Phil, just do your best. Perhaps referring to my views of God as "very bloody" and "pagan" and a "talisman" could be construed by an "overly sensitive" person as slightly condemnatory?

John, you're right, death is not an option. Instead, it's automatic. We die by default. Even Christ would have eventually passed away of old age if He hadn't first laid down His life on the cross. But if the wages of sin is death why, then, is it necessary for God to resurrect the unsaved? And, why is it necessary to use fire to punish and destroy them?

"You still have not explain EGW's meaning of "risk." MM

Do you expect others to answer you and you not answer them?

Perhaps you are right, MM Anyone can read your views and decide for themselves in which direction they lean and how they sound. No need for me to underline your concepts anymore than you constantly do.

I'm merely attempting to gather the fragments of your theology over all these years together in some comprehensible form.

Why do you object to my doing that?

However to speculate the Father could have "sacrificing Jesus" on an altar like Abraham, makes God Christ's killer, the Cross an option and killing by Him.....bloodless???

It does not jive with my views of God one bit, no matter how sweetly anyone couches it.

Phil, if God wasn't implying that He would personally sacrifice Jesus to pay our sin debt, then what did He mean when He told Abraham to sacrifice Issaac? What's that story all about?

BTW, please refer to my response to your question about EGW's risk quote on the other thread. Thanx.

No, MM: apparently all of us would like to understand your take on EGW's "risk" statement here, if you would be so kind as to clarify your opinion. It is very clearly on topic.

Risk and free-will are inseparable.

If everything is controlled by God, there was no risk, no possibility of loss.

The idea that Sister White's insight regarding risk requires us to believe God does not know the end from the beginning, like a rerun, is, I believe, misapplying her intent. The prophecies make it clear that Jesus would not fail, or fail to save us. Therefore, whatever she meant when she wrote about risk, one thing is certain, it cannot contradict the facts. Where else, in the Bible, do you find support for the idea that God was unsure if Jesus would succeed or not when He began drinking the cup? BTW, I'm not evading your question. I need more information. I find it hard to believe that God didn't know if Jesus would sin and die eternally or not.

Tom, I do not believe the "Christ risked all" insight implies Jesus could have sinned and died eternally. God cannot die. It's impossible. The way I read it, she's saying that all of creation stood to lose if Jesus refused to finish drinking the cup. If Christ had quit then God would have been forced to destroy all FMAs. Why? Because God would have lost the great controversy. The security of the universe depends on God refuting Satan's accusations. If Christ had failed to prove that God is holy, just, and good, then the unfallen beings would have had no recourse but to fear God. And fear leads to rebellion.

Is risk actually a risk if you know your going to win?

Would it be a risk for Arnold Schwarzenegger to arm-wrestle you, even if Arnold announced "Jah. I'll reesk it!"

Did God just pretend to risk all, all of earth's creatures and eventually all of Creation's souls, in time, and stack everything in His favor?

Doesn't Rome teach this, that Jesus wasn't really vulnerable, just had a shell of human weakness, so He really was in no danger at all?

Would all the Universe be convinced of the sacrificing love of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit if they knew it was all rigged, and there was really no chance of Christ failing?

So was Jesus just "renting" a human risky state for show?