None of the things you are suggesting define risk. Risk is defined by one thing alone, which is probability. If the probability of loss is zero, then the risk is zero. That is the meaning of risk.

Interesting. The first definition of Webster is PERIL.

Here's what I see:

This is from Oxford, for "danger"



Both risk and peril involve the possibility of harm or loss.

Here's peril:



All of these definitions are bringing out the same thing: without a possibility of loss, or harm, there is no risk, danger, or peril.

In financial markets there are penalties for inside trading, because of the unfair mitigation of risk that takes place. Insurance, and other financial instruments, are founded on probabilities of risk.

If the probability of success were 100%, you wouldn't have risk; you'd have certainty.

TE: Inevitable means "incapable of being avoided or evaded" (Webster). So let me put it this way. Sin and death we something incapable of being avoided or evaded. God (according to you) was responsible for creating this situation.

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.

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

TE: MM, you can't just cherry pick quotes. To know the truth regarding a certain subject, ALL the quotes need to be taken into account. She tells us that Christ took the risk of failure and eternal loss. She tells us that Christ risked all, that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. When Waggoner said that Christ could not have failed, she corrected him. She wrote that Christ "could have sinned. He could have fallen." You need to take these statements into account when interpreting the DA quote or any other quotes.

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: The basic point is that one's perspective of a thing does not change the essence of it.

MM: I agree. 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: MM, you wrote, "He doesn’t tells us, 'Now, this or that could happen.'” I provided many example to disprove your assertion. Now you're making some other assertion. Why not recognize that your original assertion was false? *Then* go on an make some other assertion.

MM: Telling them the outcomes of different decisions does not imply God was not sure how things would turn out. He knew precisely what would happen before it happened. Even in the case of Nineveh, God knew exactly how they would respond, which is why He worded things the way He did. It had the desired effect.

TE: “Thus, from God’s perspective the future and the past are essentially the same. In reality, then, we are talking about the past and not the future.” Again, one's perspective of a thing does not change the thing itself.

MM: I agree. But in God’s case, from His point of view, we are not talking about the future. Instead, we are talking about the past, what God has already watched happen and play out.

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.

TE: Inevitable means "incapable of being avoided or evaded" (Webster). So let me put it this way. Sin and death we something incapable of being avoided or evaded. God (according to you) was responsible for creating this situation.

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.

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.

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?

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: MM, you wrote, "He doesn’t tells us, 'Now, this or that could happen.'” I provided many example to disprove your assertion. Now you're making some other assertion. Why not recognize that your original assertion was false? *Then* go on an make some other assertion.

MM: Telling them the outcomes of different decisions does not imply God was not sure how things would turn out. He knew precisely what would happen before it happened. Even in the case of Nineveh, God knew exactly how they would respond, which is why He worded things the way He did. It had the desired effect.

All I can do here is to repeat myself. The assertion I refuted was the following:



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.

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.