There was the possibility for the man Jesus Christ to sin, to fall. Do you agree with that? Assuming you do, then were that to happen, would you say that this meant that God had failed in the vindication of His character? If you say "yes," then my answer to your question is "yes."

God doesn't fail and "the plans of God cannot fail" (YI, September 1, 1892 par. 5). Is this true or not?

The man Jesus Christ could have sinned; He could have fallen. Do you agree with this?

If that had happened, would you say that God's plan had failed? If you say "yes," then my answer to your question is "yes."

“Would it change the outcome?”


If God tells us we are going to survive a crisis, it doesn’t mean we are being unfaithful if we experience fear and anxiety before and during the crisis. Do you agree?


You said our fear is perceived, but in reality it is unfounded. That’s what I disagree with. Do you see the difference?


So, you agree with me. They will experience fear. Right? But why? They know full well that God has forgiven all of their sins because otherwise, according to the prophecy, they would be in league with the enemy, railing on the SDAs. Are they guilty of sinning in light of the fact perfect love makes fear unnecessary?


If your view is what Sister White intended for us to draw from the risk concept she introduced then why didn’t she simply say so? Instead, she agrees with the dozens of places where God plainly says Jesus would succeed on the cross.


What she wrote was purely theoretical, right? She wrote it after the fact. In heaven, we could look back on the final crisis and say, “The 144,000 could have sinned. They could have failed.” How is this any different than what Sister White wrote about Jesus?

Back to other questions: Jesus was by definition the one who would succeed. That is how God described it all throughout the OT and NT. How can you believe God knows ahead of time that the 144,000 will succeed and yet reject the idea that God knew ahead of time that Jesus would succeed? In both cases God plainly portrays them succeeding. How is Jesus’ case any different? How can God be so sure the 144,000 will succeed? Why didn’t He know Jesus would succeed?

Please take the time to address these points. Thank you.

Actually, in the cases you are referring to, Tom, God did not say “could”. Instead, He told them precisely what “would” happen depending on which option they followed. But in so saying God wasn’t saying He doesn’t know how the future would play out. There is absolutely no indication He was uncertain as to which option they would follow. There are other reasons why God choose to share with them, before the fact, different options and the various outcomes.


You are grossly distorting what I said. I reposted the history of what I said above, and yet you are still misrepresenting what I posted. Why?


This post provides the proof that they are anxious and fearful in spite of the fact they fully believe God has forgiven their sins and that they will not die. How can they believe they will not die if they are unsure if all of their sins have been forgiven? Surely you must the potential contradiction here?

If God knows someone is going to die there is a risk? What is the risk? That they might live? Does that mean God knew Jesus would fail because Sister White spoke of it in the context of risk? This angle seems to undermine your theory.

Tom, her risk concept does not imply Jesus almost failed, that He barely managed to save us. What she wrote is purely theoretical. It was written after the fact. You haven’t quoted anything that substantiates your theory. All you have is what you believe are “logical” conclusions. But that doesn’t cut it around here.


In light of your formula explaining the differences between certain death and risk versus certain success and risk (discussed in a previous post) aren’t you contradicting yourself? If God knows someone is going to die it proves there is a risk? What is the risk? That they might live? Does that mean God knew Jesus would fail because Sister White spoke of it in the context of risk?

MM: Tom, what God knows about the outcome of a particular situation has no bearing on how we feel about it during the event.

TE: It could, if He shared with us what He knows.

MM: In what way? Would it change the outcome?

TE: You wrote that what God knows of a particular situation has not bearing on how we feel about it. I wrote if He shared with us His knowledge of the event, it could. The answer to "in what way" is found in your question; in how we feel (that's what you asked!).

“Would it change the outcome?”

Before jumping off into something new, it would be helpful if you would acknowledge that your original question has been addressed. You wrote that what God knows of a particular situation has not bearing on how we feel about it. I wrote if He shared with us His knowledge of the event, it could. This is accurate, isn't it?

I wasn't saying anything about an outcome being changed. I don't know why you're asking this. You made a statement that what God knows about a particular situation has no bearing "on how we feel about it." If God were to share His knowledge of the future event with this, that could clearly have a bearing on how we feel about it, right?

Quote:
MM: There is nothing imaginary about it.

TE: There's nothing imaginary about what we imagine to be the case; that is, we really perceive there to danger or risk. However, if God knows there is no possible chance of failure or harm, then there is none, and what we perceive is simply wrong. What God knows is right.

