Can the Law save us?

The way I see it, the law tells us the boundaries of God's character and will. However, it doesn't have the power to enable us to stay within those boundaries or even to make us want to stay within those boundaries.

And Matthew chapter 5 tells us that the law doesn't even succeed keeping boundaries.

And let each devise no evil in your heart against his neighbor; and love no false oath. For all these are things that I hate, says Jehovah.(Zechariah 8:17)

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom. 3:31. {FLB 93.1}

Faith is not an opiate, but a stimulant. Looking to Calvary will not quiet your soul into nonperformance of duty, but will create faith that will work, purifying the soul from all selfishness. {FLB 93.2}

The faith in Christ which saves the soul is not what it is represented to be by many. "Believe, believe," is their cry; "only believe in Christ, and you will be saved. It is all you have to do." While true faith trusts wholly in Christ for salvation, it will lead to perfect conformity to the law of God. {FLB 93.3}

There are two errors against which the children of God--particularly those who have just come to trust in His grace--especially need to guard. The first . . . is that of looking to their own works, trusting to anything they can do, to bring themselves into harmony with God. He who is trying to become holy by his own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. . . . It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith, that can make us holy. {FLB 93.4}

The opposite and no less dangerous error is that belief in Christ releases men from keeping the law of God; that since by faith alone we become partakers of the grace of Christ, our works have nothing to do with our redemption. {FLB 93.5}

But notice here that obedience is not a mere outward compliance, but the service of love. The law of God is an expression of His very nature; it is an embodiment of the great principle of love, and hence is the foundation of His government in heaven and earth. . . . Instead of releasing man from obedience, it is faith, and faith only, that makes us partakers of the grace of Christ, which enables us to render obedience. {FLB 93.6}

As Jesus was in human nature, so God means His followers to be. In His strength we are to live the life of purity and nobility which the Saviour lived.
94
{FLB 93.7}

Also, the law could describe what right living looks like, but doesn't describe how God treats those who choose the wrong path; IOW the mercy, compassion, patience, kindness, and gentleness (to name a few things) of God are not described. Thus the law does not reveal all aspects of the character of God, including the very ones we need to know most when we stray from the law of life. I.e., it provides no way to restore one who has strayed to the wrong path to get back on the right one.

A: Good thing God didn't end His revelation of Himself at Sinai.

MM: Too bad for those who lived before Sinai, right? Or, was God's revelation of Himself sufficient for Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac?

"Sufficient, but not complete." If it was sufficient before Sinai, then what can we say about it after Sinai?

What more did God need to reveal?

Since it will never be "complete" at what point was it sufficient?

Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God,
Page 22
attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 21, 22)

(M)an was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762)

TE: This revelation was necessary for man, unfallen worlds, and holy angels.

MM: But people like Enoch and Moses and Elijah made it to heaven before this revelation. Holy angels were content to serve God before this revelation.

(M)an was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762)

This revelation was necessary for man, unfallen worlds, and holy angels.

And yet holy angels, as well as unfallen worlds, along with Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were content to serve God forever before Jesus' incarnation, before His revelation of God's character. How do you explain these facts? Don't they indicate these beings were already convinced God is forever worthy of their praise and worship? What more was needed to secure their love and devotion and obedience?

I wrote:

Quote:
This revelation was necessary for man, unfallen worlds, and holy angels.


I explained why this was necessary.

And yet holy angels, as well as unfallen worlds, along with Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were content to serve God forever before Jesus' incarnation, before His revelation of God's character. How do you explain these facts? Don't they indicate these beings were already convinced God is forever worthy of their praise and worship? What more was needed to secure their love and devotion and obedience?

But if knowing about Jesus' revelation of God's character before He died on the cross was sufficient to take Enoch, Moses, and Elijah to heaven, sufficient for them to feel secure and unafraid of God, why did Jesus actually have to die on the cross?

Also, were holy angels and unfallen beings less secure than Enoch, Moses, and Elijah before Jesus actually died on the cross?

The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin. When Satan is destroyed, there will be none to tempt to evil; the atonement will never need to be repeated; and there will be no danger of another rebellion in the universe of God. That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. (5 SDABC 1132)

The same question could be asked of us. We never actually saw Jesus die on a cross. The Holy Spirit communicates Christ to us. He could do that without Christ's actually dying on the cross, couldn't He?



Here's a statement that speaks to this:

If explaining that the Son of God would one day pay our sin debt of death on the cross was sufficient to safeguard Enoch, Moses, and Elijah for eternity

why wasn't it sufficient to safeguard the holy angles and unfallen beings?

Why did they have to wait until after Jesus actually died on the cross? The point I'm hoping to arrive at is that the death of Jesus accomplished more than merely convincing the loyal angels that their faith in Jesus was not misplaced.

The same question could be asked of us. We never actually saw Jesus die on a cross. The Holy Spirit communicates Christ to us. He could do that without Christ's actually dying on the cross, couldn't He?

Why are you making this assumption?

That's not much of a point. Of course it did more than that.

I asked you this question:



Your response?

MM:If explaining that the Son of God would one day pay our sin debt of death on the cross was sufficient to safeguard Enoch, Moses, and Elijah for eternity

TE:Why are you making this assumption?

MM:Because they received eternal life in heaven without witnessing the actual life and death of Jesus.

MM: Why wasn't it sufficient to safeguard the holy angles and unfallen beings?

Why did they have to wait until after Jesus actually died on the cross? The point I'm hoping to arrive at is that the death of Jesus accomplished more than merely convincing the loyal angels that their faith in Jesus was not misplaced.

TE:That's not much of a point. Of course it did more than that.

MM:The point is the angels were already secure in their faith in Jesus' law and love *before* He lived and died as a man. So, the question is - Why did Jesus have to live and die the perfect life and death? What did it accomplish?

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory.

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion. (DA 758)

TE:The same question could be asked of us. We never actually saw Jesus die on a cross. The Holy Spirit communicates Christ to us. He could do that without Christ's actually dying on the cross, couldn't He?

MM:Apparently so. It worked for the angels; it worked for Enoch, Moses, and Elijah; why wouldn't it have worked for us? What would have happened if no one had sinned after A&E? What manner of death would Jesus have had to die to atone for the two sins of A&E?

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90)

MM:If explaining that the Son of God would one day pay our sin debt of death on the cross was sufficient to safeguard Enoch, Moses, and Elijah for eternity

TE:Why are you making this assumption?

MM:Because they received eternal life in heaven without witnessing the actual life and death of Jesus.

TE: So do we.

MM: Why wasn't it sufficient to safeguard the holy angels and unfallen beings?

Why did they have to wait until after Jesus actually died on the cross? The point I'm hoping to arrive at is that the death of Jesus accomplished more than merely convincing the loyal angels that their faith in Jesus was not misplaced.

TE:That's not much of a point. Of course it did more than that.

MM:The point is the angels were already secure in their faith in Jesus' law and love *before* He lived and died as a man. So, the question is - Why did Jesus have to live and die the perfect life and death? What did it accomplish?

TE: As already cited from DA:



I don't understand how this isn't answering your question. Please note the "not until" part.

TE:The same question could be asked of us. We never actually saw Jesus die on a cross. The Holy Spirit communicates Christ to us. He could do that without Christ's actually dying on the cross, couldn't He?

MM:Apparently so. It worked for the angels; it worked for Enoch, Moses, and Elijah; why wouldn't it have worked for us? What would have happened if no one had sinned after A&E? What manner of death would Jesus have had to die to atone for the two sins of A&E?

TE: The atonement has to do with setting us right with God. This could only be done by revealing God:



The way that God sets us right is by way of revelation. Christ revealed God in order to set us right. This was the "whole purpose" of His mission.

From the DA quote above, it was not until the death of Christ that the character of Satan was clearly seen by angels. So His death was necessary for them, as well as for us. As she explains elsewhere, apart from Christ's death, the universe would be no more secure than it was when Satan first leveled his accusations against God.

MM:If explaining that the Son of God would one day pay our sin debt of death on the cross was sufficient to safeguard Enoch, Moses, and Elijah for eternity

TE:Why are you making this assumption?

MM:Because they received eternal life in heaven without witnessing the actual life and death of Jesus.

TE: So do we.

So, do you agree with my assumption?

It doesn't address my question. It simply says the angels saw Satan unveiled. It doesn't explain why Jesus had to die. The point is - They were already secure in the law and love of God. They were serving Him faithfully and would have forever even Jesus had not died on the cross.

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds.

Obviously there is more to it, because the unfallen universe was already serving God faithfully and would have forever even if Jesus had not died on the cross. That's the point.

Nowhere does it say they would have rebelled against God if Jesus had not died on the cross.

Understanding why Satan deserves to die is helpful and needful, but it doesn't change the fact they were already secure in the law and love of God.

MM:If explaining that the Son of God would one day pay our sin debt of death on the cross was sufficient to safeguard Enoch, Moses, and Elijah for eternity

TE:Why are you making this assumption?

MM:Because they received eternal life in heaven without witnessing the actual life and death of Jesus.

TE: So do we.

MM: So, do you agree with my assumption?

TE: No, I was asking you a question to help you reason things out.

MM: It doesn't address my question. It simply says the angels saw Satan unveiled. It doesn't explain why Jesus had to die. The point is - They were already secure in the law and love of God. They were serving Him faithfully and would have forever even Jesus had not died on the cross.

TE: Again, I'm not understanding how you are not understanding the text.

MM: Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds.

TE: Satan's character wasn't clearly revealed until Christ's death. May I suggest you read the whole chapter. Look at how she applies Rev. 12:10. It wasn't until the cross that Satan was defeated. That's when he was cast down. He was defeated by Christ's death. The cross is what made the universe eternally secure. Without Christ's death, it would have been no more secure than it was when Satan first made his accusations. The issue wasn't that the angels weren't being faithfully serving God, but that Satan had raised doubts. These doubts were removed by the cross.

MM: Obviously there is more to it, because the unfallen universe was already serving God faithfully and would have forever even if Jesus had not died on the cross. That's the point.

TE: Not really. The point has to do with the Great Controversy, which was over the character of God, not over whether or not angels were faithfully serving God.

MM: Nowhere does it say they would have rebelled against God if Jesus had not died on the cross.

TE: DA 764 presents this as a possibility, where it speaks of the doubt that would have remained had God left Satan to reap the results of his sin.

MM: Understanding why Satan deserves to die is helpful and needful, but it doesn't change the fact they were already secure in the law and love of God.

TE: On what basis are you asserting they were secure? The SOP says the universe was *not* secure, until the death of Christ.

MM:If explaining that the Son of God would one day pay our sin debt of death on the cross was sufficient to safeguard Enoch, Moses, and Elijah for eternity

TE:Why are you making this assumption?

MM:Because they received eternal life in heaven without witnessing the actual life and death of Jesus.

TE: So do we.

MM: So, do you agree with my assumption?

TE: No, I was asking you a question to help you reason things out.

What is your point?

MM:If explaining that the Son of God would one day pay our sin debt of death on the cross was sufficient to safeguard Enoch, Moses, and Elijah for eternity

TE:Why are you making this assumption?

MM:Because they received eternal life in heaven without witnessing the actual life and death of Jesus.

TE: So do we.

Even before Satan was exposed at the cross, the holy angels were secure in the law and love of God.

They chose to love and serve God before the evil angels were cast out of heaven.

You seem to be saying their loyalties were tentative before the cross, that their security was conditional, dependent upon Satan's final downfall - as if they were saying, "We'll love and serve you for the time being, but if you cannot eventually disprove Satan's accusations, we're going to rebel, too." Is this what you believe?

The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin. When Satan is destroyed, there will be none to tempt to evil; the atonement will never need to be repeated; and there will be no danger of another rebellion in the universe of God. That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. (5SDABC 1132)

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory.

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion.

What if God had decided not to implement the plan of salvation? What would have happened to the loyal angels and loyal FMAs? Did God have to go through with the plan of salvation in order to prevent the loyal beings from rebelling, too?

My only answer is that Jesus died for us to teach us that of which we were completely ignorant and could not understand in another way.

The angels, however, had full knowledge of God and His character, and in full view of the facts, they had made their choice in Heaven prior to being cast out. Jesus had pleaded with them, but they had rejected His offer of restoration. Lucifer was too proud to admit he was wrong--and therefore refused to repent. What they did knowingly, we did in ignorance. Their sin was magnitudes greater, and the cross forever sealed their fate.

When Christ hung in agony upon the cross, while evil spirits rejoiced and evil men reviled, then indeed His heel was bruised by Satan. But that very act was crushing the serpent's head. Through death He destroyed "him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Hebrews 2:14. This act decided the destiny of the rebel chief, and made forever sure the plan of salvation. In death He gained the victory over its power; in rising again, He opened the gates of the grave to all His followers. In that last great contest we see fulfilled the prophecy, "It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." Genesis 3:15. {PK 701.3}

Many were disposed to heed this counsel, to repent of their disaffection, and seek to be again received into favor with the Father and His Son. But Lucifer had another deception ready. The mighty revolter now declared that the angels who had united with him had gone too far to return; that he was acquainted with the divine law, and knew that God would not forgive. He declared that all who should submit to the authority of Heaven would be stripped of their honor, degraded from their position. For himself, he was determined never again to acknowledge the authority of Christ. The only course remaining for him and his followers, he said, was to assert their liberty, and gain by force the rights which had not been willingly accorded them.

So far as Satan himself was concerned, it was true that he had now gone too far to return. (PP 40, 41)

MM:If explaining that the Son of God would one day pay our sin debt of death on the cross was sufficient to safeguard Enoch, Moses, and Elijah for eternity

TE:Why are you making this assumption?

MM:Because they received eternal life in heaven without witnessing the actual life and death of Jesus.

TE: So do we. My point was the we, no less than Enoch, Moses and Elijah, receive eternal life without having witnessed the actual life and death of Jesus.

1. "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan." 2. "Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds."

TE: Remember there are two principles involved in the Great Controversy. To believe one is to have doubts about the other. To the extent that the angels were not sure about Satan's character, they were unsure about God's. This quote makes clear their minds weren't settled in regards to Satan until the cross.

