The quotes I have repeatedly shared clearly say God knew with absolute certainty which FMAs would sin and die. Yet it did not deter Him. He chose to create them anyhow. You want to know why. The statements highlighted in blue (see previous quotes) explain why. Ellen also wrote:


God knew for an eternity Jesus would succeed on the cross at redeeming sinners.


You say "love risks all" explains why God chose to create beings He knew might sin and die. The fact you believe God had no idea they would not certainly sin and die and risked it hoping they wouldn't is what I think is impotent.

Whereas, I believe agape love is superior. It is omniscient and omnipotent. It doesn't take risks. It doesn't have to. Again, the quotes you omitted make it clear God knew with absolute certainty which FMAs would sin and die. Let's examine more closely what Ellen wrote about it: "But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

1. In "yet it" what does the "it" refer to?
2. In "for" what does "for" refer to?

Jesus Christ had the physical ability to be a gladiator. But there was no chance he would become a gladiator. Thus there was no risk that Christ would become a gladiator. However, there was a risk that Christ would fail. He came at the risk of failure and eternal loss. You're treating Christ's temptations as being akin to His becoming a gladiator, as something that He had the physical capability of doing, but not as something that was possible that He would actually do.

But Christ's temptations were real. He could actually have sinned.



If it never once occurred to Jesus to abandon the Plan of Salvation, how could He have been sweating blood over the decision?



This isn't what "risk" means. "Risk" has nothing to do with the abilities one has, but with the chance of failure. If the chance of failure is >0, then there is risk involved. If the chance of failure is 0, then there is no risk.

Definition of "risk":





If God was eternally certain that He would permit Jesus to come, there was no risk God wouldn't consent to the plan of salvation. What you've stated above is self contradictory.



I've posted many statements saying that there was risk involved in Christ's mission. Why haven't you posted any saying there weren't?

Re: #128763, you didn't answer my question (first part of the post). That is, this one:



You just did what you did before, which I said there was no need to do. Quoting passages with no explanation isn't helpful. What would be helpful would be to state in your own words why you believe that God would create beings He was certain would sin.

The only think I can recall you're ever saying to answer this question is that God would establish His throne in righteousness. But that begs the question, "Couldn't God establish His throne in righteousness without creating beings He was certain would sin?"

Answer?



MM, when someone calls to your attention that you've been misrepresenting them, you should stop.

Specifically, I've nowhere said that God had "no idea" they would not certainly sin and die. I pointed this out to you, and requested you not make this misrepresentation.

What I've said is that love entails risk, and God was aware of the possibility that His creatures (any of them) might reject His love. What's wrong with phrasing things this way?



This would make a good topic. I'll try to post this as a topic today.



Again, the quotes you omitted make it clear that God did not know with absolute certainty which FMAs would sin and die.



You quote the same quotes over and over again, and ignore the ones which look contrary to your position. What good is that? Why not quote all the quotes that deal with the subject, and state an explanation which accounts for all the quotes?

Regarding your questions, as I said before, God knew of the possibility of man's sinning (as well as all the other "millions of worlds," they had just as much possibility to sin as man), and was willing to take the risk, knowing that even should this happen He could still establish His throne in righteousness.

The point isn't that God was dependent upon sin in order to establish His throne in righteousness (your point?), but that in spite of sin, God would still establish His throne in righteousness.

From Early Writings starting on page 125:
It doesn't appear the angels knew it was a sure thing.
Again, it wouldn't make sense for the angels to sorrow if they knew the story already played out, if they knew what was going to happen.
It also doesn't appear that Jesus knew what would happen, that He knew with certainty that He would succeed else, why would he experience sorrow? No need to if there was no risk (not using risk to mean "capability").
The angels still didn't know.
Three times!
An odd thing to say if this was already known. Was this some sort of charade? Perhaps to keep the angels guessing?
Saying Jesus was "free from all perplexity and trouble" would indicate that before He wasn't. Which indicates He didn't know what would happen.

If I knew what was going to be the outcome of some meeting, I would not experience perplexity and trouble and then suddenly not at the conclusion.
Finally, the angels are clued in. But what about this "pleading with His Father"? Pleading indicates things can go various ways, that the future is wide open.
Angles included in the plan. "self-denial and sacrifice"? Possible to experience even if it's a sure thing. But "consenting"? What is there to consent to if one knows the future like history? Sure, one could "consent" to run a race even if he knew he would win/lose ahead of time, but something about the statements appear to me to indicate something of a different meaning.
Doesn't seem like the Father knew the future like history or why would it be a struggle if it was a sure thing? "whether"? Like a choice? Why a choice if it was already known what the choice was and how it played out?
Why? Why was it necessary for the angels to strengthen him if it was a sure thing? If it was a sure thing, if the future had already played out like history, why was it necessary to go through this charade?

