I also responded in two other topics.

I also merged some posts from the other topic into this topic, as they pertained more to this topic than to the other one.

I'm not understanding the difficulty here. Either Christ could have failed, or He couldn't have. If God, or Christ (which works just as well, since He is equally God) knew He wouldn't fail, then He couldn't have failed, since nothing that God knows will happen will fail to happen. That being the case, the statements by Ellen White would simply be wrong.

Please don't mistake her statements to be limited to just one quote. Many times Ellen White flat out stated that Christ could have failed. She says, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." That states it as clearly as can be stated, doesn't it? This statement says nothing risk, yet it is in complete harmony with her other statements regarding risk.

When Waggoner had a theory which involved Christ's not being able to fail, Ellen White corrected him (the only theological error I'm aware of that Ellen White corrected).

There's simply no way to harmony with Ellen White's writings the idea that Christ could not have failed. There is no ambiguity with the statement "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen."

Were you wanting me to respond in each of the places, Daryl? I can copy my response if you wish.

That's OK, as I am aware of the other related topics.

There is a difference between Christ not being able to fail and Christ not failing.

Surely you have some point in writing what you wrote. Would you please share what it is? Of course there's a difference between Christ's being able to fail and His not failing. Why would anyone have any confusion regarding this? Why did you feel impressed to point this out?

In other words, according to the EGW quote, Christ foresaw that He wouldn't fail.

This doesn't negate the possibility of failure. It, however, shows that He wouldn't fail. The possibility or risk was there, however, even with the possibility and the risk, He foresaw that He wouldn't fail.

"This doesn't negate the possibility of failure. It, however, shows that He wouldn't fail."

According the first sentence, Christ had a possibility of failure of something greater than 0.

According to the second second sentence, Christ's possibility of failure was 0.

So which was it? Was Christ's possibility of failure greater than 0, or was it 0?

TE: MM, I cannot follow your whole line of reasoning here. In there nothing you hold to in the Spirit of Prophecy that cannot be found in Scripture? For example, the fall of Lucifer. Do you believe that occurred as Ellen White described it? If so, why? Most of her account is not in Scripture. I'm missing your point. You quote Ellen White all the time. Why do you do so, if you do not believe her to be authoritative?

MM: Tom, you are avoiding the question. Please address it. Thank you.

MM, that's a rhetorical question. Mine, however, weren't. I really don't know why you're asking this rhetorical question, let alone asking it again and again.