Tom, inferior options are not viable for a perfect God. Because God is infinitely wise and perfect the only option was the only right one. The fact He did what He did is evidence it was the only viable option available to Him. To assume there were other viable options flies in the face of God's infinite wisdom and perfection.

God created perfect beings in keeping with the one and only wise and perfect plan. The only other viable option to God was not to create FMAs. But, again, the fact God chose to create them is evidence not creating them was not truly a viable option. God did what He did because it was the only right thing to do. This includes knowing ahead of time that one-third of the angels and a majority of mankind would die in the lake of fire, and that Jesus would risk all volunteering to save us.

MM, either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Which do you believe to be the case?

Rosangela and Mountain Man are both doing a good job in answering your question, therefore, I do not really have anything else to add except for the fact that God wants all of His creation, which includes Heaven itself, to be inhabited by those who have the freedom of choice. Other names for this are those who have freewill, those who are free moral agents. God doesn't want His creation to be inhabited by those who are robotic in their response to God's will. This is why, even though He foresaw the entrance of sin in one of His angels, and the entrance of sin in one of His inhabited planets, He went ahead and created Lucifer and Adam and Eve. The fact that God also foresaw the solution to sin through the Plan of Salvation through His Son, is another reason why He permitted it all to happen as it happened, even to this very day.

I hope this finally answers the questions you were requesting of me.

No, it doesn't answer my question. My question is how, according to the view of the future you hold, heaven could ever have been in any danger. I asked you that for almost three weeks before Rosangela suggested an answer. MM never answered this question, so you can hardly assert that they were doing a good job in answering my question.

Anyway, there's nothing in your response that deals with how it could be said that heaven was in any danger. You just pointed out that God wants His creation, which includes heaven, to be inhabited by creatures with free will. This is no doubt true, but what danger was heaven in? When Ellen White wrote that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption, what did she mean? How could heaven have been lost?

I am actually questioning the aspect of everybody being lost in the "What If Christ Failed" thread, therefore, until my question is answered there, I can't really yet answer your question here.

Surely there was an option available for God to create angels (or other creatures) in such a way that sin would not happen - it was creating them without free will.

God could not create angels capable of loving Him and of being loved without free will. Since the ability of loving and being loved is a quality of angels, this is not an available option.

Quote:
What's the answer to the question? Before the fact, say 1000 B.C., what was the probability that Christ would fail? Was it 0? Or was it greater than 0?

Well, if you take as a basis God's foreknowledge, I think we could say it was 0, since God sees the end from the beginning; if you take as a basis the threat posed to Christ, I think we could say it was the maximum possible for a human being (I don't know how to calculate it).

When you ask about a concrete past event rather than a potential or theoretical event, the "probabilities" are always exactly one, or 100% (meaning that it happened) or exactly zero (meaning that it didn't). But the person asking the question usually means to ask "what were the chances of that?" — an entirely different question.

A post-hoc or posterior probability and a prior probability are two different things. God has a posterior probability, because He sees future events as past. Take God's foreknowledge out of the picture, and you will have the real probability.
Take a look at this article and at the example given of the woman who got pregnant: http://www.jeremymiles.co.uk/learningstats/2006/07/what-is-probability.html

My question was carefully phrased. It was what was the probability before the fact (you will note that I stipulated "before the fact") that Christ would fail. The answer to this question is not dependent upon God's foreknowledge nor upon Christ's humanity. It's a question of the probability of an event occurring. It's not an after the fact question either (as it states "before the fact"). It's a simple question, like the following:

a)What's the probability that when I flip a fair coin that it will turn up heads?

or, like the following

b)What's the probability that Brazil will win the next World Cup?

These are events which have associated probabilities. In the case of a), we can say with certainty that the probability is 50%. In the case of b), we don't know what it is, but we can say with certainty that it is greater than 0.

So in the case of Christ, as of 1000 B.C., what would the answer to the question, "What is the probability that Christ will fail" have been? Would it have been a probability greater than 0, or would it have been 0?

I think, from your answer, that you would say that the "real probability" is greater than 0, but the probability from God's perspective would be 0. Is that correct?

For example, if someone asked you, "What's the probability that a fair coin will come up heads?" your answer would be: "The real probability is 50%. The probability from God's perspective is 0, or 100, depending upon whether God knows it will be heads or tails." Is that correct?

I agree with your (implied) point there, which is that there's no reason why the unfallen worlds should have been lost if Christ had not been crucified.

However, my question has to do with how heaven could be said to be in any danger, given your view of the future. Specifically, given that (from your perspective) God has known for all eternity that heaven itself would never, ever be in any danger whatsoever, why would Ellen White write that it was imperiled?

TE: MM, either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Which do you believe to be the case?

MM: Tom, you are totally ignoring my point. Please address it. Thank you.

PS - My point is: God is infinitely wise and perfect, therefore, whatever He does is the only right thing to do. All other ways or "options" are by default wrong, and are, consequently, not viable. Your question, therefore, misses the point.

TE: However, my question has to do with how heaven could be said to be in any danger, given your view of the future. Specifically, given that (from your perspective) God has known for all eternity that heaven itself would never, ever be in any danger whatsoever, why would Ellen White write that it was imperiled?

MM: Tom, how would heaven have been imperiled if Jesus had failed to save us?

TE: MM, either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Which do you believe to be the case?

MM: Tom, you are totally ignoring my point. Please address it. Thank you.

PS - My point is: God is infinitely wise and perfect, therefore, whatever He does is the only right thing to do. All other ways or "options" are by default wrong, and are, consequently, not viable. Your question, therefore, misses the point.

My question is a yes or no question. Either it was possible for God to create angels that wouldn't sin, or it wasn't. Please answer my question.

Regarding you point, what I notice is that you are assuming that there could only have been a single best option available to God. However, this is by no means necessarily the case. There could have been several options available, or many, which were equal in value, and God chose one of these equal options. There is no reason to assume that there was only one viable option available, or that because God chooses to do something that He couldn't have chosen to do something equally as good.

What we can assert is that there is no choice available which would have been better than the choice that God made.

TE: However, my question has to do with how heaven could be said to be in any danger, given your view of the future. Specifically, given that (from your perspective) God has known for all eternity that heaven itself would never, ever be in any danger whatsoever, why would Ellen White write that it was imperiled?

MM: Tom, how would heaven have been imperiled if Jesus had failed to save us?

I'm wanting Daryl to answer this question. I'll comment later.