Whatever Sister White wrote about the risk Jesus took was written after the fact, after He succeeded, therefore, it is purely theoretical. Jesus could have sinned, true, but He didn’t. Yes, it is a fact that Jesus could have sinned, but He didn’t, right? Hypothetically He could have sinned, but He didn’t, right?


You said Sister White uses the risk concept only when death is certain. According to you, then, God knew Jesus would die, which means Jesus would be successful on the cross. If Jesus had sinned or refused to save us He would not have died.

What you are asserting here simply doesn't follow. You are arguing that any statement made after the fact is theoretical. You could apply this logic to everything Ellen White wrote about Jesus, since it was all after the fact.

If you just look at her language, and what she was actually saying, you can see that it's not hypothetical. Everything about what she wrote screams that she's talking about a *real* possibility.

You are gratuitously asserting things. There's no evidence to support your claim.

Here's what she wrote in DA 49, for example:



Point out something, anything, from the text which would give an indication that this is hypothetical. It doesn't exist!

Look at the ending of what she wrote:



This is as real as it gets! We *should* be astonished that God took such a risk. This is her whole point.

You said Sister White uses the risk concept only when death is certain.

Sometimes I wonder what your thinking is when you read things. I never said this. I never said anything even remotely close to this. What you are asserting that I said doesn't make any sense. Risk has to do with the possibility of loss. The loss doesn't have to be death. The loss doesn't have to be certain.

According to you, then, God knew Jesus would die, which means Jesus would be successful on the cross.

I've no idea whatsoever what would lead you to write such a thing. Would you please quote something I wrote, or give some sort of clue, as to how you arriving at the conclusions you are? I've never said anything at all like this.

If Jesus had sinned or refused to save us He would not have died.

If Jesus had sinned, He would not have died??? Where do you get an idea like this? The wages of sin is death. That means that sin results in death. Of course He would have died. Why do you think He wouldn't have died?

TE: In the case of the 144,000, God knows none will die. Hence there is not risk. In the hypothetical Rosangela case, God sees Rosangela died, so there is risk.

MM: From what you posted I gather you believe if there is no chance of death there is no risk. There is only risk when death is certain. Putting two and two together it is obvious you believe God knew Jesus would die, which means you believe God knew would Jesus succeed on the cross.

TE: If Jesus had sinned, He would not have died??? Where do you get an idea like this? The wages of sin is death. That means that sin results in death. Of course He would have died. Why do you think He wouldn't have died?

MM: Deity or divinity cannot die.

TE: If Jesus had sinned, He would not have died??? Where do you get an idea like this? The wages of sin is death. That means that sin results in death. Of course He would have died. Why do you think He wouldn't have died?

MM: Deity or divinity cannot die.

Your point? You're not denying Jesus died, are you?

I'm not following any of this. I don't know why you think "my point" has anything at all to do with what your saying, nor do I see that any of what I allegedly said makes any sense. Nor am I following why you are pointing out that divinity could not die.

TE: In the case of the 144,000, God knows none will die. Hence there is not risk. In the hypothetical Rosangela case, God sees Rosangela died, so there is risk.

MM: From what you posted I gather you believe if there is no chance of death there is no risk. There is only risk when death is certain.

No, MM. This isn't right. You should reason from risk means. That should be your starting point. Then the rest of it would make sense.

The definition of risk is "the possibility of loss." There is only risk when death is *possible*. Not certain. Just possible. Now if death is certain, it's evidently possible.

In the other case, the probability of death was 0. Hence there was no risk.

Putting two and two together it is obvious you believe God knew Jesus would die, which means you believe God knew would Jesus succeed on the cross.

Well, your premise is off, so whatever would follow would not constitute a sound argument in any case, but I don't follow what you're tying to say here, even if the premise weren't off.

Tom, MM, can you tell me what the following text implies, if anything about the foreknowledge of God:


To me the text is saying that God's love is the first cause of salvation. It is the 'prime mover'. It goes beyond forknowledge which in itself has no causative effect. The love of God, in contrast to His foreknowlegde, is the well spring of universal action and life.

So, in the context of our salvation, our part is to respond to that love. That is where the will comes into play. But the love of God that he has set on us and made us his chosen people is the causative principle springing from His own pure and unselfish heart. The doctrine of the election is here and throughout the prophets and apostles to remind us that God first set his love on us while we were His enemies. That makes all of the difference. The doctrine of the foreknowledge of God should be distinguished from the election. It is good to understand that God knows everything, past and future, but it is more essential to know the nature of the everlasting covenant that saves us through the outstretched arms of His love. While we were His enemies, Christ died for the ungodly.

You may say, yes but God loves everyone. That's true. But God did not set His love on all the heathen nations as He did on Israel. The blessings that He promised Israel were conditional on obedience. The covenant of love He made with them was not apparently. That is to say, God didn't love them because of their obedience. They were in fact a stiff-knecked people, few in number. But he set his love on them because of His oath to their fathers and because he loved them. So He loved them because He loved them. His deep love was a matter of principle and of choice.

To me the text is saying that God's love is the first cause of salvation. It is the 'prime mover'. It goes beyond foreknowledge which in itself has no causative effect. The love of God, in contrast to His foreknowledge, is the well spring of universal action and life.

Agreed.

So, in the context of our salvation, our part is to respond to that love. That is where the will comes into play. But the love of God that he has set on us and made us his chosen people is the causative principle springing from His own pure and unselfish heart. The doctrine of the election is here and throughout the prophets and apostles to remind us that God first set his love on us while we were His enemies. That makes all of the difference. The doctrine of the foreknowledge of God should be distinguished from the election. It is good to understand that God knows everything, past and future, but it is more essential to know the nature of the everlasting covenant that saves us through the outstretched arms of His love. While we were His enemies, Christ died for the ungodly.

Agreed.

You may say, yes but God loves everyone. That's true. But God did not set His love on all the heathen nations as He did on Israel.

Only because they weren't willing. Israel, as bad as it was, was still the people the most potentially receptive to God's love and leading. God is not a respecter of persons. He dispenses truth as quickly as we are able and willing to receive it, whether as individuals or groups.

The blessings that He promised Israel were conditional on obedience. The covenant of love He made with them was not apparently. That is to say, God didn't love them because of their obedience. They were in fact a stiff-knecked people, few in number. But he set his love on them because of His oath to their fathers and because he loved them. So He loved them because He loved them. His deep love was a matter of principle and of choice.

He loved them because He loved them? It's hard to argue with that.

Good points about love. Calling it the "prime-mover" is a nice way of putting it.

If the convenant and oath of God with Abraham was simply a matter of God's foreknowledge, that is, God made it because He knew they would respond the most favorably, then it has no depth of meaning. The main lesson of the covenant is that God first loved His people and that love liberated them from physical and spiritual bondage the same as it does for us today and His love is also His claim to our heart's devotion.


So, in the above text we have the correct balance. God first loves and enters into a covenant with His chosen people. The covenant is intended to last forever, to a thousand generations. We as individuals and as a church can still turn our backs on it but if we do, it only magnifies the grace of God in setting his love on those whom He foreknew would finally reject it.