as you know, there are dozens of places where Jesus states unequivocally He will succeed. John 3:16 in one such place. Here’s another one – “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” And, here’s another one – “Let not your heart be troubled . . . I will come again, and receive you unto myself.”

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.” Revelation 5:12. {DA 131.2}

M: Otherwise, He lied to Nicodemus.

T: A lie is a falsehood told with the intention of deceiving. If Jesus was assuming a risk in His mission, it's your claim that Jesus was telling Nicodemus a falsehood with the intention of deceiving him? How so?

M:If Jesus had no idea He would certainly succeed, why, then, did He express it in no uncertain terms?

M: Nowhere in the Bible does it represent Jesus expressing doubt about it.

T: The Bible represents God as taking risks. Unless you don't believe Jesus Christ was tempted at the cross, then Christ was at risk. Or do you think Christ could not have failed against the temptations He faced?

M:Could sin, could fail, is not the same thing as, have no idea He would certainly succeed. By the way, to answer your question, yes, by becoming a human being Jesus possessed the wherewithal to sin and fail.

M: He knew with absolute certainty He would succeed on Calvary.

T: If Christ knew with absolute certain He would succeed in His mission, then there was no chance He could have failed. This is really what you wish to assert? There was no chance Christ would have failed? Because if this is really what you wish to assert, then Christ wasn't really tempted, as temptation is not temptation without the possibility of failure.

T: This is like talking to a wall. To repeat, "God's reality" doesn't make sense. I've explained why. You ignore what I write, not even responding to the points made.

M: That’s why I prefer to use the word “experience”. Because of who and what God is His experience in time and space includes experiences ours cannot.

T: I'm going to try again to ask what I've been trying to ask for what seems like several weeks now, and may well be. Is the future open, or is it fixed? What is reality? Not "God's reality" and "our reality," since there's only one reality. Which is it?

M: As we live and breathe, the future is wide open. However, there is the matter of unfulfilled prophecy to consider. Nevertheless, just because God knows exactly how the future will play out it does not mean we are not free to choose as we please. God’s knowledge of the future merely reflects the choices we were free to make and, of course, the way Jesus managed the outcome of our choices.

T: Is the future wide open, or fixed? In reality? Choose one, please.

Jesus knew there was a risk involved.





Why wouldn't He have? What good would it have done? After all, if He failed, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

A problem with how you're thinking of things is it makes Christ's temptations, the whole process, a sham. Satan never really had a chance, and, if you're right in your view of things, Satan must have known the whole thing was a sham too. So why would he go along with it?



Could Christ have been wrong? That is, let's assume for the sake of argument that Christ was certain He would succeed. Could He have been wrong?



I'm repeating this question, because instead of answering it, you quoted something apparently unrelated, with no comment. If what you quoted is related, please explain your thinking.

I'd like to go back to the problem of evil, MM. To your way of thinking, God deliberately chose to do things in such a way that sin was inevitable, which is to say that God chose for sin to happen. Do you agree with this? I'll break this down into two points:

1.God deliberately chose to do things in such a way that sin was inevitable. (You should agree to this point, since you've said this in the past).

2.God chose for sin to happen. (You haven't said this, so you might disagree, but it seems to me to follow from the first point. Do you disagree?)

Assuming that God did set into motion a course of action which made sin inevitable (this is actually the correct wording, in terms of what you've asserted in the past), there must be some reason for God to have done so. You've quoted that God would "establish His throne in righteousness," which implies that without sin, God would not have been able to do so.

Why not? What is God dependent upon sin? Do you not see an inherent problem with such a situation, with God needing sin to establish His throne in righteousness? If you say He didn't need sin to establish His throne in righteousness, then we're right back to the same question as to why God set into motion a course of action which made sin inevitable.

But known unto God are all His works, and from eternal ages the covenant of grace (unmerited favor) existed in the mind of God. It is called the everlasting covenant; for the plan of salvation was not conceived after the fall of man, but it was that which was "kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith." Romans 16:25, 26, A. R. V. {ST, December 15, 1914 par. 2}

The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created and endowed with power to do the divine will. The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. {ST, December 15, 1914 par. 3}

Before Him who rules in the heavens, the mysteries of the past and the future are alike outspread; and God sees, beyond the woe and darkness and ruin that sin has wrought, the outworking of His purpose of love and blessing. Though clouds and darkness are round about Him, yet righteousness and judgment are the foundation of His throne. {ST, December 15, 1914 par. 4}

M: Have you ever been to heaven? Of course not. So, God's reality includes an experience in time and space which yours does not.

T: This is like talking to a wall. To repeat, "God's reality" doesn't make sense. I've explained why. You ignore what I write, not even responding to the points made.

M: That’s why I prefer to use the word “experience”. Because of who and what God is His experience in time and space includes experiences ours cannot. Do you at least agree with this concept in principle?

T: Of course God's experience is different than ours. Even our experiences are different. This has no bearing on the subject, however. Reality is affected by our experiences.

T: I'm going to try again to ask what I've been trying to ask for what seems like several weeks now, and may well be. Is the future open, or is it fixed? What is reality? Not "God's reality" and "our reality," since there's only one reality. Which is it?

M: As we live and breathe, the future is wide open. However, there is the matter of unfulfilled prophecy to consider. Nevertheless, just because God knows exactly how the future will play out it does not mean we are not free to choose as we please. God’s knowledge of the future merely reflects the choices we were free to make and, of course, the way Jesus managed the outcome of our choices.

T: Is the future wide open, or fixed? In reality? Choose one, please.

M:As we live and breathe, the future is wide open. We are free to choose as we please. The fact we will freely make choices God has already watched us make does not mean we were never truly free to make alternate decisions. This is reality.

However, there is the matter of unfulfilled prophecy to consider. Nevertheless, just because God knows exactly how the future will play out it does not mean we are not free to choose as we please. God’s knowledge of the future merely reflects the choices we were free to make and, of course, the way Jesus managed the outcome of our choices.

I have quoted Jesus emphatically stating on 12 different occasions He will succeed.

You seem to think we must interpret them to mean Jesus had no idea He would succeed.

You have yet to quote Him emphatically stating He might not succeed.

True, He possessed the ability to sin and fail, but He knew He would succeed. His ability to sin and fail was 100%, but the chances He would sin and fail was 0%.

I'd like to go back to the problem of evil, MM. To your way of thinking, God deliberately chose to do things in such a way that sin was inevitable, which is to say that God chose for sin to happen. Do you agree with this? I'll break this down into two points:

1.God deliberately chose to do things in such a way that sin was inevitable. (You should agree to this point, since you've said this in the past).

2.God chose for sin to happen. (You haven't said this, so you might disagree, but it seems to me to follow from the first point. Do you disagree?)

Assuming that God did set into motion a course of action which made sin inevitable (this is actually the correct wording, in terms of what you've asserted in the past), there must be some reason for God to have done so. You've quoted that God would "establish His throne in righteousness," which implies that without sin, God would not have been able to do so.

Why not? What is God dependent upon sin? Do you not see an inherent problem with such a situation, with God needing sin to establish His throne in righteousness? If you say He didn't need sin to establish His throne in righteousness, then we're right back to the same question as to why God set into motion a course of action which made sin inevitable.

M:I don't know why the Godhead elected to create the FMAs they knew with absolute certainty would sin and die.