MM: I agree that God knows the outcome, but I disagree that it means feeling afraid is unnecessary or “simply wrong”. Knowing the outcome of something doesn’t mean feeling afraid is wrong or an indication that we lack faith. Again, Jesus Himself felt fear.

TE: You're going off on a tangent here. What is "simply wrong" is our perceiving that there to exist danger or risk when none exists. Please re-read what I wrote.

If God tells us we are going to survive a crisis, it doesn’t mean we are being unfaithful if we experience fear and anxiety before and during the crisis. Do you agree?



Quote:
MM: Even if God reveals to us that we will succeed or survive it in no way lessens the risk or threat or danger we experience during the event.

TE: That's correct. If God revealed to us we would survive, our probability of survival would be 100%, just as it would be if God didn't reveal what He knows to us. It would impact our perception of reality, however.

MM: I agree. But I do not agree that it eliminates feeling anxious or afraid.

TE: You keep asserting things which have no relation to what I'm saying. I never claimed anything in relation to our feeling anxious or afraid.

You said our fear is perceived, but in reality it is unfounded. That’s what I disagree with. Do you see the difference?

I think you may have misunderstand my point, or perhaps understood me to be making a point I wasn't trying to make. My point is that God's perception of the future is accurate. If He perceives that a given event is certain to happen, and we perceive something different than that (i.e., the given event might not happen), our perception is wrong. I'm making this point because you have stated that from our perspective we have more than one choice available. You have even asserted that we actually have more than one choice available. But this assertion, given your presupposition, is incorrect.

If God perceives we will do A, then we will do A. The fact that we perceive we might do A, or something else, does not change the fact that we will do A. Our perception is wrong. God's is right.


Quote:
MM: For example, in the following account of the 144,000 (quote below) they know they are going to succeed and be translated alive when Jesus returns. Do you think it lessens the risk or threat or danger they experience?

TE: No, there risk and danger is the same, regardless of what they know. God will deliver them, 100%. They are under no danger.

MM: I totally disagree. The inspired description portrays them full of fear and anxiety, which is not a sin.

TE: This really has nothing to do with what I've been talking about, but Scripture tells us that perfect love casts out all fear. God tells us, "Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD (Jer. 1:8). The 144,000 will trust God, and not be afraid.

You've misunderstood what EGW wrote. The fear and anxiety that is depicted is not of the selfish varitey; that is, they are not afraid for themselves, for their own safety. This would depict a lack of faith, which would be sin. They would willingly die for Christ, couragiously, without fear ("they would not shrink from torture or death" is how EGW puts it). Their fear and anxiety is in regards to their own character; they fear lest some sin be found upon them which would cast God's holy name be reproached.

So, you agree with me. They will experience fear. Right?

No. I disagreed, as I pointed out. You wrote that they were afraid because of the risk or threat or danger they experience. This is incorrect. It's important that this point be understood. EGW writes that they would not shrink from experience torture or death. So no, they are not afraid. John writes that perfect love casts out all fear. He that fears is not made perfect in love. So I disagree, for these reasons.

But why? They know full well that God has forgiven all of their sins because otherwise, according to the prophecy, they would be in league with the enemy, railing on the SDAs. Are they guilty of sinning in light of the fact perfect love makes fear unnecessary?

The 144,000 are to represent God in a public setting. They are concerned that His name not be reproached. They are aware that they are but dust. They are checking their memories to make sure that the treatment they are experiencing is not due to something they have done. They want to make sure that God's holy name will not be besmirched on their account.

No, they are not sinning to have this concern. In the chapter "The Two Worshippers," towards the end, Ellen White address a related concept, which she speaks of how, at every advance step, the repentance of the believer will deepen.

Quote:
MM: Hopefully you don't, but if you do, then consider this: Both God and Jesus knew He would succeed on the cross. Did it lessen the risk or threat or danger He experienced?

TE: The precept of this question is contrary to what God has revealed to us. God has revealed to us that "heaven itself was at risk." God has revealed to us that "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." God has revealed to us that God sent His Son at "a more fearful risk" (compared to our children). So I must reject the premise of your question, based on what God has revealed to us.

MM: Are you misapplying the risk concept she introduced? Are you drawing the wrong conclusions?

TE: How could the "risk concept" be "misapplied"? It's a very simple thing. She says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. There's no need to "apply" a concept here. I simply believe what she wrote to be true.