MM: What if God had decided not to implement the plan of salvation? What would have happened to the loyal angels and loyal FMAs? Did God have to go through with the plan of salvation in order to prevent the loyal beings from rebelling, too?

TE: The above quotes make it clear that the Plan of Salvation benefited them just as it benefited us.

[MM:Because they received eternal life in heaven without witnessing the actual life and death of Jesus.

TE: So do we. My point was the we, no less than Enoch, Moses and Elijah, receive eternal life without having witnessed the actual life and death of Jesus.

The difference is that they received it before Jesus died on the cross.

They were in heaven for hundreds of years before Jesus died on the cross.

If Jesus had failed on the cross, the human race would have ended at that point. My question then is - What would have happened to Enoch, Moses, and Elijah?

Also, the second quote simply says the loyal FMAs finally saw through Satan's deceptions. It cannot mean they were insecure in the law and love of God until Jesus died on the cross. They were convinced God is right and Satan is wrong from the moment they chose to side with God and not with Satan. The cross confirmed their faith; it did not establish it.

The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God.

The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin. When Satan is destroyed, there will be none to tempt to evil; the atonement will never need to be repeated; and there will be no danger of another rebellion in the universe of God. That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. {5BC 1132.8}

The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Our only hope is perfect trust in the blood of Him who can save to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him. The death of Christ on the cross of Calvary is our only hope in this world, and it will be our theme in the world to come. Oh, we do not comprehend the value of the atonement! If we did, we would talk more about it. The gift of God in His beloved Son was the expression of an incomprehensible love. It was the utmost that God could do to preserve the honor of His law, and still save the transgressor. Why should man not study the theme of redemption? It is the greatest subject that can engage the human mind. If men would contemplate the love of Christ, displayed in the cross, their faith would be strengthened to appropriate the merits of His shed blood, and they would be cleansed and saved from sin (ST Dec. 30, 1889). {5BC 1132.9}

That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God.

God could employ only such means as were consistent with truth and righteousness. Satan could use what God could not--flattery and deceit. He had sought to falsify the word of God and had misrepresented His plan of government, claiming that God was not just in imposing laws upon the angels; that in requiring submission and obedience from His creatures, He was seeking merely the exaltation of Himself. It was therefore necessary to demonstrate before the inhabitants of heaven, and of all the worlds, that God's government is just, His law perfect. Satan had made it appear that he himself was seeking to promote the good of the universe. The true character of the usurper and his real object must be understood by all. He must have time to manifest himself by his wicked works. {PP 42.1}

The discord which his own course had caused in heaven, Satan charged upon the government of God. All evil he declared to be the result of the divine administration. He claimed that it was his own object to improve upon the statutes of Jehovah. Therefore God permitted him to demonstrate the nature of his claims, to show the working out of his proposed changes in the divine law. His own work must condemn him. Satan had claimed from the first that he was not in rebellion. The whole universe must see the deceiver unmasked. {PP 42.2}

Even when he was cast out of heaven. Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since only the service of love can be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of the worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice of God in the destruction of Satan. Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion have been utterly eradicated. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, he must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question. {PP 42.3}

God could employ only such means as were consistent with truth and righteousness. Satan could use what God could not--flattery and deceit. He had sought to falsify the word of God and had misrepresented His plan of government, claiming that God was not just in imposing laws upon the angels; that in requiring submission and obedience from His creatures, He was seeking merely the exaltation of Himself. It was therefore necessary to demonstrate before the inhabitants of heaven, and of all the worlds, that God's government is just, His law perfect. Satan had made it appear that he himself was seeking to promote the good of the universe. The true character of the usurper and his real object must be understood by all. He must have time to manifest himself by his wicked works. {PP 42.1}
The discord which his own course had caused in heaven, Satan charged upon the government of God. All evil he declared to be the result of the divine administration. He claimed that it was his own object to improve upon the statutes of Jehovah. Therefore God permitted him to demonstrate the nature of his claims, to show the working out of his proposed changes in the divine law. His own work must condemn him. Satan had claimed from the first that he was not in rebellion. The whole universe must see the deceiver unmasked. {PP 42.2}
Even when he was cast out of heaven. Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since only the service of love can be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of the worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice of God in the destruction of Satan. Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love. The influence of the deceiver would not have been fully destroyed, nor would the spirit of rebellion have been utterly eradicated. For the good of the entire universe through ceaseless ages, he must more fully develop his principles, that his charges against the divine government might be seen in their true light by all created beings, and that the justice and mercy of God and the immutability of His law might be forever placed beyond all question. {PP 42.3}

The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God and would reveal the nature and the results of sin. {PP 68.2}

From the first the great controversy had been upon the law of God. Satan had sought to prove that God was unjust, that His law was faulty, and that the good of the universe required it to be changed. In attacking the law he aimed to overthrow the authority of its Author. In the controversy it was to be shown whether the divine statutes were defective and subject to change, or perfect and immutable. {PP 69.1}

If the law could be changed, man might have been saved without the sacrifice of Christ; but the fact that it was necessary for Christ to give His life for the fallen race, proves that the law of God will not release the sinner from its claims upon him. It is demonstrated that the wages of sin is death. When Christ died, the destruction of Satan was made certain. But if the law was abolished at the cross, as many claim, then the agony and death of God's dear Son were endured only to give to Satan just what he asked; then the prince of evil triumphed, his charges against the divine government were sustained. The very fact that Christ bore the penalty of man's transgression is a mighty argument to all created intelligences that the law is changeless; that God is righteous, merciful, and self-denying; and that infinite justice and mercy unite in the administration of His government. {PP 70.1}

The holy inhabitants of other worlds were watching with the deepest interest the events taking place on the earth. In the condition of the world that existed before the Flood they saw illustrated the results of the administration which Lucifer had
endeavored to establish in heaven, in rejecting the authority of Christ and casting aside the law of God. In those high-handed sinners of the antediluvian world they saw the subjects over whom Satan held sway. The thoughts of men's hearts were only evil continually. Genesis 6:5. Every emotion, every impulse and imagination, was at war with the divine principles of purity and peace and love. It was an example of the awful depravity resulting from Satan's policy to remove from God's creatures the restraint of His holy law. {PP 78.4}

By the facts unfolded in the progress of the great controversy, God will demonstrate the principles of His rules of government, which have been falsified by Satan and by all whom he has deceived. His justice will finally be acknowledged by the whole world, though the acknowledgment will be made too late to save the rebellious. God carries with Him the sympathy and approval of the whole universe as step by step His great plan advances to its complete fulfillment. He will carry it with Him in the final eradication of rebellion. It will be seen that all who have forsaken the divine precepts have placed themselves on the side of Satan, in warfare against Christ. When the prince of this world shall be judged, and all who have united with him shall share his fate, the whole universe as witnesses to the sentence will declare, "Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints." Revelation 15:3. {PP 79.1}

If you actually took the time to read this passage

Tom, once again, I am sorry this sounded sarcastic to you. But please understand that neither this nor the other was posted in sarcasm. If you choose to believe I am lying because I am unwilling to admit I have sinned, then I suppose we should cease studying together. At this point, I am no longer willing to study with you if you refuse to believe me, if you insist I am lying.

What is your answer? Do you believe me? Or, do you think I am lying?

PS - I will not address your posts in other threads until I have an answer here. Thank you.

I cannot willingly place myself in a position where people critique and criticize me.

MM: Morally perfect, yes, but not necessarily mentally perfect. For example, a person may not know the truth about Sabbath-keeping. They are not mentally perfect. Mental perfection has to do with things we have to learn through Bible study and prayer. To be a part of the first resurrection they must be born again morally perfect. Moral perfection has to do with cultivated traits of character.

TE: So you don't think Rosangela's example about self-pity applies. In your opinion, she wasn't born again until she "confessed and crucified" her self pity (and still isn't, if she has any similar traits she is unaware of, and hasn't "confessed and crucified" yet. I trust Rosangela won't mind being picked on.)

I suppose you must think you are morally perfect.

I'm curious about something. A while back you said to me "Thank you for stating the obvious" which is clearly sarcastic. I asked my wife on a scale of 1 to 100 where she would rate this in terms of being sarcastic, and she said 100. I think most people would agree.

What I'm curious about is if the fact that you think you are morally perfect means you think you are unable to say something sarcastic? Therefore anything you say must not be sarcastic, regardless of how sarcastic it sounds?

MM: Yes, I am morally perfect, and I haven’t sinned in 20 years. Is that what you want me to say? Would that make you happy? Come on, Tom, you’re way off base here. You’re making this way too personal. Do you really want to study this way? I don’t. I’d rather study it using the third person as case in point. It's safer, don't you think?

Here’s the context of the "Thank you for stating the obvious" post:


Please note the context: “Yes, of course. The law of Moses is based on mercy. It allowed for forgiveness. I should have made this point more clear. Thank you for stating the obvious.” I admitted to leaving out the obvious and thanked you for stating it. And I was honest and sincere about it.

I realize this phrase can be used sarcastically, and I’m sorry if it offended you, but I was not being sarcastic when I wrote it. If you had seen and heard me say it, I’m sure it would not have looked or sounded sarcastic to you. My wife agrees with me, and wished me to convey these thoughts to you on her behalf.

Just out of curiosity I Googled this expression online and found quite a few people using it in the positive sense. For example, in certain discussion groups people are often hesitant to state the obvious. They’re afraid of sounding rude, or insensitive, or whatever. So, it goes unsaid. But when someone finally does state the obvious, the others are relieved, and often say, “Thank you for stating the obvious.”

Tom, it is never a positive thing for you to analyze, assess, label, or critique my posts.

It is not your responsibility to tell me my post wasn't logical or wasn't accurate or wasn't whatever. So please refrain from doing so in the future.

You had every right to question whether or not the phrase in question was sarcastic. I appreciate any effort you make to ensure our discussions are Christlike. However, the instant I explained it wasn't posted in sarcasm, it was your privilege to accept my explanation and drop it.

Above you wrote, "Regarding your request that I apologize for assuming that you are more likely self-decieved than a liar, I apologize for making this assumption." Thank you. Apology accepted.

One of the things that hurt the most was the following thing you posted: "What I'm curious about is if the fact that you think you are morally perfect means you think you are unable to say something sarcastic? Therefore anything you say must not be sarcastic, regardless of how sarcastic it sounds?" Please avoid these kinds of comments in the future. Thank you.

TE: I think you missed the point!

MM: And I think you are missing an important point. The security of unfallen beings rested upon the honor and integrity of the law of God. Without it they are doomed. Satan's accusations are laid against the law of God. His beef with God is His insistence it be obeyed. Here's how she explains it:


If you [take the time] to read this passage then you should be able to agree with me that the honor and integrity of the law is an important part of the GC. Jesus died on the cross to satisfy the holy and just claims of the law, namely, death must come in consequence of man's sin. In so dying Jesus preserved the honor and integrity of the law, and He thereby confirmed the love and allegiance of unfallen beings. His willingness to die to preserve the law endeared unfallen beings forever. It also gives us a second chance at eternal life. And, it gives God the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners.

To pardon and save penitent sinners God had to act in harmony with His law. He could not disregard the just and loving demands of law and justice, as it relates to the punishment of sinners, without jeopardizing the love and allegiance of unfallen beings. To disregard the death penalty would forfeit the love and allegiance of unfallen beings. Why? Because if God is willing to ignore the law for one reason what is to stop Him from doing it for any reason? Such a state would be unsettling, to say the least. Thus, Jesus died in our place, which satisfies the death penalty and preserves the honor and integrity of the law. So far, so good. Now, the rest of the issues involved in the GC must be settled.

TE: MM, you were disputing that the angels were made secure by the cross. So I presented this passage to demonstrate to you that they were. Please acknowledge this, and then we can consider whatever other things you want to look at.

The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin. When Satan is destroyed, there will be none to tempt to evil; the atonement will never need to be repeated; and there will be no danger of another rebellion in the universe of God. That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. {5BC 1132.8}

The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Our only hope is perfect trust in the blood of Him who can save to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him. The death of Christ on the cross of Calvary is our only hope in this world, and it will be our theme in the world to come. Oh, we do not comprehend the value of the atonement! If we did, we would talk more about it. The gift of God in His beloved Son was the expression of an incomprehensible love. It was the utmost that God could do to preserve the honor of His law, and still save the transgressor. Why should man not study the theme of redemption? It is the greatest subject that can engage the human mind. If men would contemplate the love of Christ, displayed in the cross, their faith would be strengthened to appropriate the merits of His shed blood, and they would be cleansed and saved from sin (ST Dec. 30, 1889). {5BC 1132.9}

1. How secure or insecure were the angels before the fall of Satan?

2. "The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin." This goes along with the insights I shared in my last post.

The unfallen beings throughout God's far flung universe only need to understand why it will be just and holy and right for God to destroy Satan and the evil angels.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

3. "The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy." What empowered them to side with God before Satan was cast out of heaven? What empowered them to resist rebellion before Jesus suffered on the cross?

4. "The gift of God in His beloved Son was the expression of an incomprehensible love. It was the utmost that God could do to preserve the honor of His law, and still save the transgressor." Preserving the honor of His law is what enabled God to pardon and save penitent sinners. Preserving and protecting the law is at the heart of the plan of salvation. It is key and core as to why Jesus had to die.

Before the fall of Satan, there was a chance they might fall.

Let's see. Your last post:


I think you are referring to this. This may be off target. From DA 764 we read:


Notice it says "had Satan been *left* to reap the full result of his sin." The destruction comes as a result of what God *allows* to happen to Satan (hence the use of the word "left"). This interpretation also agrees with the rest of this paragraph, and the previous paragraph as well.

Had God *left* Satan to reap the full result of his sin, the angels could have doubted God, thinking that Satan's death was due to something God was doing to him, as opposed to his reaping the results of his own sin. You see, sin is lethal. The "inevitable result of sin is death," or, as the Bible puts is, "the sting of death is sin."

Their will empowered them. The reason the cross secures the angels is because it revealed the character of the principles in the controversy.

