Arnold, the argument MM made, which I'm referring to, is virtually the same as what Waggoner said. It's this:



Let me be clear. "To doubt ... would have constituted failure." It's this part I'm talking about. Not the argument that God knew what would happen.

Waggoner argued that because He had perfect faith, He would/could not fail. MM is arguing that for Jesus to doubt would have constituted failure.

Now if EGW is correct, and Jesus could have failed, then He could have doubted (as against MM's argument) or He could have not exercised perfect faith (as against Waggoner's argument).


Regarding the would/could point, if you mean "would" in the sense of "would not choose to" I agree there's a difference. If you mean "would" in the sense of "would not happen," then there's no difference between "would" and "could" in any meaningful sense.

For example, if we say that it is certain that Christ would not fail, then we cannot say in any meaningful way that Christ could fail. If something will not happen, then it cannot happen. These are just two different ways of saying the same thing. You could argue that the given thing *could* happen, if circumstances were different, but circumstances are what they are, and what will happen must happen.

For example, if God knows that a certain thing will happen (not might, but will), then that thing will happen. It's not possible (i.e. "can't) that the thing will not happen.

Therefore if God knew that there was it was not possible for Christ to fail (i.e., God was 100% certain Christ would succeed), then there was no risk involved (since risk implies uncertainty). Now one can argue that Ellen White was simply wrong, but statements such as "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" (also, this risk is "more fearful" than the risk earthly fathers run with their children), and "all heaven was imperiled for our redemption" are very clear as to their implications -- it was a real possibility that Christ could have failed. Recognizing this truth enables us to see God's love from a different perspective. I notice that in both places of the Desire of Ages where Ellen White bring this out, for example, that she expresses awe for God's love.

Tom, insisting that God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed suggests that the prophecies describing Jesus' success were, before the fact, nothing more than wishful thinking. If Jesus had doubted the prophecies it would have constituted failure. Doubt is our undoing; faith is the victory. God knew Jesus would succeed in the same way He knows the 144,000 will succeed in the end. There is no difference. God knows the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge in no way robs FMAs of their ability or freedom to think and choose as they please.

I think they're the same. Trust and faith from Christ's perspective translates to foreknowledge of His victory from God's perspective. Same goes with our trust and faith.

John, I don't like the color you're using. Just giving some feedback.

MM, you're right that had Christ doubted the prophesies it would have constituted failure, but the whole point is that He could have failed. "God sent His Son at the risk of failure...." That's what this means. Christ could have failed.

Similarly "all heaven was imperiled for our redemption." That means, it was in danger, which means that Christ could have failed.

Now if the future were such as you think it is, like a T.V. rerun that God looks at, then you would be right and Ellen White would be wrong; Christ could not have failed. However, I think she is right and you are wrong: Christ could have failed; there was a risk; heaven was imperiled.

The foreknowledge of God is not based on wishful thinking, but upon the virtues that John, in that awful colored ink (so to speak, virtual ink) has been laboring to make clear.

First, I like the color.

Second, your argument did not become more agreeable to me by repetition. It looks the same as before.

Third, I believe the dichotomy between trust and faith and foreknowledge is unwarranted. Just because foreknowledge is objective does not make it cold or corrupt, and it does not mean that it is not based on the subjective virtues of trust and faith.

I know in advance that given a choice, my son would eat an orange instead of a carrot. Is that corrupt?

I know in advance that if a toddler grabbed a toy away from my daughter, she would give it up rather than grabbing the toddler by the neck and choking him. Is that corrupt?

I think you are romanticizing something that is plain and straightforward.

Your right; he needed to change the color. That would both have made it more agreeable and not look the same.

I think the arguments in this thread are becoming somewhat colorless...

Sorry for the repetitive offensive color. (At least to Tom) I'll go back to blue; it seemed safe in the past.

Second, your argument did not become more agreeable to me by repetition. It looks the same as before.

If you read carefully I added clarifiers.

Third, I believe the dichotomy between trust and faith and foreknowledge is unwarranted. Just because foreknowledge is objective does not make it cold or corrupt, and it does not mean that it is not based on the subjective virtues of trust and faith.

Foreknowledge of future events is what is cold; for by nature it has to be based on “events” and not on what you know about a person.

I know in advance that given a choice, my son would eat an orange instead of a carrot. Is that corrupt?
I know in advance that if a toddler grabbed a toy away from my daughter, she would give it up rather than grabbing the toddler by the neck and choking him. Is that corrupt?

The examples given do not correlate with knowledge of future events, but of knowing your son’s preference on those two things, or your daughter’s response in such a case. It does not deal with knowing what choices if any and when they will face as events.

Faith and trust, however sees the value of the person to make a judgment regardless of circumstances and choices, or otherwise the extent to which one can be entrusted with.

I think you are romanticizing something that is plain and straightforward.

Hmmm, that is strange; was God romanticizing when he found fault with the Israelites in that they were not of faith. Paul also finds fault with their knowledge because it was not of faith, declaring that they were ignorant of God’s righteousness because they were not of faith.

• Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
  Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
  Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;

The problem rather appears that there is lack of understanding the weight of “faith” as opposed to “knowledge”. They had “the knowledge apart from faith”. “Faith” is still the “stumbling stone”. Do you relate to your wife by faith and love or by knowledge? How would you rate your relationship if it was based on foreknowledge of future events?