MM: Again, God foresaw the fall of Lucifer and Adam and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose. She does not say, as you believe, that God foresaw the possibility of Lucifer and Adam sinning. Her wording is too clear to misunderstand.

TE: This just makes it worse! You are claiming that God foresaw with certainty that Lucifer would certainly sin. Yet God, who was under no duress, chose to create Lucifer anyway, when He could have chosen not to, thus preventing sin from existing. So, by this theory of yours, sin came into being because of the free will act of God to create a being who would certainly sin.

MM: Tom, you are mismatching quotes. The risk concept she introduced has nothing to do with God’s foreknowledge. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are forcing her risk concept to mean something it doesn’t.

TE: This is just simple logic, MM. When I commented earlier that God's foreseeing something would happen meant this it was 100% certain to happen, you said, "Amen!". Now if something is certain to happen, there can be no risk that it will not happen. So if Ellen White's statement is true, that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss (a "more fearful risk" she calls it), or if her statement that "heaven itself was imperiled," then you idea simply cannot be true. Under you way of seeing things, it cannot be the case that heaven was under any danger whatsoever. I do not see how you could possible believe this was the case (that heaven was in danger). Right? If not (that is, you believe heaven was in danger), what danger was it in?

MM: But God’s knowledge of the future is based on His ability to know the future like the past, like a rerun. He “inhabits eternity”. The future and the past for God are essentially one and the same thing. You are right, His perspective does not change the future, not any more than your perspective of the past changes the past.

God is not bound by time and space in the same way we are. He can jump ahead and look back on the future. He has already watched it play out. Do you see how this does not alter the nature or the essence of the future as we know it, as we experience it?

From our point of view the future is unknown. It hasn’t happened yet. Our lack of knowledge does nothing to change the nature or essence of the future. As such, the essence of the future is that it is unknown. It is nothing, it hasn’t happened yet, it doesn’t exist. It is a blank page. That’s its nature, its essence.

But from God’s point of view the future has already happened. From His point of view we are talking about the past, not the future. Thus, your concerns about the essence of the future do not apply. Why? Because we are talking about the past, not the future. From God’s point of view the “future” as we know it is known, it has happened already, it has an existence, it is not a blank page, therefore, it is not the “future” as we know it.

TE: You're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you agree with me that one's knowledge of a thing does not change its essence. But on the other, you assert:

a)The future is unknown. That is its essence.
b)The future is nothing.
c)The future is just like the past.
d)It is not a blank page.

a) and b) are from our perspective. c) and d) are from God's. So on the one hand, you agree with me that the essence of the future does not change because of one's knowledge of it, but on the other, the future is completely different, even its essence, depending upon one's perspective of it.

TE: “He doesn’t tells us, 'Now, this or that could happen.’” I refuted this by showing you examples which disproved your assertion. I have requested that rather than move on to some other point, that you recognize your assertion was false. Rather than do this, you chose to move on to some other point. So I will once again request that you recognize your assertion was false. *Then* you can move on to some other point.

TE: MM, if you don't understand what "risk" means, just look it up! Here: (Webster)

MM: Webster’s definition of “risk” does not prove that Sister White introduced the concept of risk to prove or to imply God does not know in advance precisely what will happen. Just because God knew Jesus would succeed on the cross it does not mean the “risk” Jesus took wasn’t real. But Jesus never came close to failing. “…but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” (FLB 49)

The fact Jesus never came close to failing indicates that although the risk was real it never truly posed a threat. It didn’t cause anyone in heaven to wring their hands hoping Jesus wouldn’t fail. It wasn’t a cliffhanger. Again, Jesus didn’t barely succeed. He didn’t succeed by a narrow margin. In fact, there is nothing to suggest that He almost failed. Jesus succeeded with flying colors, which proves that although the risk was real it never threatened to unseat Him, it never had a chance against Him.

I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily. We know not what is before us, and if we did, it would not contribute to our eternal welfare. God gives us an opportunity to exercise faith and trust in the great I AM. . . . Our Saviour says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). Fifteen hundred years before Christ laid off His royal robe, His kingly crown, and left His position of honor in the heavenly courts, assumed humanity, and walked a man among the children of men, Abraham saw His day, and was glad. "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (verses 57, 58). . . . {TMK 12.2}

The very words danger or peril also refer to the degree of threat to which one is exposed. You are considering just the possibility of a certain final result to occur. When I jumped into the water I was exposed to danger and peril. My life was threatened, although the final result of death did not occur.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)