No, preserving His law "enabled" nothing. God *chose* to pardon and save penitent sinners, and in so doing *He* preserved the honor of His law.

The heart of the plan of salvation is the vindication of the character of God. God is greater than the law, and more important.

Who or what is to blame for this chance?

Was rebellion inevitable? Was it necessary? If the fall hadn't happened, would the "chance they might fall" exist forever?

There is no evidence to suggest the holy angels would have blamed God for killing Satan if He had allowed sin to kill him right away. You are drawing this conclusion yourself. Sister White doesn't say so herself.

Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

Sin does not consume sin.

It is the light of the glory of God that consumes sin; sinners are collateral damage.

TE:Their will empowered them. The reason the cross secures the angels is because it revealed the character of the principles in the controversy.

MM:So, do you agree they were secure in their ability and power to serve God, to love Him, to see the validity of His law, to understand enough not to side with Satan - and that they were able to do all these things 1) before Satan rebelled, and 2) before Jesus died on the cross? If so, what did the cross change?

TE:The heart of the plan of salvation is the vindication of the character of God. God is greater than the law, and more important.

MM:Please support this view with inspired statements. Thank you. Also, please consider the following insights. She has much to say about God vindicating His downtrodden law. It truly is one of His primary goals in the GC.

God's law is the transcript of His character.(COL 305)

Before the fall of Satan, there was a chance [holy angels] might fall.

"Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe."

The cross made them secure.

Therefore the vindication of the law of God is a vindication of His character.

Before the fall of Satan, there was a chance [holy angels] might fall.

Why?

"Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe."

MM:This doesn't say what you are saying, Tom.

T:The cross made them secure.

MM:My question is - Were they insecure before the cross?

If so, why did they side with God when Lucifer rebelled?

T:Therefore the vindication of the law of God is a vindication of His character.

M:Amen. That's why one of God's primary goals is to vindicate the law.

He cannot vindicate His character by vindicating His character.

TE: Before the fall of Satan, there was a chance [holy angels] might fall.

MM: Why?

TE: You know, don't you?

"Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe."

MM: This doesn't say what you are saying, Tom.

TE: What am I saying? (specifically that's different)

T:The cross made them secure.

MM:My question is - Were they insecure before the cross?

TE: If they were secure, then the cross could not have made them secure, right?

MM: If so, why did they side with God when Lucifer rebelled?

TE: That's what they chose to do. They were free to follow whom they wanted, just like those who decided to follow Satan. They heard the arguments of both principles, and made their decision.

T:Therefore the vindication of the law of God is a vindication of His character.

M:Amen. That's why one of God's primary goals is to vindicate the law.

TE: This is a goal because this is one of the attacks Satan has made against God's character.

MM: He cannot vindicate His character by vindicating His character.

TE: ?? The only way God could vindicate His character was by making it known. There is no other way. That vindicates it.

It has been alleged that God is selfish, arbitrary, harsh, sever, impatient, uses force to get His way, cruel, and many other negative things. In short, that He is not worthy of love, faith, and trust. God had to demonstrate His true character as well as make His adversary's character known, which was a tricky thing to do because His adversary is very intelligent and lies. In Christ, God vindicated His character.

TE: Before the fall of Satan, there was a chance [holy angels] might fall.

MM: Why?

TE: You know, don't you?

Isn't it a mystery that sinless beings chose to sin? That Lucifer rebelled is an unexplainable mystery. Why do you say there was a "chance" that unfallen beings might fall? Was it because of a design flaw?

"Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe."

MM: This doesn't say what you are saying, Tom.

TE: What am I saying? (specifically that's different)

That the unfallen angels would have assumed God, instead of sin, killed the evil angels.

T:The cross made them secure.

MM:My question is - Were they insecure before the cross?

T: If they were secure, then the cross could not have made them secure, right?

M:Not necessarily. Which is why I'm not ready to buy the idea that they were insecure before the cross. They were secure before Lucifer's rebellion. They were secure when they chose to side with God. They were secure when God chose to destroy the earth with a Flood. They were secure when God rained down fire upon Sodom. They were secure before the cross. The cross confirmed their faith - it didn't establish it.

Did the unfallen angels believe Satan's lying accusations about God?

How can you say there was a "chance" holy angels might have rebelled?

What accounts for this chance? Obviously it wasn't on account of a design flaw.

She never said the holy angels were insecure before the cross.

Did the unfallen angels believe Satan's lying accusations about God? What do you mean by some of them were "confused"?

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory.

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion.

It was a being of wonderful power and glory that had set himself against God. Of Lucifer the Lord says, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Ezek. 28:12. Lucifer had been the covering cherub. He had stood in the light of God's presence. He had been the highest of all created beings, and had been foremost in revealing God's purposes to the universe. After he had sinned, his power to deceive was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his character was the more difficult, because of the exalted position he had held with the Father.(DA 758)

God foresaw the fall of angels.

Chance had nothing to do with it.

In what sense where the angels insecure before Satan's rebellion?

Did angelic insecurities lead Satan to rebel?

What was it about God and the law that the "confused" angels were unsure about? Quotes please. Thank you.

He foresaw the possibility of it. It wasn't a certainty that it would happen (else God would be responsible for bringing about a circumstance in which sin was certain to happen, which isn't possible, since there is no explanation for sin. Certainly if God created beings certain to sin, that would be an explanation!)

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}

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.(DA 49)

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.(COL 196)

Her statement does not say, "He saw the certainty of its existence." He foresaw the possibility of its existence, not the certainty of it.

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.

He foresaw that in the hour of temptation every one of His beloved disciples would be severely tested. {DA 394.2}

Christ knew, when he permitted Judas to connect with him as one of the twelve, that Judas was possessed of the demon of selfishness. He knew that this professed disciple would betray him, and yet he did not separate him from the other disciples, and send him away. He was preparing the minds of these men for his death and ascension, and he foresaw that should he dismiss Judas, Satan would use him to spread reports that would be difficult to meet and explain. {RH, May 12, 1903 par. 13}

He foresaw that men would be engaged in every selfish work, living without fear of God, eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, when the day of final judgment was about to break. {RH, September 25, 1888 par. 4}

Even before He took humanity upon Him, He saw the whole length of the path He must travel in order to save that which was lost. Every pang that rent His heart, every insult that was heaped upon His head, every privation that He was called to endure, was open to His view before He laid aside His crown and royal robe, and stepped down from the throne, to clothe His divinity with humanity. The path from the manger to Calvary was all before His eyes. He knew the anguish that would come upon Him. He knew it all, and yet He said, "Lo, I come: in the volume of the Book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Ps. 40:7, 8. {DA 410.1}

Ever before Him He saw the result of His mission. His earthly life, so full of toil and self-sacrifice, was cheered by the prospect that He would not have all this travail for nought. ... for the joy that was set before Him, He chose to endure the cross, and despised the shame. {DA 410.2}

When Jesus revealed to His disciples the fate of Jerusalem and the scenes of the second advent, He foretold also the experience of His people from the time when He should be taken from them, to His return in power and glory for their deliverance. From Olivet the Saviour beheld the storms about to fall upon the apostolic church; and penetrating deeper into the future, His eye discerned the fierce, wasting tempests that were to beat upon His followers in the coming ages of darkness and persecution. {GC 39.1}

Christ saw how the existence of false brethren in the church would cause the way of truth to be evil spoken of. {COL 122.2}

He foresaw the time when the Lord would renew His covenant relationship with them. "Their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all." Jeremiah 31:12. {PK 408.2}

He was permitted to look down the stream of time and behold the first advent of our Saviour. ... He beheld Christ's ... rejection by a proud, unbelieving nation. Amazed he listened to their boastful exaltation of the law of God, while they despised and rejected Him by whom the law was given.... Moses beheld the final rejection of that people so highly blessed of Heaven ... He followed the Saviour to Gethsemane, and beheld the agony in the garden, the betrayal, the mockery and scourging--the crucifixion. ... He saw Him lying in Joseph's new tomb. ... And it was there revealed to him that he himself would be one who should attend the Saviour, and open to Him the everlasting gates. {PP 475-476}

The eye of Christ rested upon him, reading his character and his life history. His impulsive nature, his loving, sympathetic heart, his ambition and self-confidence, the history of his fall, his repentance, his labors, and his martyr death,--the Saviour read it all, and He said, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." {DA 139.5}

Paul foresaw that there was danger of his words being misinterpreted... {LP 83.4}

He created beings with free will, so it was possible for them to sin, and he was ready in case that happened. There are many places where she uses this kind of language. She didn't teach that sin was inevitable.

God gave His Son, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. This means there was a possibility of failure, which means the outcome was not certain.

Ever before Him He saw the result of His mission. {DA 410.2}

If one wanted to speak of the possibility of sin, the way to say it would have been, "He foresaw its possibility." To require EGW to say "the certainty of its existence" is to make her talk like she worked for the Department of Redundancy Department, and worse, it changes the object of her sentence. Most people, when they see a cat, would not say, "I saw the certainty of a cat's presence."

And a look at the preceeding sentence tells us that God knew of the fall of Satan and man from the beginning. He didn't find out about it at the end, or right after it happened. He knew from the beginning.

But let's look at God's foreknowledge in the SOP. Did God only foresee possibilities, or certainties?

He foresaw that in the hour of temptation every one of His beloved disciples would be severely tested. {DA 394.2}

No, sin was not inevitable. But God saw that it was going to happen.

Foreknowledge does not negate free will.

Sure, there was a possibility of failure.

To require EGW to say "the certainty of its existence" is to make her talk like she worked for the Department of Redundancy Department, and worse, it changes the object of her sentence. Most people, when they see a cat, would not say, "I saw the certainty of a cat's presence."

LOL ... That one was great ... made my day.

To require EGW to say "the certainty of its existence" is to make her talk like she worked for the Department of Redundancy Department, and worse, it changes the object of her sentence.

Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe.

Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them.

If a tree is cut, if a human being is wounded or breaks a bone, nature begins at once to repair the injury. Even before the need exists, the healing agencies are in readiness; and as soon as a part is wounded, every energy is bent to the work of restoration. So it is in the spiritual realm. Before sin created the need, God had provided the remedy. Every soul that yields to temptation is wounded, bruised, by the adversary; but whenever there is sin, there is the Saviour.(Ed 113)

She could have said that God foresaw that sin would certainly occur, that would have been normal English, but she never taught this.

How could God possibly have had a "struggle" if He knew from all eternity precisely what He was going to do? He was going to:

a.Have three meetings with His Son
b.On the third meeting be "convinced" after a "struggle" to go along with His Son's wishes.
c.He would have an angel explain to a prophetess that this was a "struggle."

Here's another statement to consider:


The Plan of Salvation was ready if needed, just as our bodies are ready to begin healing an injury if needed. The DA statement is expressing a similar sentiment as the Education statement.

She could have said that, and that would have been perfectly normal. But what she said was stronger. She said God saw sin's existence. She didn't even say that God saw that it will exist. He already saw its existence.

To say that she never taught it is to discount this data point. Your theory sounds nice, but fails to explain all phenomena.

How could God possibly have had a "struggle" if He knew from all eternity precisely what He was going to do? He was going to:

a.Have three meetings with His Son
b.On the third meeting be "convinced" after a "struggle" to go along with His Son's wishes.
c.He would have an angel explain to a prophetess that this was a "struggle."

You left out d.

d. The Godhead would be sundered as it has never been and never will be.

Knowing what will happen actually makes the struggle that much harder.

Of course, for sinners like us, being separated from God is no big deal. We do it all the time. But for the Father to separate from the Son was not an easy thing to do, I think.

In Gen 3:15, God said, "it shall bruise thy head." Did He mean that Jesus was certainly going to defeat Satan, or that Jesus might possibly defeat Satan? Does God know the end from the beginning, or does He only have a list of possible scenarios but no knowledge of which one will play out? IOW, does God ever say, "Whoa, I didn't think THAT was going to happen"?

And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem
and people of Judah,
judge between me
and my vineyard.
4What more was there to do for my vineyard
that I have not done in it?
When I expected it to yield grapes,
why did it yield wild grapes?
(Isaiah 5)

And I thought, After she has done all this she will return to me’; but she did not return, and her false sister Judah saw it. 8She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce; yet her false sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. 9Because she took her whoredom so lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. 10Yet for all this her false sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but only in pretence, says the Lord. (Jeremiah 3)

Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah have known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent, 5and gone on building the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as burnt-offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind;therefore the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter.(Jer. 19)

MM: God foresaw the fall of angels.

TE: He foresaw the possibility of it. It wasn't a certainty that it would happen (else God would be responsible for bringing about a circumstance in which sin was certain to happen, which isn't possible, since there is no explanation for sin. Certainly if God created beings certain to sin, that would be an explanation!)

MM: God foresaw the fall of angels. Chance had nothing to do with it.

TE: Not chance, but choice. It had to do with choice. There was beings would choose to rebel, and a chance they wouldn't. There was no reason for beings to rebel.

MM: In what sense were the angels insecure before Satan's rebellion?

TE: Read the quote cited. It explains in what sense.

MM: Did angelic insecurities lead Satan to rebel?

TE: It sounds like you're confusing "insecure" with "not being secure."

MM: What was it about God and the law that the "confused" angels were unsure about? Quotes please. Thank you.

TE: I answered this and provided the quote. I just answered this in the post right before yours!

Excuse me for jumping in here after not reading where this discussion has gone. But I do believe that we are saved by the keeping of the Law. If Jesus had not kept the law ... I would not be saved. He kept it for me so that I am not condemned by it. Only those who don't accept Him are condemned by it.

If God only foresaw the possibility of sin and rebellion happening, how is that any better than Jean Dixon seeing the possibility of something happening?

What you're saying doesn't improve God's position. If you create a nuclear bomb, knowing there is a possibility someone will use it to kill thousands of innocent people, how are you less culpable than the guy who detonates it?

Even if God foresees all of the ways things can turn out, do we really have a choice?

Are we free to choose a way God did not foresee?

If so, how can God be all knowing?

And, if God truly does know the "end from the beginning" are we free to choose a way He didn't foresee?

