Please look at my post 3 above now. I did address your question. However, you have not answered mine. What does "Christ could have failed. Christ could have sinned" mean? Doesn't it mean that He could have failed.

I'm curious as to why you think I haven't answered your question when I answered it when you asked it, and then directed you to the post where I answered it the second time you asked.

It means that He could have sinned. And if He did, He would have failed in His mission to save us (along with a host of other unsavory consequences).

As you and I know, He took upon Himself humanity, with all of its liabilities, including the liability to sin.



Because I don't see an answer there that solves the dilemma.

1) Christ could have sinned. (That one's too obvious.)
2) Christ could not fail to reveal God's character.

Given just that, we must conclude that it is possible to reveal God's character while sinning. Agreed?

That is a dilemma for me. It strikes at some very fundamental beliefs.

Therefore, I brought up the thought that #2 is not what the EGW statement is saying. If so, then what is it that Christ could not fail to do?

As I explained in the post, what she is saying is that an angel could not have fully represented God's character. But Christ, as God's Son, could not fail to do so. She wasn't talking about Christ's sinning or not sinning, but that only Christ, as One with God, could fully represent God.

There's no dilemma whatsoever here. You're simply trying to make her words apply to a subject she is not addressing.

Hope that helps,

Tom

Tom, insinuating that I read the SOP selectively is unwarranted. It also avoids the point. Just because I do not believe the "risk" concept proves God does not know in advance how things will play out it does not mean I also believe there no risk involved.

The idea that Jesus could have failed in no way means God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. That's an unbiblical jump to conclusion. Yes, the potential for failure was real. But not even for a nanosecond was Jesus ever close to failing. Jesus didn't barely succeed on the cross. He triumphed magnificently.

The fact Sister White says Jesus "could not fail" to perfectly represent the law and love of God does not in the least dilute the fact Jesus "could have" failed. The one reflects reality whereas the other reflects potential. However, neither truths serve to prove your point - that God did not know in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross.

The fact God repeatedly prophesied Jesus would succeed is positive proof God knew in advance that He would. Not once did God prophesy that Jesus might fail. These facts totally debunk the idea that God did not know in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. The "risk" quotes you keep posting will never prove God did not know in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed.

FLB 49
He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. {FLB 49.4}

The word "but" indicates how real the threat of failure was - it was essentially nonexistent.

Earlier I wrote that if God knows with 100% certainty that something will occur, then it is certain to occur. You agreed with this. So it was certain that Christ would not fail, correct? Yet God sent Christ as the risk of failure and eternal loss. So Christ could have failed. In fact, EGW wrote explicitly that Christ "could have sinned. He could have fallen."

So how is this not a contradiction?

MM, that statement leaves the impression that you don't really believe that Jesus is God. If He could have failed then He could not have known that He would succeed. As long as His failure depended on the actions of others He could not know for certain what they would do.

It may be time to move this dicussion from the academic to the practical. What could a creature possibly offer his Creator that would entice the Creator?

That conclusion does not follow from the two premises you provided. I have to assume that there is typographical error in your post.

The implication that there was no risk based on what Jesus had to do makes perfect sense. This brings into question the error in the EGW quote that started all this. The primary nature of water is wetness. It is impossible for water not to be wet. There is no way that God can ever not be God.

Tom, perhaps you should explain how Jesus could have failed. What do you think it means? In what way could Jesus have failed? What would have constituted failure?

Also, please explain why God repeatedly prophesied Jesus' success on the cross. Why didn't He ever say Jesus might fail? And why didn't He ever admit that He wasn't totally sure if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross? Why didn't Jesus confess as much while He was here? Instead, He plainly said He would rise again. Why was He so certain?