Jesus said "of that date, no one knows, but the Father." You are assuming that this means that God's knowledge of the date fits into your paradigm of the future, but I have doubts about your paradigm. For example, the inspired concepts of risk ("God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss"), danger ("all heaven was imperiled for our redemption"), ability to hasten or delay Christ's coming ("not only to look for but to hasten ...") do not fit with your paradigm.

You are saying that. I don't see any problem with them.

If the future is single-threaded, and God knows exactly what that is, there can't be any risk or danger, can there? That is, to say that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss doesn't make sense if it was 100% certain that Christ would succeed. Given your paradigm, how could that not be the case (i.e. how could Christ have not succeeded?)

Similarly, how could it be said that heaven was imperiled? That is, how could heaven have been in any danger, given that God was 100% certain that it wasn't in any danger?

Also, if the timing of Christ's coming is 100% certain, then it is fixed, isn't it? If it's fixed, it can't be moved, can it?

Christ's risk was real because His struggle with temptation was real and, therefore, the danger was real. Suppose you are going to cross the Niagara Falls on a tight rope, and suppose God reveals to you beforehand that your efforts will be successful. Does this mean that there won't be any danger in your crossing? Does this mean that you won't have to occasionally make an extrordinary effort to not fall? Does this mean that you can relax and don't need to watch your steps at every second of that crossing? So I see risk in relation to the degree of danger to which you were exposed, not in relation to the final result.

And yes, I believe the timing of Christ's coming is 100% certain, because God already knows when His church will be ready for His appearing. This doesn't mean that the church could not have been ready before.

Christ's risk was real because His struggle with temptation was real and, therefore, the danger was real. Suppose you are going to cross the Niagara Falls on a tight rope, and suppose God reveals to you beforehand that your efforts will be successful. Does this mean that there won't be any danger in your crossing?

Yes, that's precisely what it means, given that God has given a 100% assurance that your attempts will be successful. "Danger" and "risk" are concepts which are predicated upon the possibility of failure. *That is what the words mean.*





The first definition is Webster, the second Oxford (Webster's was having problems loading the second time). Note that both definitions use the word "possibility." If there is no possibility of failure, there is neither risk nor danger.

Does this mean that you won't have to occasionally make an extrordinary effort to not fall?

Effort is not the issue. The possibility of failure is the issue. No one is saying that Christ didn't exert effort.

Does this mean that you can relax and don't need to watch your steps at every second of that crossing? So I see risk in relation to the degree of danger to which you were exposed, not in relation to the final result.

That's because you are not thinking of "risk" in terms of what it really means. When Ellen White says "at the risk of failure loss" she means that Christ could have failed. She also says Christ could have failed in those words (that is, "Christ could have failed."). Now if God was 100% certain of Christ's success beforehand, how could Christ have possibly failed? In fact, to ask the question in a more open-ended way, how can *anything* that God knows with 100% certainly will happen not happen?

And yes, I believe the timing of Christ's coming is 100% certain, because God already knows when His church will be ready for His appearing. This doesn't mean that the church could not have been ready before.

This is like saying "2 + 2 = 4. That doesn't mean 2 + 2 couldn't have been 5." God's knowing something will happen with 100% certainty is exactly like 2 + 2 = 4. There is as much possibility of the church being ready at some other time than God knows it will be ready (either before or after, it doesn't matter which) as 2 + 2 not being equal to 4.

How do you compare "risk" to what it says in Genesis 3:15?

I think the key is in the word "possibility". Webster gives as definitions of "possible": 1 that can be; capable of existing
2 that can be in the future; that may or may not happen.
Perhaps I'm focusing on the first definition while you are focusing on the second. I believe Christ's fall was possible in the full sense of "capable of existing," not in the sense of "that may or may not happen" - for God already knew Christ would be victorious.

In the example of your crossing, your fall was a possibility at every step, in the sense of "capable of existing" - since you are not a bird nor were you created as an "unfallable" being.


That's the point. Men were not ready before by their own fault. God established the day of Christ's coming having in view man's behavior, not His own wish. His wish was that Christ should have come long ago.

I think the key is in the word "possibility". Webster gives as definitions of "possible": 1 that can be; capable of existing
2 that can be in the future; that may or may not happen.
Perhaps I'm focusing on the first definition while you are focusing on the second. I believe Christ's fall was possible in the full sense of "capable of existing," not in the sense of "that may or may not happen" - for God already knew Christ would be victorious.

Under your view, Christ's fall was not capable of existing. Maybe in some other hypothetical reality it could have existed, but it would not be capable of existing in our reality. The word "risk" has to do with the possibility of something happening or not happening. Surely you understand that, right? There are probabilities associated with risk. One can calculate actuarial probabilities based on such. If something has a 100% chance of occuring, there is no risk. This concept is used economically all the time. There's no such thing as an event with a 100% chance of occuring incurring risk.

In the example of your crossing, your fall was a possibility at every step, in the sense of "capable of existing" - since you are not a bird nor were you created as an "unfallable" being. \:\)

This has nothing to do with risk. Here's an example. Suppose I have a two-headed coin. I "risk" a dollar that it will come up heads. Under your definition, I'm undertaking a risk, because I could have had a fair coin. I didn't, and in reality the probability is 0 that the coin won't come up heads, but I could have had a different coin. Fair coins are "capable of existing."

God's knowing with 100% certainty something will happen makes an event as likely to occur (more actually; the two-headed coin could land on its edge) as the two-headed coin coming up heads. *There is no risk.*

Quote:
There is as much possibility of the church being ready at some other time than God knows it will be ready (either before or after, it doesn't matter which) as 2 + 2 not being equal to 4.

That's the point. Men were not ready before by their own fault. God established the day of Christ's coming having in view man's behavior, not His own wish. His wish was that Christ should have come long ago.

I agree with this, as far as it goes. However, Ellen White wrote that is our privilege to *not only* look for but to *hasten* Christ's coming. The key word is "hasten." "Hasten" means to cause to occur more quickly than it would have happened had the given action not occured. Now if it is 100% certain that Christ will come in 2020, then there is nothing we can do cause it to happen before that time. We cannot hasten it.

Wonders how many pages that have been written thus far on the topic of establishing that common everyday words that are understood by all people acctually mean what everyone thinks they mean and not something else. Like reading the word "risk" and finding that one rather redefine the word than take a second look at ones own concepts of the future. Like if a person is being called "ugly", and refusing to accept it redefines the word "ugly" to mean "quite good looking" and then goes on a campain to convince the world that the word acctually means "quite good looking" rather than the dictionarys "offensive to the sight".

Your comments, Thomas, remind me of the following, from a different thread:



Here's another example the same principle. If an idea doesn't agree with what I believe, then the words must mean something different). It's hard to know how one could ever possibly be convinced to believe anything different than one's present belief with such a paradigm.