If so, how God can prophesy how the future will certainly play out? Or, is the outcome described in the Revelation only one possible way it might unfold? Is it possible God got it wrong in the Revelation?

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18)

M: God foresaw the fall of angels. Chance had nothing to do with it.

T: Not chance, but choice. It had to do with choice. There was beings would choose to rebel, and a chance they wouldn't. There was no reason for beings to rebel.

(New M)What you are describing involves chance. There was a chance they would choose to rebel. The fact God foresaw it happening eliminates the element of chance. He created them in spite of knowing which ones would sin and rebel; in spite of knowing Jesus would die to redeem those who chose to repent and be saved.

It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence....Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. (GC 492, 493)

MM: In what sense were the angels insecure before Satan's rebellion?

TE: Read the quote cited. It explains in what sense.

No it doesn't. It says nothing about them being created insecure. Please quote a passage which substantiates your position. Thank you.

"That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. (QOD 680)...The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven (BTS December 1, 1907)...The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb."(ST 12/30/89)

M: Did angelic insecurities lead Satan to rebel?

T: It sounds like you're confusing "insecure" with "not being secure."

(M)It sounds like you are saying angels were created insecure, that they were not secure in God or in His law.

M: What was it about God and the law that the "confused" angels were unsure about? Quotes please. Thank you.

T: I answered this and provided the quote. I just answered this in the post right before yours!

(M)What you wrote doesn't answer my question. What were the angels unsure about *before* Lucifer began to sin and rebel?

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion.

MM: If God only foresaw the possibility of sin and rebellion happening, how is that any better than Jean Dixon seeing the possibility of something happening?

TE: Jean Dixon doesn't see anything happening. God sees the totality of the future. It's the difference between infinity and 0.

MM: What you're saying doesn't improve God's position. If you create a nuclear bomb, knowing there is a possibility someone will use it to kill thousands of innocent people, how are you less culpable than the guy who detonates it?

TE: God didn't create the nuclear bomb. Satan did. Satan is the author of sin and all its results, not God.

MM: Even if God foresees all of the ways things can turn out, do we really have a choice?

TE: Why wouldn't we be? How does God's seeing what will happen affect our freedom?

If God foresaw only one thing happening, *that* would affect our freedom, because God could only foresee the possibility of exactly one thing happening if only one thing could possibly happen, and if only one thing can possibly happen, then there is only one option available. This I understand. But I don't understand how our options would be limited under the scenario of your question.

MM: Are we free to choose a way God did not foresee?

TE: Your question assumes there is something God does not foresee, which is not the case.

MM: If so, how can God be all knowing?

TE: He wouldn't be.

MM: And, if God truly does know the "end from the beginning" are we free to choose a way He didn't foresee?

TE: Your question assumes there is something God does not foresee, which is not the case.

MM: If so, how God can prophesy how the future will certainly play out? Or, is the outcome described in the Revelation only one possible way it might unfold? Is it possible God got it wrong in the Revelation?

TE: If you take the timing of an event into consideration, clearly Revelation can play out in more than one way. Indeed, Christ should have come during the 1890's, so things could have played out then. However, the general pattern was known.

It's not possible for God to "get anything wrong," but people can do what they please. Your questions sound similar to those asked in regards to prophecies of Jeremiah. God answers:



The people had been complaining that if God had prophesied against them, then there was nothing they could do about it. But God explained "if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it." So God changes His mind according to our decisions. This doesn't mean that God "got it wrong," but that His prophecies were heeded.

A perfect example of this is Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, but it wasn't. God did not "get it wrong," but the people repented, so the event prophesied did not happen.

MM: God foresaw the fall of angels. Chance had nothing to do with it.

T: Not chance, but choice. It had to do with choice. There was beings would choose to rebel, and a chance they wouldn't. There was no reason for beings to rebel.

MM: What you are describing involves chance. There was a chance they would choose to rebel. The fact God foresaw it happening eliminates the element of chance. He created them in spite of knowing which ones would sin and rebel; in spite of knowing Jesus would die to redeem those who chose to repent and be saved.

TE: I reject your hypothesis because that would make God responsible for setting into motion a course of events which could only result in sin. I don't believe God this. I believe God set into motion a course of events which could have resulted in sin or not. Under your hypothesis, sin had to occur. You say that chance is eliminated, so, under your view, God created things in such a way that sin was certain to occur. Under this scenario, God would be responsible for the existence of sin.

Also this is contrary to the following:


Certainly if God set into motion a course of events which could only result in sin, it's easy to give a reason for its presence.

MM: In what sense were the angels insecure before Satan's rebellion?

TE: Read the quote cited. It explains in what sense.

MM: No it doesn't. It says nothing about them being created insecure. Please quote a passage which substantiates your position. Thank you.


TE: Please note the underlined portion. Also please stick to what was written. For example, she did not say the angels were created insecure.

MM: Did angelic insecurities lead Satan to rebel?

TE: It sounds like you're confusing "insecure" with "not being secure."

MM: It sounds like you are saying angels were created insecure, that they were not secure in God or in His law.

TE: I was quoting the passage referenced. I disagree with your characterization of it. She is not saying the angels were created insecure. Again, it seems to me you are confusing "not being secure" with "insecure."

MM: What was it about God and the law that the "confused" angels were unsure about? Quotes please. Thank you.

TE: I answered this and provided the quote. I just answered this in the post right before yours!

MM: What you wrote doesn't answer my question. What were the angels unsure about *before* Lucifer began to sin and rebel?

TE: Here's the quote:


This is dealing with Satan's rebellion, so your question about what the angels were unsure of before the rebellion doesn't apply.

How do you know the Devil doesn't show Jean Dixon certain aspects of the future?
Is he incapable of showing her the future?

If God knows all the ways the future might play out, but doesn't know which way it will play out - what good is His knowledge?

What does it matter if God can think of more ways the future might play out than the Devil can think of - neither one of them, according to you, knows exactly how it will play out.

For example, if God can think of an infinity of ways and the Devil can only of an infinity minus a few million, in the end neither one is any better off since neither one knows how it will play out. What good does it do to know a zillion ways it didn't turn out? God is just as clueless as the Devil as to which way it will play out.

But God created Lucifer, who became Satan, the ultimate bomb.

"Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."

You seem to be using this insight to prove the angels were not secure against evil befall the fall of Satan.

In what sense do you think they were secure or not secure?

If Lucifer had not rebelled, in what sense were the angels not secure against evil?

Why weren't they secure?

lacking self-confidence or assurance

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion. (DA 758)

You have characterized sin occuring as a negative thing, like a bomb exploding. In my view, there was a small chance this negative event could occur. Under your view, it was certain. Can you explain to me how it is better to have God responsible for sin, 100% certain that this negative event would occur, as opposed to His being responsibile for His creating beings with free will who might sin?

Regarding your question if God would have been willing to create FMA's if He was certain they would rebel, I don't think this is possible. That is, FMA's have free will, which means they can choose either to sin or not sin. Why would an FMA choose to sin? I don't see how this question can be answered, even by God. Can you answer it? If there's no reason for an FMA to sin, how could God foresee that it would certainly happen?

If God foresaw the certainty of sin, that would imply a fault on His part, as well as making Him responsible for the existence of sin.

5BC 1132
The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. {5BC 1132.8}

Tom, if God can think of all the ways the future can play out, what good does it do Him since, according to the view you hold to, He doesn't know how it will play out.

And, if God's knowing all the ways the future can play out doesn't rob FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please, why would it be any different if He knew which way the future will play out?

Knowing all the ways limits the choices available to FMAs.

Thus, they are not truly free to choose a way God has not thought of, right?

Regarding your question if God would have been willing to create FMA's if He was certain they would rebel, I don't think this is possible. That is, FMA's have free will, which means they can choose either to sin or not sin. Why would an FMA choose to sin? I don't see how this question can be answered, even by God. Can you answer it? If there's no reason for an FMA to sin, how could God foresee that it would certainly happen?

Back at you. How could God foresee that it might happen, that there was a "small chance" it might happen?

(T)If God foresaw the certainty of sin, that would imply a fault on His part, as well as making Him responsible for the existence of sin.

(M)This applies with more force to the view you espouse.

God gambled that FMAs wouldn't rebel. He created them hoping they wouldn't rebel. He gambled and lost. Gambling is a sin. Sin, sinners, and rebellion exist because God gambled and lost. According to the view you believe in, God is guilty of gambling and losing, guilty of doing the very thing that resulted in the emergence of sin, sinners, rebellion, and death.

Tom, is your reason for going with an open view that you cant understand why God would have created a being like Lucifer that He knew would certainly sin?

If God really did know the future yet that knowledge isnt causative then wouldnt He have to still create those beings or risk true free will?

If God decided not to make a creature because He knew it would end up sinning then thats not real free will, is it?

And why does this knowledge have to be causative anyway?

Isnt that assuming a God that is limited to our view of time?

I don't see how knowledge could be causative. That makes no sense to me.

The problem with God foreseeing one option is that this means they only have one option.

(A)I think this is one way to express that God's knowledge is causative:

(T)The problem with God foreseeing one option is that this means they only have one option.

No, Arnold, that's not cause. That A implies B does not mean that A causes B.

If I say, "The problem with God foreseeing one option is that this means they only have one option" what I would mean by that is A causes B, resulting in a loss of free will.

"God foreseeing one option taken means they only choose one option" is how I would say A implies B, removing the causal relationship between God's knowledge and the person's choice.

The availability of multiple options preserves free will, while God's foreknowledge lets Him know which option will be taken.

There aren't really multiple options in this case, just apparently multiple options. An ignorant being would *think* that there are multiple options, but an all-knowing being would know there is only one. Saying the all-knowing being knows which option will be chosen is simply another way of stating this. There are only multiple options in reality if there is some probability greater than 0 that some other option will be chosen.

What you just said there is just another way of saying "knowledge is causative."

There aren't really multiple options in this case, just apparently multiple options. An ignorant being would *think* that there are multiple options, but an all-knowing being would know there is only one. Saying the all-knowing being knows which option will be chosen is simply another way of stating this. There are only multiple options in reality if there is some probability greater than 0 that some other option will be chosen.

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

Had the purpose of God been carried out by his people in giving the message of mercy to the world, Christ would have come to the earth, and the saints would,ere this, have received their welcome into the city of God. (GCB 4/4/01)

If you're asking if Jesus Christ could have failed, the answer is yes

I'm not talking about Jesus' coming, and neither was Genesis 3. God said, "He will bruise your head." That's not just Jesus coming; that's Jesus defeating Satan.

God didn't say it was possible, or that it was probable; He said it was going to happen. Don't you agree?

The only possible other option is that Jesus was going to fail, as this is totally binary. Succeed or fail; there is no other option.

But you point out that the SOP says that there was a possibility of failure. We can agree there.

Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. 11Now, therefore, say to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus says the Lord: Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.(Jer. 18)

The problem this causes is for your position that God's knowing a certain outcome eliminates all other possibilities but one. But here we see 1) God says Satan will be defeated, and 2) the SOP reveals that failure was a possible outcome. Therefore, if we accept that God is right and the SOP is right, that means that God's foreknowledge of a particular outcome does not mean that there is only one possibility.

In case I was too confusing last time, consider this.

1) We agree that the SOP says Jesus could have failed.
2) We agree that God said Jesus "shall bruise [Satan's] head."

Here's my question to you: Did God know, in Eden, that Jesus would succeed? (And when I say "know" I mean knowing for a certainty, not just knowing possibilities or probabilities.)

Just because Christ could have failed doesn't mean that God didn't know that He wouldn't fail.

Thats implying foreknowledge is causative.

Your saying if God knows for certain what will happen then nothing else can happen except that. But that is affirming the consequent.

God knew Christ could fail and that Christ could succeed. The SOP statement makes that clear. If God knew that Christ could fail, He couldn't have known as a certainty that Christ would succeed.

The sentence pronounced on Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15), was to our first parents a promise of the redemption to be wrought out through Christ. {AA 222.1}

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." This declaration contained the first gospel promise to man. {Con 18.3}

The Lord declared, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Genesis 3:15. This sentence, uttered in the hearing of our first parents, was to them a promise. While it foretold war between man and Satan, it declared that the power of the great adversary would finally be broken. ... Though they must suffer from the power of their mighty foe, they could look forward to final victory. {PP 65.4}

The message proclaimed by the angel flying in the midst of heaven is the everlasting gospel, the same gospel that was declared in Eden when God said to the serpent, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15). Here was the first promise of a Saviour who would stand on the field of battle to contest the power of Satan and prevail against him. {2SM 106.2}

When Christ hung in agony upon the cross, while evil spirits rejoiced and evil men reviled, then indeed His heel was bruised by Satan. But that very act was crushing the serpent's head. Through death He destroyed "him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Hebrews 2:14. This act decided the destiny of the rebel chief, and made forever sure the plan of salvation. In death He gained the victory over its power; in rising again, He opened the gates of the grave to all His followers. In that last great contest we see fulfilled the prophecy, "It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." Genesis 3:15. {PK 701.3}

Is the future open, or fixed? That's the real question.

Is the future open, or fixed? That's the real question.

Is the future open, or fixed? That's the real question.

My answer is that the future is open, with many possibilities, but God knows exactly how each worm will crawl out.

I think there's something else to consider: Does every moral decision have a cause, or are some of them arbitrary and random? If there's always a cause, does God have the resources to link all the causes with their effects?

You articulate an interesting understanding of Genesis 3:15. When God said, "He shall bruise your head" to Satan, you believe God was saying, "Christ could succeed"? Are you saying that Jesus bruising Satan's head wasn't a certainty?

(I)nto the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. (DA 49)

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131)

Look upon the Saviour uplifted on the cross. Hear that despairing cry, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Mark 15:34. Look upon the wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet. Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.(COL 196)

possibility of loss or injury

Obviously if Christ could fail it wasn't a certainty.

If by "how each worm will crawl out" you mean what the result of any given choice would be is, I agree. I would change the "but" to "and."

The idea that every choice has a cause is one of the tenants of Calvinism. The idea is if we just knew more, say as much as God did, we would know exactly what each person will do.

