MM, your reasoning would contradict inspiration. We're clearly told that Christ could have sinned, that there was risk involved in His mission. This means the chance was > 0 that Christ would fail. There's no way to get around this.



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



So what? Not every truth is establish by a direct quote from the Father or the Son.



??? This is just another example of contradiction.

If there was risk involved, then Jesus could have sinned. When Waggoner argued similarly to how you did, EGW point blank corrected him, saying precisely what I said, using exactly the same argument I did.

MM, please respond to post #128766. This was kland's post on EW 125. This vision really doesn't make sense if one assumes God, and Jesus, sees the future playing out like a re-run. If this were the case, we would have Jesus perplexed and distressed when He knew a short while later God would consent for Him to come. Also, if there were no risk involved, it's perplexing what God would have had any doubts about it.

We would have God thinking, "Jesus will come twice more to ask for permission. Then I'll give Him permission. But this is only the first time, so it's too early. Jesus must continue to act distressed."

And Jesus would be thinking, "This is only the first time. I have to have to more meetings with the Father. Must continue to act distressed."

Until the third meeting. Jesus would have been thinking, "Almost there! Continue to act distressed a little while longer. The Father is about to consent."

The whole thing would be absurd.

I thought I just did. Or do you mean did she use the exact phrase, "Neither the Father nor the Son were certain Jesus would succeed"? In which case, there are numerous search tools out there to help you determine if she did use that exact phrase.

Or could your response be admitting that it was indeed a charade? Or that we should tear those pages out.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about knowing for certainty versus there being risk. Any you have yet to offer any way to resolve it.


Did you want to know if the Father or Son expressed doubt or if Ellen White expressed there was doubt? Which one?

We have already shown where Ellen White said there was risk. Without substituting in some other word's definition in place of "risk", what does risk mean to you? What does "imply" mean to you? Saying three times, sorrow, pleading seems to me to mean something more than imply. And if you are emphasizing the qualifier, "assuming", it is a clear statement from her. No assuming needed. Without using the exact phrase, what would you expect to find?

And if you want to use exact phrases, you have failed to show where it's said God's Strange Act takes place any time other than when He leaves the sanctuary.

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”.

Where in the passage you posted did she say neither the Father nor the Son were certain Jesus would succeed? I realize you believe she implies it, but in light of the hundreds of places where she plainly says (as opposed to supposedly implies) both the Father and the Son knew Jesus would certainly succeed, the onus is upon you to post passages where she plainly says (as opposed to supposedly implies) neither the Father nor the Son were certain Jesus would succeed.

”Could” and “would” have different definitions. Jesus could fail and Jesus would fail mean two different things. Jesus could fail is true, but Jesus would fail is not true. By the way, you said it is preposterous to say Jesus might not keep His promise. And I agree. However, Jesus made His promises before He failed or succeeded on Calvary. So, why do you believe “I will come again” but not “I will rise again”? Isn’t the first promise dependent on the second? How can we believe the first promise if we cannot believe the second?


What’s not true? If neither the Father nor the Son plainly said it (as opposed to supposedly implied it) why do you believe it?


And yet I quoted Jesus Himself personally stating emphatically 12 different times “I will” succeed. Why are you unwilling to take Jesus at His word?


Please post the exchange between Ellen and Elliot.

PS - EW 125 does not portray the Father or the Son admitting they were uncertain Jesus would succeed. What they experienced in present time and space was real. The fact God also exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously did not add to or take away from what they experienced. God experiences time and space in the present. He cannot interact with FMAs in the past or future. He can only observe and know what has happened and what did happen.

MM, What is "risk"?

No they aren't.



They don't even say what you're claiming, let alone give a reason for something they don't say. But this is besides the point, as far as my question is concerned.

Forget about the statement, and think for yourself please. What sense would it make for God to create creatures He was certain would sin? It doesn't make any sense, does it? You interpret a text in a certain way, and won't give it up, because that's what you think the text means. This doesn't seem like a good approach to me. It's certainly not one inspiration teaches us to take. Instead we should use common sense and reason, comparing inspired texts with other inspired texts, and believe something that makes sense. God doesn't want us to believe things that have no reason for being so.

If we can't explain why we believe something to be the case, alarm bells should be sounding: We might not have something right here.

No one said anything about "Jesus would fail." What was said was that Jesus might fail, that is, there was a >0 change that He might fail.



Why then did you say there was a risk He might not keep His promise that He will come? This is something which has no risk attached to it.



Clearly if Jesus wasn't resurrected, He couldn't come again. EGW tells us if Christ had sinned, the rock in front of His tomb would never have been removed. Before He succeeded in His earthly mission, there was risk He might not come again. You're asserting there was no risk where inspiration says there was, and asserting that there is risk where inspiration does not say there is.



Through a prophet they revealed there was risk involved to Christ's mission, so I believe it.



Inspiration tells us there was risk involved. We should just ignore this fact? Jesus Christ expressed confidence He would succeed, but He was aware of the risk involved. Or do you think Jesus Christ thought there was no risk to what He was doing?



Sorry, this would take too much time to try to find. Basically Waggoner was arguing that because Christ had perfect faith, He couldn't fail. Ellen White corrected Him, and Waggoner made the correction in the Jan. Signs of the Times, which later became "Christ Our Righteousness," later changed (so as not to conflict with the book A. G. Daniels wrote by the same name) to "Christ And His Righteousness."



It portrays them not being certain what the future was, or the whole event doesn't make sense. If there was no risk involved, why the distress?



This doesn't address the problem. The problem is that your view regarding the future (and that would include Christ, in EW 125, as this is before His incarnation) doesn't jibe with the event. If God was eternally certain what Christ was about to do, and likewise Christ, the whole meeting would be a sham. None of what was related in EW 125 would make sense.

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”.