Thanks.

bump for Daryl

Daryl, What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?

Heaven was in danger in the same way that the truth about God's character was in danger and Christ's sinlessness was in danger. If Christ couldn't sin then there was no struggle, there was no battle against Satan, and His temptations were a farce.

I was hoping Daryl would answer.



I'm not seeing at all the ideas of which you are speaking, Rosangela, in what she wrote. She is talking about risk here, not ability to sin. She says "heaven itself was imperiled." This is going beyond the physical ability to sin. Was it possible for Christ to fail in His task? Could He have actually (not just physically) sinned?

In the T.V. rerun future view of things, how could it be said that heaven was in any danger whatsoever? Since God was 100% certain Christ wouldn't sin, and everything God is certain about happens just the way He knows it will, then wouldn't heaven have been in as much danger as it is now? (which is to say, none).

Again, He could have sinned, but God foreknew He would be victorious. Whenever Ellen White speaks of risk, she is obviously referring to the temptations of Christ and to the issue of the great controversy, and neither was a farce.

"The issues at stake were beyond the comprehension of men, and the temptations that assailed Christ were as much more intense and subtle than those which assail man as His character was purer and more exalted than is the character of man in his moral and physical defilement. In His conflict with the prince of darkness in this atom of a world, Christ had to meet the whole confederacy of evil, the united forces of the adversary of God and man; but at every point He met the tempter, and put him to flight. Christ was conqueror over the powers of darkness, and took the infinite risk of consenting to war with the enemy, that He might conquer him in our behalf." {ST, January 5, 1915 par. 4}

"Remember that Christ risked all; 'tempted like as we are,' he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Jesus would have yielded up his life, we may estimate the value of a soul." {GCB, December 1, 1895 par. 22}

Here is the quote again:

“God suffered him to fall under the power of Satan, the dominion of death, and hid him in the grave from those who were constantly drawing him from the truth. Moses erred as he was about to enter the Promised Land. So also, I saw that William Miller erred as he was soon to enter the heavenly Canaan, in suffering his influence to go against the truth. Others led him to this; others must account for it. But angels watch the precious dust of this servant of God, and he will come forth at the sound of the last trump.”

Why did God hide him in the grave?

In what way did he err?

Did he repent before he was laid to rest in the grave?

Again, here are the inspired quotes:

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}

Do disagree that God knew ahead of time that Lucifer and mankind would sin?

If it wasn't a farce, and Christ could actually have sinned, then God must have foreknown that possibility. You've got a hopeless contradiction going here. If God foreknew that Christ would be victorious, He couldn't simultaneously foreknow that Christ could fail. Either He foreknew that Christ would be victorious, in which case Christ's probability of failure was 0, or He foreknew that Christ might fail, in which case His possibility of failure was greater than 0.

So let's ask the question this way; was Christ's possibility of failure 0, or greater than 0?

MM, from the context, it seems clear that God hid Miller in the grave so that his influence would not continue to go against the truth. He erred in "suffering his influence to go against the truth."

When he asked if he repented, I assume you mean in terms of suffering his influence to go against the truth. I don't see the sense of this question. He wasn't aware of what he was doing, was he? How could he repent of something he wasn't aware of? Why are you asking this?

MM, you didn't address my question. Here it is again:



The quotes you are presenting, to be in harmony with *all* Ellen White has written on the subject, need to be interpreted differently than what you are suggesting. The way you are suggesting contradicts her statements that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss, and that heaven itself was imperiled.

Also, it doesn't fit with God's character. Why would God prefer a world of sin to a world without sin? Because of your perspective, you have no answer to this question. I do have an answer. Here's my answer.

Because of the nature of love, it is not possible to create beings who are capable of loving and being loved without their being a possibility of love being spurned. It was no more or less possible for Lucifer to sin than Gabriel. God could not have avoided the possibility of sin by simply not creating Lucifer. God had no reason to expect Lucifer to sin, because Lucifer was created perfect, just as Gabriel was.