But the will is truly free. Choices are not pre-determined.

Whether or not it is Calvinism has no impact as far as I'm concerned.

Do I understand you correctly that you believe some moral decisions have no cause, and are just arbitrary and random?

IOW, when Person A is given a choice between two options with moral impact, it is possible that God's knowledge of that person's character will not give Him enough insight to know which way he will choose?

T:But the will is truly free. Choices are not pre-determined.

A:Foreknowledge <> pre-determined.

If my son was given a choice between riding his scooter and putting a stick in his eye, I know which he will choose without pre-determining his choice or restricting his will. It's all about how well I know my son.

God knows His children.

The idea is if we just knew more, say as much as God did, we would know exactly what each person will do.

T:Obviously if Christ could fail it wasn't a certainty.

A:It is neither obvious nor true. Anyway, that's my belief.

But let's say that your premise is true. That means that when God promised, "He shall bruise your head," Adam couldn't be 100% sure that God was going to be able to pull it off. It seems that's what you believe. Am I right?

What I mean is that God knows which option will be chosen among the infinite possibilities. Do you agree with that?

I don't see the difficult in understanding this quote. I'm not saying anything different than the quote is saying. The quote says, "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan." This is all I'm saying. Nothing different than this.

If without the cross the angels would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the cross it must follow that they became more secure after the cross than they were before. Wouldn't you agree that this is a sound application of logic?

MM: Tom, if God can think of all the ways the future can play out, what good does it do Him since, according to the view you hold to, He doesn't know how it will play out.

TE: God simply knows the future as it is. It's not a matter of doing Him good. He knows reality as it is, not as it isn't. According to your view, there's only one thing that can happen in the future, which is that which God sees will happen. You don't see a problem with this?

MM: And, if God's knowing all the ways the future can play out doesn't rob FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please, why would it be any different if He knew which way the future will play out?

TE: Because what robs an FMA of their ability to choose is the number of options they have, not what God foresees. The problem with God foreseeing one option is that this means they only have one option. It's the one option that is the problem, not the foreseeing of it.

MM: Knowing all the ways limits the choices available to FMAs.

TE: No, this is wrong. It doesn't.

MM: How so? They are not truly free to choose a way God has not thought of, right?

TE: No. God foresees every possible option. The only limitation is that which is possible. You could say that they are "limited" to only choosing possible options. That is, they cannot choose impossible options. But that's not limiting, is it? For example, God has foreseen that you cannot sprout wings like a bird and fly to the moon. Has your freedom to do so been limited because God has foreseen this?

TE: Regarding your question if God would have been willing to create FMA's if He was certain they would rebel, I don't think this is possible. That is, FMA's have free will, which means they can choose either to sin or not sin. Why would an FMA choose to sin? I don't see how this question can be answered, even by God. Can you answer it? If there's no reason for an FMA to sin, how could God foresee that it would certainly happen?

MM: Back at you. How could God foresee that it might happen, that there was a "small chance" it might happen?

TE: Foreseeing that it might happen is a much different thing than foreseeing it would certainly happen. God created beings that could love and be loved, and doing so means they had to have free will, which means they might choose not to love. Love always has this risk.

TE: Now assuming that God knew for certain that sin would occur if He created Lucifer, why did He do so?

TE: If God foresaw the certainty of sin, that would imply a fault on His part, as well as making Him responsible for the existence of sin.

MM: This applies with more force to the view you espouse.

TE: Not if one understands the nature of free will.

MM: God gambled that FMAs wouldn't rebel. He created them hoping they wouldn't rebel. He gambled and lost. Gambling is a sin. Sin, sinners, and rebellion exist because God gambled and lost. According to the view you believe in, God is guilty of gambling and losing, guilty of doing the very thing that resulted in the emergence of sin, sinners, rebellion, and death.

TE: MM, have you ever loved someone and not had that person return your love? Wouldn't it be absurd of me to accuse you of gambling and sinning because you loved someone who chose not to love you back?

Knowing how the future will certainly play out doesn’t prevent God from knowing all the ways it could have turned out.

The view I hold includes all of the above, whereas the view you hold does not include God knowing how the future will certainly play out. I see that as a problem for God. God’s reality, according to the view you are advocating, involves Him not knowing how the future will certainly play out, which means as He looks ahead He sees numerous possibilities but no certainties.

Again, God foresees all the options. It’s just that He also happens to know which option will play out.

None of the aspects of God’s knowledge or foreknowledge robs FMAs of their ability or freedom to choose as they please.

MM: Knowing all the ways limits the choices available to FMAs.

TE: No, this is wrong. It doesn't.

MM: How so? They are not truly free to choose a way God has not thought of, right?

TE: No. God foresees every possible option. The only limitation is that which is possible. You could say that they are "limited" to only choosing possible options. That is, they cannot choose impossible options. But that's not limiting, is it? For example, God has foreseen that you cannot sprout wings like a bird and fly to the moon. Has your freedom to do so been limited because God has foreseen this?

T: Foreseeing that it might happen is a much different thing than foreseeing it would certainly happen. God created beings that could love and be loved, and doing so means they had to have free will, which means they might choose not to love. Love always has this risk.

M:You are misstating the view I have been sharing. God doesn’t foresee what “might” happen; instead, He reports what did happen.

T: MM, have you ever loved someone and not had that person return your love? Wouldn't it be absurd of me to accuse you of gambling and sinning because you loved someone who chose not to love you back?

M:Not if it wasn’t a gamble. If I knew they would certainly not love me in return it would break my heart but it wouldn’t prevent me from loving them. God is not the gambler your view makes Him out to be. Gambling is a sin.

T:I don't see the difficult in understanding this quote. I'm not saying anything different than the quote is saying. The quote says, "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan." This is all I'm saying. Nothing different than this.

If without the cross the angels would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the cross it must follow that they became more secure after the cross than they were before. Wouldn't you agree that this is a sound application of logic?

M:I'm not disputing her statement or your logic. I'm trying to understand it. "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."

You seem to be saying this quote teaches angels were not secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled. If this is what you believe the quote means, why, then, did two-thirds of the angels choose not to rebel?

What enabled them to side with God, to resist rebelling, to remain loyal, submissive, and obedient? What safeguarded them against falling with Lucifer?

In what sense are they more secure against evil than they were before Jesus died on the cross? Were they at risk of falling after Satan rebelled and before Jesus died? I'm talking about the loyal angels.

MM: I'm not disputing her statement or your logic. I'm trying to understand it. "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."

TE: EGW says that without the cross the angels were no more secure than the angels were before Satan began his rebellion. Let's first establish that we agree on what the quote is saying. You also agree with my conclusion, since you say you are not disputing my logic, that "they became more secure after the cross than they were before." Assuming we're in agreement to this point, we can go on to discuss the other things you are asking about.

Tom, I believe for God the future is like watching a rerun.

He knows the “end” from the beginning. In other words, our future is history from God’s timeless, eternal perspective.

Our rules of time do not apply to our timeless God.

God doesn’t guess what might happen in the future; instead, He reports what did happen.

Such journalism in no way robs FMAs of their ability and freedom to choose as they please.

God foresees all the options.

It’s just that He also happens to know which option will play out.

None of the aspects of God’s knowledge or foreknowledge robs FMAs of their ability or freedom to choose as they please.

They are free to choose and God is free to report 1) the choice they made, 2) the immediate outcome of their choice, and 3) the ripple effect of said outcome to the end of time.

Let’s say the legitimate options are 10. We both agree God knows they will choose one of those options. They are not free to choose an option not listed. Such freedom is impossible.

The same things could be said if the list contained 2 options. But what if the legitimate options were 1? Are people still free since God knows exactly how they will choose?

You wrote, "Now assuming that God knew for certain that sin would occur if He created Lucifer, why did He do so?" My answer is, for the same reason He created A&E in spite of knowing they were going to sin. “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.” {AG 129.2}

God didn’t create FMAs “hoping”, as you seem to believe, they wouldn’t sin. He knew it would happen, and He knew precisely which ones would sin and die in the lake of fire, and which ones would sin and be saved from dying in the lake of fire.

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss.(DA 131)

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. (COL 196)

His options were limited to two: 1) create FMAs and deal with the sin problem, and 2) not to create them. He willingly chose the first option.

You should say, "the option". There's only one option to things that "did happen." Also "foresees" doesn't fit with "did happen." You wrote above, "He reports what did happen." You're not being consistent with your verb usage here. "Reports" works with "did happen," but "foresees" doesn't.

If it's a choice "they made" then it's not something they can change. This is a problem with free will, because free will implies more than one choice can be made.

MM: Let’s say the legitimate options are 10. We both agree God knows they will choose one of those options. They are not free to choose an option not listed. Such freedom is impossible. The same things could be said if the list contained 2 options. But what if the legitimate options were 1? Are people still free since God knows exactly how they will choose?

TE: Your use of the words "free" and "choose" and "option" and "freedom" is out of place here. "Legitimate" is also a poor choice of words. This isn't an issue of freedom. Here's an example. It's not possible for you to sprout wings and fly. Nor can you be a hippopotamus. This isn't an issue of freedom. The fact that God sees only one option on the list (MM = human being) is irrelevant to our discussion.

Why would God prefer to create a universe with sin to one without?

"Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled." If God simply "reports" on what already "did happen," then He would not have reported that heaven was "imperiled." That makes no sense.

MM: I'm not disputing her statement or your logic. I'm trying to understand it. "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."

TE: EGW says that without the cross the angels were no more secure than the angels were before Satan began his rebellion. Let's first establish that we agree on what the quote is saying. You also agree with my conclusion, since you say you are not disputing my logic, that "they became more secure after the cross than they were before." Assuming we're in agreement to this point, we can go on to discuss the other things you are asking about.

MM: I'm not disputing her statement or your logic. I'm trying to understand it. "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."

TE: EGW says that without the cross the angels were no more secure than the angels were before Satan began his rebellion. Let's first establish that we agree on what the quote is saying. You also agree with my conclusion, since you say you are not disputing my logic, that "they became more secure after the cross than they were before." Assuming we're in agreement to this point, we can go on to discuss the other things you are asking about.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. It seems logical to say the angels are more secure against evil than they were before Lucifer rebelled because of what they witnessed at the cross.

Are you ready to explore my questions?

1. Were angels secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled? If not, why not?

2. Were angels secure against evil after Lucifer rebelled? If not, why not?

3. Were angels secure against evil before Jesus died on the cross? If not, why not?

4. Are angels more secure against evil this side of Jesus' death and resurrection? If so, why?

5. Was the manifestation of evil necessary to secure the angels against evil? If so, why? If not, why not?

Free will does not empower people to change the choices they have already made. People are free to choose from a list of legitimate options, but once their choice is made they are not free to turn back time and choose a different option. God's timelessness has no bearing on people living in time. Our time is unaffected by God's timelessness. Time ticks on unmindful of man or God.

Tom, the angels who lived prior to Lucifer's rebellion were as acquainted with God's love and glory as FMAs could be.

So much so that there was nothing else God could do to recommend His love once they decided to rebel. What Jesus demonstrated on the cross would not have prevented the angels from rebelling if it had been revealed to them before they rebelled. Otherwise, God certainly would have revealed it in an attempt to circumvent rebellion. The fact it wasn't revealed beforehand is evidence of this conclusion.

Since it would not have prevented angels from rebelling, why do you think it makes the loyal angels more secure against rebelling?

Again, the love of God was more than sufficient to motivate and empower the loyal angels to side with Jesus, to not side with Satan and rebel against God. The fact they didn't side with Satan is evidence of this conclusion.

Since there was nothing more God do that He hadn't already done to recommend His love to the angels it means there was nothing more God could do. The cross did not, therefore, add something that wasn't already well known to the angels.

If God had withheld some revelation of Himself that could have prevented angels from rebelling then God is guilty of a grievous sin, a serious sin of omission.

"Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him." {DA 761.5}

"That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. (QOD 680)...The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven (BTS December 1, 1907)...The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb." (The Signs of the Times, December 30, 1889)

It was in order that the heavenly universe might see the conditions of the covenant of redemption that Christ bore the penalty in behalf of the human race. The throne of Justice must be eternally and forever made secure, even tho the race be wiped out, and another creation populate the earth. By the sacrifice Christ was about to make, all doubts would be forever settled, and the human race would be saved if they would return to their allegiance. Christ alone could restore honor to God’s government. The cross of Calvary would be looked upon by the unfallen worlds, by the heavenly universe, by Satanic agencies, by the fallen race, and every mouth would be stopped....Who is able to describe the last scenes of Christ’s life on earth, His trial in the judgment hall, His crucifixion? Who witnessed these scenes?–The heavenly universe, God the Father, Satan and his angels." (The Signs of the Times, July 12, 1899)

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished....Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion." (The Desire of Ages 758)

Even God cannot alter the past.

That is, the fact that the angels knew all that could be known about God at one point of time does not mean they knew all that could be known about God at any point of time.

However, the fact that it could not have saved them at the time of Satan's rebellion does not imply it could not secure them later.

T:Even God cannot alter the past.

M:How do you know He hasn't? God is timeless and not bound by our time and space constraints.

T:That is, the fact that the angels knew all that could be known about God at one point of time does not mean they knew all that could be known about God at any point of time.

M:This begs the question - If angels knew what they know about God now would they have chosen not to rebel?

Is it a fact it could not have prevented them from rebelling?

What prevented the loyal angels from rebelling?

Why wasn't the same thing sufficient to empower the evil angels from falling?

Why didn't the loyal angels decide to rebel during the time between the fall of the evil angels and before Jesus died on the cross?

Why were the loyal angels ready to destroy the evil angels before Jesus died on the cross?

TE: You think God has altered the past?

MM: The past according to who?

TE: Are you asking if the rebel angels knew about God what they know about him now if they would have rebelled? If that's you question, yes, they would have rebelled.

MM: How do you know?

T: They weren't prevented from rebelling.

MM: What motivated them not to rebel?

TE: Why would they?

MM: Because they were no more secure against evil than the angels before the fall.