If your view is what Sister White intended for us to draw from the risk concept she introduced then why didn’t she simply say so? Instead, she agrees with the dozens of places where God plainly says Jesus would succeed on the cross.

She wrote, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." She said the same thing many times. She corrected Waggoner when he was teaching that Christ could not have failed.

Quote:
MM: Or, do you assume the 144,000 is a different situation, that God didn't know Jesus would succeed but that He knows the 144,000 will? If so, then how do you explain all the places in the OT and NT where God described Jesus succeeding on the cross? How is that any different than all the places in the OT and NT where God describes the 144,000 succeeding?

TE: The 144,000 are, by definition, those who succeed. Those who don't succeed are not a part of the 144,000.

MM: Tom, Jesus was by definition the one who would succeed. That is how God described it all throughout the OT and NT. How can you believe God knows ahead of time that the 144,000 will succeed and yet reject the idea that God knew ahead of time that Jesus would succeed? In both cases God plainly portrays them succeeding. How is Jesus’ case any different? How can God be so sure the 144,000 will succeed? Why didn’t He know Jesus would succeed?

TE: You are saying that Jesus could not have failed. Ellen White wrote, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." I believe she was right. We seem to be going in circles a bit here. You're not going to convince me that she was wrong on this point.

What she wrote was purely theoretical, right?

No, not at all. One does not use language like, "a more fearful risk" to refer to things which are purely theoretical.

She wrote it after the fact. In heaven, we could look back on the final crisis and say, “The 144,000 could have sinned. They could have failed.” How is this any different than what Sister White wrote about Jesus?

The 144,000 are comprised of those who succeed. So it's not possible that they could have sinned or failed. Individual members of the 144,000 could sin or fail, but then they would not be a part of the 144,000.

Back to other questions: Jesus was by definition the one who would succeed. That is how God described it all throughout the OT and NT. How can you believe God knows ahead of time that the 144,000 will succeed and yet reject the idea that God knew ahead of time that Jesus would succeed? In both cases God plainly portrays them succeeding. How is Jesus’ case any different? How can God be so sure the 144,000 will succeed? Why didn’t He know Jesus would succeed?

Please take the time to address these points. Thank you.

I think this has been addressed. Ellen White wrote of Christ, "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen." She corrected Waggoner when he taught that Christ could not have failed. She said heaven itself was imperiled. She said that Christ took a risk in coming, that God took a risk in sending Him. All of these statements indicated that it was possible for Christ to fail. In particular, the statement that "Christ could have sinned. He could have fallen" should make it clear that Christ could have sinned, and that He could have fallen.

I skipped one post, as it looked like the same points addressed elsewhere.

If God knows someone is going to die there is a risk? What is the risk? That they might live? Does that mean God knew Jesus would fail because Sister White spoke of it in the context of risk? This angle seems to undermine your theory.

I'm not following your difficulty here. As I've explained quite a number of times now, risk means the possibility of loss. To die would be a loss. The risk of death would be 100%. "Risk" does not apply to living, because living is not a loss, it's a gain. Risk has to do with loss. I've got no idea what "angle" you're talking about. I'm not following your argument at all. It seems to be predicated on not understanding what risk is.

Tom, her risk concept does not imply Jesus almost failed, that He barely managed to save us. What she wrote is purely theoretical.

Her language belies this assertion. If you look at what she wrote in DA 49, DA 131, and COL 196, you can see that you are asserting something which has no basis in fact. If you will examine her language, you will see that she expresses awe, amazement, wonder, that God, that Christ, would undertake such risk. This is not the language of something purely theoretical.

In light of your formula explaining the differences between certain death and risk versus certain success and risk (discussed in a previous post) aren’t you contradicting yourself?

No, there's no contradiction in what I wrote. I think you've just not understood what risk is.

If God knows someone is going to die it proves there is a risk? What is the risk? That they might live? Does that mean God knew Jesus would fail because Sister White spoke of it in the context of risk?

I think this just the same issue (of you're not understanding what risk is). To be honest, I've having difficulty following what point you're trying to make, but my best guess is that it has to do with confusion as to the meaning of "risk."

Any human being could have sinned, and He was a human being, but for God to send a Savior, God must be sure this Savior would not sin, otherwise He wouldn’t be a Savior. Therefore when the plan was created, God and Christ foreknew that Christ would be victorious (despite the constant threats He faced through Satan’s temptations). So the plan, obviously, could not have failed. God does not fail, and His plans cannot fail.