Is there a way to resolve this or should these pages be torn out of the book?

Jesus knew He would never choose to sin or abandon the plan of salvation. Do you see the difference? He never worried or wondered if He might not succeed or lose faith and fail. His fervent and faithful prayer life guaranteed Him success. The blood He sweated in Gethsemane was an indication of the emotional anguish He was experiencing because He was succeeding at implementing the plan of salvation – not because He wanted to abandon it. God forbid! The risk was real. Jesus could have sinned. But both the Father and the Son knew Jesus would not willfully choose to sin or abandon the plan of salvation. Nevertheless, the “possibility of incurring loss or misfortune” was real. In the same way, and for the same reasons, I know Jesus will return to take me home. He said, “I will come again”, just like He said, “I will rise again”. His word is sure and true. Is there a possibility He might not keep His promise? Yes. The risk is real. Does it imply He has no idea if He will certainly return? No.


I agree the risk was real. Do you agree neither the Father nor the Son expressed doubt about it? If not, please post a statement where either one expressed doubt about it. The risk and peril quotes do not portray either one expressing doubt. In light of the 12 positive statements I posted, of which there are hundreds more, the onus is upon you to post at least one negative statement (one statement expressing doubt).

Please post where Ellen said, "Neither the Father nor the Son were certain Jesus would succeed." Assuming she implied it does not count, especially in light of the fact there are hundreds of places where she portrays the Father and the Son emphatically stating Jesus will succeed.

Regarding this “mystery” the only inspired statements we have at our disposal are the ones I posted above. They simply say that for an eternity God knew which FMAs would sin and that He had a plan in place to deal with the great controversy. None of the inspired passages venture to explain why God chose to create the FMAs He knew would certainly sin.


There’s nothing wrong with me saying you think God did not, yea, could not, know with absolute certainty exactly which FMAs would surely sin. Your statement above implies it. I believe the exact opposite of what you believe, that is, I believe God knew precisely which FMAs would surely sin.


Which quotes? Are you referring to the “risk” quotes? Please repost the quotes you believe clearly portray God expressing He “did not know with absolute certainty which FMAs would sin and die.”


"But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness."

1. In "yet it" what does the "it" refer to? Obviously “it” refers to “the defection of man, with all its consequences”. The content and context disallows the assumption she meant the “possibility of man’s sinning”.

2. In "for" what does "for" refer to? “For” answers why “the defection of man, with all its consequences” “did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose”. Again, the content and context disallows the assumption she meant “God was dependent upon sin in order to establish His throne in righteousness”.

Deleted duplicate post.

M: Saying there was a possibility Jesus could (possesses the ability and power to) fail is totally different than saying He knew there was no possibility He would fail.

T: You're treating Christ's temptations as being akin to His becoming a gladiator, as something that He had the physical capability of doing, but not as something that was possible that He would actually do. But Christ's temptations were real. He could actually have sinned. . . If it never once occurred to Jesus to abandon the Plan of Salvation, how could He have been sweating blood over the decision?. . . If the chance of failure is >0, then there is risk involved. If the chance of failure is 0, then there is no risk.

M:Jesus knew He would never choose to sin or abandon the plan of salvation. Do you see the difference?[/quote]

The difference between what?



What good would worrying do? Wouldn't that, in itself, be a sin? Before coming, however, I'm sure it was considered in great detail by the godhead. Indeed, the EW 125 statement makes clear it was considered carefully.



This is pretty much what Waggoner said, but Ellen White corrected him, saying that Christ could have sinned. (this is the only time I'm aware of that she corrected Waggoner on a theological point, btw).



The emotional anguish was because the temptation to not go through with the plan was very great. The chapter on "Gethsemane" in "The Desire of Ages" makes this clear. Actually, it's very clear from Scripture. "If it's possible, take this cup away from Me." That makes clear what the agony was concerning.



This is obviously self-contradictory.



What?! There is a possibility that Christ might not keep His promise? That's preposterous!



The risk is real that Christ won't keep His promise? I couldn't disagree more. I'm surprised you think this.



It implies you don't.



No you don't. At least, not defining "risk" in a standard way.



Why? My point has been that there was risk involved. I've never claimed that God or Jesus Christ expressed doubt about it. Why should I produce evidence for something I've neither claimed nor believe to be true?

Good point. The idea that Jesus didn't mean what He said is crazy talk. However, apparently you pick and choose which promises you believe. For example, you believe there was a possibility Jesus wouldn't keep the 12 promises I posted earlier.


Please post biblical quotes where the Father or the Son plainly state there is a risk Jesus might intentionally or unintentionally choose to sin or refuse to redeem mankind. The risk and peril passages do not portray Ellen quoting the Father or the Son.



T: The difference between what?[/quote]
The difference between knowing He can sin and knowing He will not sin.