MM: If they were ready to destroy the evil angels before Jesus died on the cross it leads me to wonder how long ago were they ready to do it? I've gotten the impression from you that if the evil angels had died before the cross the holy angels would have feared God and would have eventually rebelled against Him.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

M:But in the following quote she makes it clear the holy angels were ready to destroy the world even before Jesus' incarnation:

Before Christ's first advent, the sin of refusing to conform to God's law had become widespread. Apparently Satan's power was growing; his warfare against heaven was becoming more and more determined. A crisis had been reached. With an intense interest God's movements were watched by the heavenly angels. Would He come forth from His place to punish the inhabitants of the world for their iniquity? Would He send fire or flood to destroy them? All heaven waited the bidding of their Commander to pour out the vials of wrath upon a rebellious world. One word from Him, one sign, and the world would have been destroyed. The worlds unfallen would have said, "Amen. Thou art righteous, O God, because Thou hast exterminated rebellion." {RC 58.4}

MM: In what way does Einstein's past and God's past differ?

Does Einstein "inhabit eternity" the same as God?

What is the "past" like for a Being who is timeless and eternal?

TE: Because they don't know God in a salvific sense. It is not mental knowledge that saves.

MM: Did they learn anything about God they didn't know before they rebelled? If so, what? Please explain.

Also, did the holy angels learn anything about God they didn't know before they choose to side with God when the other angels rebelled?

Did the holy angels acquire salvific knowledge of God when Jesus died on the cross? If so, please explain what you mean.

MM: Also, did the holy angels learn anything about God they didn't know before they choose to side with God when the other angels rebelled?

TE: Yes. The chapter "It Is Finished" discusses this, to name one spot.

MM: Does Einstein "inhabit eternity" the same as God?

TE: Does being eternal change the past?

MM: What is the "past" like for a Being who is timeless and eternal?

TE: How would a finite being be able to answer the question of what anything is like to God?

You seem to think God cannot know the future with certainty.

Why not?

He is, after all, timeless.

Do you agree God "inhabits eternity", that He lives outside of our time and space continuum, that He is in our past, present, and future simultaneously, that He is in our future looking back at our future in the way we look back on our history?

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18)

God always knew that Im about to right this and His knowledge is dependant on my writing this.

This has nothing to do with His knowledge causing me to write this. I think your having a time issue with this.

We will never understand how He does it any more then we will understand the Trinity or how He has no beginning. I dont think that God foresaw that only one option was available on whether I would write this. He saw that many options were available including writing it or not yet He still knew which option I would choose. Otherwise we have selective determinism

in cases where God decides to make things happen like Peter denying Christ or Josiah being named Josiah. What your doing when you say things like "If God foresees that only one option is available, then only one option is available, because God foresees things as they really are." Is like me saying God foresees that Aaron has free will (many options) and God foresees what choices Aaron will make" I dont think we can use human logic in this case because God isnt human and isnt restricted to our time.

Do you believe that once He created time that He was then restricted to it? Somehow God perfectly foreknows the significantly free choices of us all. And since "God foresees things as they really are" then my premise must be correct.

Also how do we know there is NOT a probability greater than 0 that some other option will be chosen?

Prove that God's foreknowledge means that there is no other option available for the person making the decision.

All we can go on is revelation. And it seems to me that the Bible tells us that we have free will and that God does know the future.

by Tom: He does know the future, but not as determined. Because revelation teaches us God knows the future does not mean the future must be determined. God could know it as undetermined, or, more accurately stated, partially determined. In fact, we know this to be the case but revelation.

To name just one, from the SOP, it has been revealed that heaven was imperiled for our redemption. If God had always known from eternity that heaven would never be in any danger, then her statement is false.

Does He know what He, himself, is going to do before He does it? Does He even make choices or are they also fixed in eternity?

Now here's a question. What's the probability you would write something? 100%, right? How do we know that? Because that you would write, even what you would write, has been written down in a book. If you didn't write, then an angel would have to erase what he wrote, which would mean that God had been wrong in His knowledge. But that's impossible! God's knowledge is perfect. Therefore if God knows you will write, then it is 100% you will write."

You're just assuming your premise, and then asserting it "must" be correct, because your assuming it's true.

I am free to write or not to write.

The angel wouldnt have had to go and erase what I wrote because if I had not wrote it then the book would have said that.

I think God gets His information from our future free decisions. Its not that He would have been wrong if I decided to do something different but that He knows what I was actually going to do.

His knowledge is descriptive instead of prescriptive like your trying to make it.

I dont understand how you can say its not an issue of causation.

It is an issue of time and how God interacts within our time/space.

It seems that is what your saying to me, that Gods knowledge of it means you can only do that.. What if His knowledge has nothing to do with what you were going to do.

What if He just innately knows it because He is God? Somehow He transcends time to know the future without actually effecting it(causatively or otherwise)

I believe Christ could have failed.

A:But let's say that your premise is true. That means that when God promised, "He shall bruise your head," Adam couldn't be 100% sure that God was going to be able to pull it off. It seems that's what you believe. Am I right?

T:I believe Christ could have failed.

A:I understand that. What I want to see is if you are willing to put your premises together and take them to the logical conclusion.

When God promised, "He shall bruise your head," could Adam take that as a 100% certainty? Yes or no?

MM: Also, did the holy angels learn anything about God they didn't know before they choose to side with God when the other angels rebelled?

TE: Yes. The chapter "It Is Finished" discusses this, to name one spot.

MM: What in particular do you have in mind?

TE: Much of the chapter deals with what the angels learned. Over half of it.

MM: You seem to think God cannot know the future with certainty.

TE: I disagree with this statement. At least, it's not accurate, in terms of what I believe. Here's what I believe.

1.The future is not fixed but open.
2.God knows and perceived the future as not fixed by open.

IOW, the future is not the same as the past, even for God. They are fundamentally different in nature. What's the difference? The past consists of events which are fixed and unalterable, things which have already happened. The future consists of things yet to happen, which have not happened yet, which are not fixed. These are different for God as well as for us.

What's the difference between God and us regarding the future? The difference is that God sees the future perfectly, including all of it's possibilities. Everything that can happen God sees.

That God is not limited by time must be true since God created it. However, that does not imply that God does not experience time, or that God does not exist in time. All of Scripture denies the idea you are expressing. There are thousands upon thousands of expressions where God communicates to us as a Being who experiences things in time, as we do.

IOW, the future is not the same as the past, even for God. They are fundamentally different in nature. What's the difference? The past consists of events which are fixed and unalterable, things which have already happened. The future consists of things yet to happen, which have not happened yet, which are not fixed. These are different for God as well as for us

To Abraham God made a similar promise, the same actually, and swore by Himself that the promise would come true. So yes, Adam could take it as a certainty.

If Christ had failed, the repercussions would have been great indeed.

The holy inhabitants of other worlds were watching with the deepest interest the events taking place on the earth. In the condition of the world that existed before the Flood they saw illustrated the results of the administration which Lucifer had endeavored to establish in heaven, in rejecting the authority of Christ and casting aside the law of God. . . It was an example of the awful depravity resulting from Satan's policy to remove from God's creatures the restraint of His holy law. {PP 78.4}

God carries with Him the sympathy and approval of the whole universe as step by step His great plan advances to its complete fulfillment. He will carry it with Him in the final eradication of rebellion. It will be seen that all who have forsaken the divine precepts have placed themselves on the side of Satan, in warfare against Christ. When the prince of this world shall be judged, and all who have united with him shall share his fate, the whole universe as witnesses to the sentence will declare, "Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints." Revelation 15:3. {PP 79.1}

The whole universe had been witness to the scenes at Sinai. In the working out of the two administrations was seen the contrast between the government of God and that of Satan. Again the sinless inhabitants of other worlds beheld the results of Satan's apostasy, and the kind of government he would have established in heaven had he been permitted to bear sway. {PP 335.3}

This work [the plan of salvation] of Christ was to confirm the beings of other worlds in their innocency and loyalty, as well as to save the lost and perishing of this world. He opened a way for the disobedient to return to their allegiance to God, while by the same act He placed a safeguard around those who were already pure, that they might not become polluted. {MYP 253.3}

While we rejoice that there are worlds which have never fallen, these worlds render praise and honor and glory to Jesus Christ for the plan of redemption to save the fallen sons of Adam, as well as to confirm themselves in their position and character of purity. . . Christ is mediating in behalf of man, and the order of unseen worlds also is preserved by His mediatorial work. {MYP 254.1}

To the very close of the controversy in heaven the great usurper continued to justify himself. When it was announced that with all his sympathizers he must be expelled from the abodes of bliss, then the rebel leader boldly avowed his contempt for the Creator's law. He reiterated his claim that angels needed no control, but should be left to follow their own will, which would ever guide them right. He denounced the divine statutes as a restriction of their liberty and declared that it was his purpose to secure the abolition of law; that, freed from this restraint, the hosts of heaven might enter upon a more exalted, more glorious state of existence. {GC 499.2}

MM: Also, did the holy angels learn anything about God they didn't know before they choose to side with God when the other angels rebelled?

TE: Yes. The chapter "It Is Finished" discusses this, to name one spot.

MM: What in particular do you have in mind?

TE: Much of the chapter deals with what the angels learned. Over half of it.

MM: You seem to think God cannot know the future with certainty.

TE: I disagree with this statement. At least, it's not accurate, in terms of what I believe. Here's what I believe.

1.The future is not fixed but open.
2.God knows and perceived the future as not fixed by open.

IOW, the future is not the same as the past, even for God. They are fundamentally different in nature. What's the difference? The past consists of events which are fixed and unalterable, things which have already happened. The future consists of things yet to happen, which have not happened yet, which are not fixed. These are different for God as well as for us.

What's the difference between God and us regarding the future? The difference is that God sees the future perfectly, including all of it's possibilities. Everything that can happen God sees.

That God is not limited by time must be true since God created it. However, that does not imply that God does not experience time, or that God does not exist in time. All of Scripture denies the idea you are expressing. There are thousands upon thousands of expressions where God communicates to us as a Being who experiences things in time, as we do.

Tom, if A&E had successfully withstood Satan’s assault, Jesus would not have needed to die to redeem us. Without the death of Jesus, upon what grounds would God have destroyed the evil angels?

And, what about the unfallen beings? What would have made them more secure against evil than they were before Lucifer rebelled?

If you're asking if Christ could have failed, the answer is "yes," He could have failed.

If Christ could have failed, then God must have known that, right? So God knew that Christ might fail.

So if "did God mean that as a 100% certainty" means "God meant it was 100% certain that Christ would succeed," that would have to be false, right?

Satan, the chief of the fallen angels, once had an exalted position in heaven. He was next in honor to Christ. The knowledge which he, as well as the angels who fell with him, had of the character of God, of His goodness, His mercy, wisdom, and excellent glory, made their guilt unpardonable. {4BC 1163.2}

There was no possible hope for the redemption of those who had witnessed and enjoyed the inexpressible glory of heaven, and had seen the terrible majesty of God, and, in presence of all this glory, had rebelled against Him. There were no new and wonderful exhibitions of God's exalted power that could impress them so deeply as those they had already experienced. If they could rebel in the very presence of glory inexpressible, they could not be placed in a more favorable condition to be proved. There was no reserve force of power, nor were there any greater heights and depths of infinite glory to overpower their jealous doubts and rebellious murmuring. {4BC 1163.3}

I'd never thought of that. Good point.

Thank you. It came to me in the middle of night last night. I had to write down before I could get back to sleep. Do you have any answers?

T:So if "did God mean that as a 100% certainty" means "God meant it was 100% certain that Christ would succeed," that would have to be false, right?

A:That conclusion requires some unspoken premises added to the ones above, which I don't want to address this time around.

Anyway, do I understand your position correctly, that when God said, "He shall bruise your head," God wasn't 100% sure that was actually going to happen?

Tom, if A&E had successfully withstood Satan’s assault, Jesus would not have needed to die to redeem us. Without the death of Jesus, upon what grounds would God have destroyed the evil angels?

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God...Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.(DA 764)

And, what about the unfallen beings? What would have made them more secure against evil than they were before Lucifer rebelled?

In the following passages Ellen makes it clear unfallen beings were solidly on God's side way before the death of Jesus on the cross. His death "confirmed" their loyalty and allegiance - it did not establish it. Also, they were ready for the evil angels to die way before Jesus died on the cross. His death "confirmed" their readiness - it did not establish it. His death did not remove doubt - it "confirmed" their faith.

"That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. (QOD 680)...The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. (ST 12/30/89)

Okay. But what part of it explains what the holy angels learned about God that they didn't know before they choose to side with God when the other angels rebelled?

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion.

Heaven viewed with grief and amazement Christ hanging upon the cross, blood flowing from His wounded temples, and sweat tinged with blood standing upon His brow. From His hands and feet the blood fell, drop by drop, upon the rock drilled for the foot of the cross.

MM: You seem to think God cannot know the future with certainty.

TE: I disagree with this statement. At least, it's not accurate, in terms of what I believe. Here's what I believe.

1.The future is not fixed but open.
2.God knows and perceived the future as not fixed by open.

MM:Does this mean God knows in advance with certainty which of all the options will play out in the future?

Or, does it mean God cannot know in advance with certainty which of all the options will play out in the future?

T:IOW, the future is not the same as the past, even for God. They are fundamentally different in nature. What's the difference? The past consists of events which are fixed and unalterable, things which have already happened. The future consists of things yet to happen, which have not happened yet, which are not fixed. These are different for God as well as for us.

MM:I appreciate you explaining what you believe. I wasn’t aware you believe this way until just now.

T:What's the difference between God and us regarding the future? The difference is that God sees the future perfectly, including all of it's possibilities. Everything that can happen God sees.

MM:What good does it do God to know all the possible ways the future can play out? In what way in this knowledge useful to God, or to anyone else?

T:That God is not limited by time must be true since God created it. However, that does not imply that God does not experience time, or that God does not exist in time. All of Scripture denies the idea you are expressing. There are thousands upon thousands of expressions where God communicates to us as a Being who experiences things in time, as we do.

M:You say God is not limited by time, but what do you mean?

What you wrote above about God and time makes it sound like He is no different than us, that He is limited in the same way we are.

That we die the first death is irrelevant.

Also, the view I have been sharing does not limit God’s ability to relate to us within our time and space constraints. Why would it? And, why wouldn’t He?

Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.(Jer. 18)

And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem
and people of Judah,
judge between me
and my vineyard.
4What more was there to do for my vineyard
that I have not done in it?
When I expected it to yield grapes,
why did it yield wild grapes?

(Isa. 5)

7And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me’; but she did not return (Jer. 3)

8‘If they will not believe you or heed the first sign, they may believe the second sign. (Ex. 4)

This is where I disagree. You are limiting God when we have no way of knowing that the future for God is like it is for us.

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.(COL 196)

There is no way to know that God does not know how the details will play out.

Or that the future IS the same for Him as it is for us.

Considering He made time and space it doesnt seem He would be restricted by it yet at the same time clearly He does enter it for us in acts of providence. By allowing us our free will there is an intercomplexity of all of our free wills and His free will working together in such a way that His purposes will work out for good. Again the emotions are real even though He already knew how it would play out. Its similiar to knowing your parents will die of old age before they get to be 115 but still being sad when it happens.

Why are you sad, you always knew they would die?

Also God could know for sure that Jesus would not fail and therefore make the promise in Gen yet the risk of failure would still be real because that knowledge in no way caused the success.

Perhaps the unspoken premises are necessary to address to adequately answer your question.

We're agreeing that Christ could have failed, right?. We also agree that God knew this was the case, right?. Therefore God knew it wasn't 100% certain that Christ would succeed, since if that's what the word "risk" means, right?

(Please pardon the repeated "right?" I'm including them to try to pin down what it is you are disagreeing with. It seems to me these points all follow one right after the other).

Or, to put it another way, please explain to me how both of the following can be true:

1.God knew with certainty Christ would not fail.
2.Christ failed.

T:So if "did God mean that as a 100% certainty" means "God meant it was 100% certain that Christ would succeed," that would have to be false, right?

A:That conclusion requires some unspoken premises added to the ones above, which I don't want to address this time around.

Perhaps the unspoken premises are necessary to address to adequately answer your question.

I'm sure we will eventually need to hash out every premise. But my question for now is purely on your conclusion, not the premises or the logic behind it. In short, I only want to confirm that I understand what you arrived at, not how you arrived at it.

We seem to differ on the relationship between what can happen and what will happen. In my view, the existence of multiple options that can happen does not eliminate the possibility of someone knowing what will happen.

IOW, I reject the analogy to quantum mechanics, but look at it more like chaos theory. And as far as QM goes, just because most physicists currently believe that the universe is probabilistic does not mean that it is. There was a time when all physicists believed that it was deterministic.

Anyway, I believe that when God promised, "He shall bruise your head," He was 100% certain of it. God's word is sure.

Lets assume God does know the future perfectly.

Wouldn't there be a distinction between God deciding to do something and planning to do something? A plan would be conditional and responsive to our free choice. God could know what a nation will do but still give the opportunity for them to do it in actual history. It would need to be this way for fairness wouldnt it? How else would we have a real opportunity to repent? God gave a warning to Nineveh so they had the chance to repent.

Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.(Jer. 18)

MM: Tom, if A&E had successfully withstood Satan’s assault, Jesus would not have needed to die to redeem us. Without the death of Jesus, upon what grounds would God have destroyed the evil angels?

TE: You're question is assuming that the destruction of the evil angels occurs because of God rather than sin.

MM: And, what about the unfallen beings? What would have made them more secure against evil than they were before Lucifer rebelled?

TE: Do you mean if Jesus Christ hadn't died? We don't know. I know of one person who believes Christ would have died anyway, for precisely this reason. However, I believe God could have communicated the truths necessary to secure the universe without Christ's death, but we don't know how, because we, as human being, could understand it in no other way. I believe that just because there's no other way that we could understand, it doesn't follow that there was no other way that other beings could understand it.

MM: In the following passages Ellen makes it clear unfallen beings were solidly on God's side way before the death of Jesus on the cross. His death "confirmed" their loyalty and allegiance - it did not establish it. Also, they were ready for the evil angels to die way before Jesus died on the cross. His death "confirmed" their readiness - it did not establish it. His death did not remove doubt - it "confirmed" their faith.

TE: So how do you understand the following?

"That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. (QOD 680)...The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. (ST 12/30/89)

I haven't been able to understand your point, MM. Do you think she is wrong here? Do you think she is saying something different than what she appears to be saying? If so, what do you think she is saying? If you agree that she means what she appears to be saying, that without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan, then doesn't it follow that they were more secure after the cross than before it?

Let's assume you're right, for a moment. Here's the question reworded - Without the death of Jesus, upon what grounds would God have allowed the evil angels to experience the "inevitable result of sin"? This question is asked with the following insight in mind:

"By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}

"At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

It's a valid hypothetical question. The SOP makes it clear A&E would have been eternally secure had they resisted Satan's initial attack. They would have been spared the experiential knowledge of evil. The death of Jesus would not have been necessary for them to understand the execution of justice and judgment - the punishment, destruction, and extermination of evil angels.

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

Read the Scriptures carefully, and you will find that Christ spent the largest part of His ministry in restoring the suffering and afflicted to health. Thus He threw back upon Satan the reproach of the evil which the enemy of all good had originated. Satan is the destroyer; Christ is the Restorer. (MM 240)

The question is - Why would it have been clear to them? Keep in mind we're talking about just a few months after rebellion broke out in heaven. You say it wasn't until 4,000 years later that the holy angels finally got it, that they were finally able to understand it - the cause and effect relationship between rebellion and retribution, between sin and death.

Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.(BTS December 1, 1907)

Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.

Do you agree with my assessment of her insights?

In the following passages Ellen makes it clear unfallen beings were solidly on God's side way before the death of Jesus on the cross. His death "confirmed" their loyalty and allegiance - it did not establish it. Also, they were ready for the evil angels to die way before Jesus died on the cross. His death "confirmed" their readiness - it did not establish it. His death did not remove doubt - it "confirmed" their faith.

I do not believe this insight means the angels were not secure against evil before rebellion broke out in heaven. It is obvious from the quotes I posted above that the angels knew God as well as they could possibly know Him, that there was nothing more He could have done to help them know Him better. Thus, the cross didn't reveal something about God He hadn't already revealed to them.

"A crisis had arrived in the government of God...All heaven was prepared at the word of God to move to the help of his elect. One word from him, and the bolts of heaven would have fallen upon the earth, filling it with fire and flame. God had but to speak, and there would have been thunderings and lightnings and earthquakes and destruction.

"The heavenly intelligences were prepared for a fearful manifestation of Almighty power. Every move was watched with intense anxiety. The exercise of justice was expected. The angels looked for God to punish the inhabitants of the earth..."

"The heavenly universe was amazed at God’s patience and love. To save fallen humanity the Son of God took humanity upon himself." Review and Herald, July 17, 1900

So, what is the relationship between 1) knowing God as well as the angels did and 2) being secure against evil? What is the connection between knowing God and being secure against evil? Does knowing God as well as possible equal being as secure against evil as possible? If not, why not?

How secure against evil were the angels before rebellion broke out in heaven?

Were they as secure against evil as possible?

If not, why not? What more could God have done to make them more secure against evil? I am interested in your answers, Tom.

Here is how I answer them. Yes, before rebellion broke out in heaven the angels were as secure against evil as it is possible to be.

Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.

Nevertheless, angels mature more and more every day. They were more mature the day after evil angels were banished to earth than they were the day before it happened. For 4,000 years the angels matured more and more every day. They were more mature the day after Jesus died than they were before He died. In this sense, the angels are more secure against evil than they were before rebellion broke out in heaven.

MM: Without the death of Jesus, upon what grounds would God have allowed the evil angels to experience the "inevitable result of sin"?

TE: I have a conviction that God could have done it some other way, without Jesus having to die, if human beings did not rebel, but being a human being myself, I couldn't tell you how.

After the cross they were more secure than before it, so clearly they were less secure before it than after! Equally clear they weren't as secure as it is possible to be before the cross since they were more secure after.

Unless what you meant was that they were as secure as it was possible to be at the time, in which case I agree with your statement.

How secure were the angels when Satan rebelled? This is seen in that they rebelled. They weren't secure! If they had been secure, they wouldn't have rebelled.

MM: Without the death of Jesus, upon what grounds would God have allowed the evil angels to experience the "inevitable result of sin"?

TE: I have a conviction that God could have done it some other way, without Jesus having to die, if human beings did not rebel, but being a human being myself, I couldn't tell you how.

The holy angels were ready to let the evil angels suffer the inevitable results of sin even before A&E sinned.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.(DA 764)

They would have accepted their death as readily as they accepted the death of humans. They had seen enough of sin and evil and Satan. They were ready for it to end.

T:After the cross they were more secure than before it, so clearly they were less secure before it than after! Equally clear they weren't as secure as it is possible to be before the cross since they were more secure after.

M:Are you implying this from the SOP quote? I ask because she doesn’t say so.

T:Unless what you meant was that they were as secure as it was possible to be at the time, in which case I agree with your statement.

MM:I tried very hard to make it clear that I do not believe this.

T:How secure were the angels when Satan rebelled? This is seen in that they rebelled. They weren't secure! If they had been secure, they wouldn't have rebelled.

M:Again, are you implying this from the SOP quote? Because she clearly does not say so. Instead, elsewhere (quoted below) she emphatically explains that the angels were as acquainted with God as can be.

How secure were the angels when Satan rebelled? This is seen in that they rebelled. They weren't secure! If they had been secure, they wouldn't have rebelled.

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. {GC 492.2}

MM: Without the death of Jesus, upon what grounds would God have allowed the evil angels to experience the "inevitable result of sin"?

TE: I have a conviction that God could have done it some other way, without Jesus having to die, if human beings did not rebel, but being a human being myself, I couldn't tell you how.

M: The holy angels were ready to let the evil angels suffer the inevitable results of sin even before A&E sinned.


They weren't ready. "A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe."

M: They would have accepted their death as readily as they accepted the death of humans. They had seen enough of sin and evil and Satan. They were ready for it to end.

T: They didn't understand things until the death of Christ. That's why the chapter "It Is Finished" was written, to explain what the death of Christ accomplished. After Christ died, *then* they understood that death is the inevitable result of sin. This is why DA 764 is a part of the chapter, because it is contingent upon the death of Christ.

T:After the cross they were more secure than before it, so clearly they were less secure before it than after! Equally clear they weren't as secure as it is possible to be before the cross since they were more secure after.

M:Are you implying this from the SOP quote? I ask because she doesn’t say so.

T: The quote says without the cross they were no more secure than they were before Satan's rebellion. You agree that the quote says this, don't you? With the cross, they were secure. You agree that the quote says this, don't you? So without the cross, they weren't secure, but with the cross, they were, right?

Let's stop here. Is there anything of the above that you're either not following or disagreeing with?

T:Unless what you meant was that they were as secure as it was possible to be at the time, in which case I agree with your statement.

MM:I tried very hard to make it clear that I do not believe this.

T: What is "this"? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me here, or disagreeing. It looks like you must be disagreeing, so you disagree that the angels were as secure as it was possible to be at the time. This is what you disagree with?

T:How secure were the angels when Satan rebelled? This is seen in that they rebelled. They weren't secure! If they had been secure, they wouldn't have rebelled.

M:Again, are you implying this from the SOP quote? Because she clearly does not say so. Instead, elsewhere (quoted below) she emphatically explains that the angels were as acquainted with God as can be.

T: Why are you talking about this? I didn't say anything about what you're talking about. I said: How secure were the angels when Satan rebelled? This is seen in that they rebelled. They weren't secure! If they had been secure, they wouldn't have rebelled.

I made the point that the angels were not secure, which is evidenced by the fact that they rebelled. Ellen White wrote that without the cross, they would be no more secure than when Satan rebelled. What do you think she was talking about, if not Satan's rebellion? Clearly the angels were not secured, because they rebelled. If they had been secure, they would not have rebelled. I don't see how it's possible not to understand this from her quote.

Anyway, I didn't say anything about their not being acquainted with God, so I don't know why you're citing those quotes. Especially I don't understand why you cited this one. “Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. {GC 492.2}

What were you thinking?

A: If Lucifer had repented and therefore was never in the garden to tempt Eve, do you think Eve would have ate the fruit?

T: Would the fruit have been there?

How long do you think it was before they were ready for the evil angels to suffer the inevitable results of sin?

I agree it wasn’t right away, but I don’t think it took hundreds of years. The angels were ready enough to warn A&E to beware of evil angels. They were ready enough to let A&E die for their sins. And, they were ready enough to let Jesus suffer and die to pay their sin debt of death. I don't get the sense they were afraid of God punishing and destroying sinners before the cross.

The point is they were ready enough around the time A&E sinned for sinners to suffer and die in consequence of their sins. They were often surprised when God waited so long to punish and destroy sinners. On many occasions they eagerly hoped God would command them to destroy sinners.

No doubt of God's goodness would have tormented them leading to rebellion. They were way past this problem, and long before the cross.

Here’s what I believe the quote says – “Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.” (ST 12/30/89) That’s what she wrote. She didn’t write what you wrote, namely, “without the cross they weren’t secure”.

It's obvious that the angels were secure against evil without the cross by virtue of the fact two-thirds chose not to rebel.

And, for 4,000 years before the cross they continued choosing not to rebel. Yeah, they were secure against evil alright.

The principles of God’s kingdom and character, which were revealed at the cross, were already thoroughly known by the angels before rebellion broke out in heaven. This accounts for why they didn't rebel. God wasn’t withholding truths about Himself that made the angels less secure against evil.

Nothing new was revealed at the cross that made the angels more secure against evil than they were before Lucifer rebelled. That one-third of the angels rebelled in an unexplainable mystery; whereas, there is nothing mysterious about the fact two-thirds of the angels did not rebel, that they remained loyal, that they pleaded with the other angels to drop their unfounded accusations against God.

You insist the angels were not secure against evil before rebellion broke out in heaven. You cite the fact one-third of the angels rebelled as proof. You seem to think the ST quote supports your conclusion. However, it is clear to me the fact two-thirds of the angel chose not to rebel is proof they were secure against evil.

The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God.

That just says the tree was there. It doesn't say it was there before Lucifer rebelled.

Satan only has access to tempt at the tree, right? So a possible scenario is that God put those trees in every world so Satan would have the opportunity to present his case, to whoever wanted to listen. Do you know of anything which says the trees were in place before Lucifer rebelled?

M: How long do you think it was before [holy angels] were ready for evil angels to suffer the inevitable results of sin?

T: At the cross. This is why DA 764 is written in the chapter "It Is Finished" and not in some other chapter of the book, or in some other book, like "Patriarchs and Prophets." The whole point is that what made them ready was the cross. Missing this point is missing the whole thing. She explains that without the cross the angels would have been no more secure than they were before Satan's rebellion.
The cross is the important thing.

M: I agree it wasn’t right away, but I don’t think it took hundreds of years. The angels were ready enough to warn A&E to beware of evil angels. They were ready enough to let A&E die for their sins. And, they were ready enough to let Jesus suffer and die to pay their sin debt of death. I don't get the sense they were afraid of God punishing and destroying sinners before the cross.

T: It's not a question of time but of truth. They didn't understand the truth of the cross until the cross took place.

M: The point is they were ready enough around the time A&E sinned for sinners to suffer and die in consequence of their sins. They were often surprised when God waited so long to punish and destroy sinners. On many occasions they eagerly hoped God would command them to destroy sinners.

T: Right! This is exactly the point! They didn't understand that death was the inevitable result of sin. They thought it was necessary to destroy the evil angels. The cross opened their eyes to their error.

M: No doubt of God's goodness would have tormented them leading to rebellion. They were way past this problem, and long before the cross.

T: Had God allowed Satan to have been destroyed before the cross, it's certain they would have misunderstood what was happening. The did not understand that the inevitable result of sin. Also the SOP tells us that without the cross the angels were no more secure than before Satan rebelled. So that means something.

M: Here’s what I believe the quote says – “Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.” (ST 12/30/89) That’s what she wrote. She didn’t write what you wrote, namely, “without the cross they weren’t secure”.

T: It doesn't look like you're understanding her. Her whole point is that the angels were not secure when Satan rebelled (almost half of them were lost). Would you say they were secure at this point? Of course not! Again, almost half were lost. So, since they were not secure at this point, and they were no more secure until the cross than they were here, it's obvious they weren't secure.

M: It's obvious that the angels were secure against evil without the cross by virtue of the fact two-thirds chose not to rebel.

T: This is exactly backwards! Almost half of the angels rebelled, which shows they were *not* secure. If they had been secure, Ellen White's words would have been absurd. "Without the cross, the angles would have been no more secure than there were when Satan rebelled, at which point they were already secure." That doesn't make any sense! It makes a mockery of her words.

M: And, for 4,000 years before the cross they continued choosing not to rebel. Yeah, they were secure against evil alright.

T: Then her words mean nothing.

M: The principles of God’s kingdom and character, which were revealed at the cross, were already thoroughly known by the angels before rebellion broke out in heaven. This accounts for why they didn't rebel. God wasn’t withholding truths about Himself that made the angels less secure against evil.

Nothing new was revealed at the cross that made the angels more secure against evil than they were before Lucifer rebelled. That one-third of the angels rebelled in an unexplainable mystery; whereas, there is nothing mysterious about the fact two-thirds of the angels did not rebel, that they remained loyal, that they pleaded with the other angels to drop their unfounded accusations against God.

T: You're simply asserting the opposite of what she said!

M: You insist the angels were not secure against evil before rebellion broke out in heaven. You cite the fact one-third of the angels rebelled as proof. You seem to think the ST quote supports your conclusion. However, it is clear to me the fact two-thirds of the angel chose not to rebel is proof they were secure against evil.

T: If she had said something like, "Without the cross, the angels were just as secure as they were when Satan rebelled," or "The angels were just as secure without the cross as they were with it," you would have a point. But she said the exact opposite of this. Please consider the quote more carefully: “The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God.

Except by looking at the sufferings of the Son of God, what are the angels? "Not secure". That should be enough to settle the issue.

I wonder if there was a tree-type test for the angels? Or, were the angels ever tested? Did God just grant them immortality from the day He created them?

When did testing FMAs become necessary - before or after Lucifer rebelled?

Did God go around planting testing-trees after Lucifer rebelled? I doubt it. Seems to me non-angel FMAs made decisions to side with God during the developmental stages of Lucifer's rebellion in the same way two-thirds of the angels did. Why would God have to go around planting testing-trees afterward? They had already proven themselves worthy of immortality.

If holy angels weren’t ready for evil angels to suffer and die in consequence of their sin and rebellion until after Jesus suffered and died on the cross, how, then, do you explain the fact they were ready and willing for them to suffer and die long before the cross?

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

But even after the cross they didn’t understand all.

Are you saying the angels were ignorant for 4,000 years? If so, why were they so ignorant?

Also the SOP tells us that without the cross the angels were no more secure than before Satan rebelled. So that means something.

The evidence doesn’t support your assertion. Long before the cross the angels were eager for God to punish and destroy impenitent sinners.

The heavenly intelligences were prepared for a fearful manifestation of Almighty power. Every move was watched with intense anxiety. The exercise of justice was expected. The angels looked for God to punish the inhabitants of the earth...

The heavenly universe was amazed at God’s patience and love. To save fallen humanity the Son of God took humanity upon himself.(Review and Herald, July 17, 1900)

T: It doesn't look like you're understanding her. Her whole point is that the angels were not secure when Satan rebelled (almost half of them were lost). Would you say they were secure at this point? Of course not! Again, almost half were lost. So, since they were not secure at this point, and they were no more secure until the cross than they were here, it's obvious they weren't secure.

MM:I disagree. They were totally secure in their love and allegiance to God before Lucifer rebelled and before Jesus died on the cross. The fact they chose to side with God is proof positive.

You are implying that the reason nearly half of the angels rebelled is because they were not secure against evil. This begs the question – Why weren’t they secure against evil?

Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.

M: And, for 4,000 years before the cross they continued choosing not to rebel. Yeah, they were secure against evil alright.

T: Then her words mean nothing.

MM:Or, you are misunderstanding her words.

M: The principles of God’s kingdom and character, which were revealed at the cross, were already thoroughly known by the angels before rebellion broke out in heaven....

T: You're simply asserting the opposite of what she said!

MM:Again, the evidence doesn’t support your accusation.

The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, whom, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation. (MS 22, January 10, 1890)

T:Except by looking at the sufferings of the Son of God, what are the angels? "Not secure". That should be enough to settle the issue.

M:She is not saying the angels were “not secure” against evil before Lucifer rebelled.

Do you believe rebellion and the death of Jesus was necessary to make FMAs secure against evil?

That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. ...The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven..The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

Again, if A&E had successfully resisted Satan at the forbidden tree, if they had remained faithful, loyal, and obedient to God – then what?

At any rate, my point was that before the rebellion, there may not have been any prohibition not to eat of a certain tree. Are you aware of any evidence that there was such a prohibition?

The issue is not if the angels understood "all," but enough. She says that without the cross, they were "not secure," but with the cross they are. Also, by virtue of the cross, God can allow Satan and his followers to die without a seed of doubt arising.

That's the whole problem!! They weren't supposed to be eager for God to punish and destroy sinners! Had they understood things at this time, like they do now, they would have been eager for God to save, not destroy… MM, why do you think the angels were "amazed at God's patience and love"? This is significant… If what you were asserting were true, the angels would not have been amazed, nor would the Plan of Salvation come unexpected.

Again, almost half the angels *rebelled*! They were not secure! Had they been secure, they would not have rebelled. The fact that they chose to rebel is "proof positive."

M: You are implying that the reason nearly half of the angels rebelled is because they were not secure against evil. This begs the question – Why weren’t they secure against evil?

T: Ellen White answers this question by saying: “Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.” What do you think this means?

M: M:She is not saying the angels were “not secure” against evil before Lucifer rebelled.

T: She says "they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God." Were they doing this before Lucifer rebelled?

M: Again, if A&E had successfully resisted Satan at the forbidden tree, if they had remained faithful, loyal, and obedient to God – then what? What would have happened to evil angels? How would God have justified their death? How would He have explained it to unfallen beings so they didn't fear Him? Would Jesus have had to die to make FMAs secure against evil? If not, what would have made them more secure against evil than they already were?

T: What's the motivation for this question? We're not told. God would certainly have had some way of dealing with the issues Satan had raised.

Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Therefore, the angels were familiar “enough” with the consequences of sinning soon after A&E sinned. That’s why they were eager and willing long before AD 31 for God to punish and destroy the evil angels, for them to suffer and die in consequence of sinning. No seed of doubt would have remained to sprout up in rebellion later on.

Again, the angels were familiar “enough” with the consequences of sinning, namely, capital punishment

Again, almost half the angels *rebelled*! They were not secure! Had they been secure, they would not have rebelled. The fact that they chose to rebel is "proof positive."

You say this, and yet you also say it is mysterious and unexplainable as to why sinless beings chose to sin and rebel against God in heaven. Which is it? Did they sin and rebel because they were “not secure” against evil? If so, why weren’t they secure against evil? Whom or what is to blame?

T: Ellen White answers this question by saying: “Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.” What do you think this means?

MM:I certainly do not think it means what you seem to be suggesting, namely, that they were not secure against evil, that they sinned and rebelled against God because they had not yet witnessed the cross.

M: Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Therefore, the angels were familiar “enough” with the consequences of sinning soon after A&E sinned. That’s why they were eager and willing long before AD 31 for God to punish and destroy the evil angels, for them to suffer and die in consequence of sinning. No seed of doubt would have remained to sprout up in rebellion later on.

T: They were eager *before* understanding the cross to destroy because they hadn't seen the cross, and didn't understand the Plan of Salvation. The Plan of Salvation was a surprise to them. They were amazed by it. Their previous idea to destroy was *incorrect*. Jesus Christ's idea ("The Son of Man has come not to destroy men's lives, but to save them") was correct, and the angels needed to learn this. Thus they benefited by the cross as well as man.

That Jesus Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world speaks to God's eternal character, not the angel's knowledge of it. It's very clear the angels did not understand this aspect of God's character until the cross (else why would they have been "amazed" by the Plan of Salvation, as opposed to expecting it?)

For centuries God bore with the inhabitants of the old world. But at last guilt reached its limit. "God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart." He came out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth, and by a flood cleansed the earth of its iniquity. {1888 569.2}

Notwithstanding this terrible lesson, men had no sooner begun to multiply once more, than rebellion and vice became widespread. Satan seemed to have taken control of the world. The time came that a change must be made, or the image of God would be wholly obliterated from the hearts of the beings He had created. All heaven watched the movements of God with intense interest. Would He once more manifest His wrath? Would He destroy the world by fire? The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, when, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation. Wonder, O heavens, and be astonished, O earth! God sent His only begotten Son into the world to save the world! Amazing grace! "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." {1888 569.3}

God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Outraged justice might have passed speedy sentence upon man. But in love and mercy God gave Him another opportunity. {1888 570.1}

For centuries God looked with patience and forbearance upon the cruel treatment given to his ambassadors, at his holy law prostrate, despised, trampled underfoot. He swept away the inhabitants of the Noachian world with a flood. But when the earth was again peopled, men drew away from God, and renewed their hostility to him, manifesting bold defiance. Those whom God rescued from Egyptian bondage followed in the footsteps of those who had preceded them. Cause was followed by effect; the earth was being corrupted. {RH, July 17, 1900 par. 4}

A crisis had arrived in the government of God. The earth was filled with transgression. The voices of those who had been sacrificed to human envy and hatred were crying beneath the altar for retribution. All heaven was prepared at the word of God to move to the help of his elect. One word from him, and the bolts of heaven would have fallen upon the earth, filling it with fire and flame. God had but to speak, and there would have been thunderings and lightnings and earthquakes and destruction. {RH, July 17, 1900 par. 5}

The heavenly intelligences were prepared for a fearful manifestation of Almighty power. Every move was watched with intense anxiety. The exercise of justice was expected. The angels looked for God to punish the inhabitants of the earth. But "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "I will send my beloved Son," he said. "It may be they will reverence him." Amazing grace! Christ came not to condemn the world, but to save the world. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." {RH, July 17, 1900 par. 6}

The heavenly universe was amazed at God's patience and love. To save fallen humanity the Son of God took humanity upon himself, laying aside his kingly crown and royal robe. He became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich. One with God, he alone was capable of accomplishing the work of redemption, and he consented to an actual union with man. In his sinlessness, he would bear every transgression. {RH, July 17, 1900 par. 7}

M: Again, the angels were familiar “enough” with the consequences of sinning, namely, capital punishment. . . .

T: But capital punishment is not the the consequences of sinning. Death is. Not being killed by God. Given that Christ suffered the "death which was ours," and that Christ's death is what explained to the angels the death of the wicked (DA 764), do you think that Jesus Christ died because God killed Him?

T: Again, almost half the angels *rebelled*! They were not secure! Had they been secure, they would not have rebelled. The fact that they chose to rebel is "proof positive."

M: You say this, and yet you also say it is mysterious and unexplainable as to why sinless beings chose to sin and rebel against God in heaven. Which is it? Did they sin and rebel because they were “not secure” against evil? If so, why weren’t they secure against evil? Whom or what is to blame?

T: You're getting off track here. She says that the angels, without the cross, would have been no more secure than they were when Satan began his rebellion. When Satan rebelled, nearly half of the angels were lost. So it is clear they were not secure.

Regarding your questions above, you are trying to pit things against each other which are orthogonal concepts. Your questions are presupposing that the truth is either one of the things or the other, but not both, but these are speaking of different concepts. For example, the angels did not rebel *because* they were not secure. That they rebelled proves they were not secure, but this does not imply that a lack of security is the *cause* of rebellion; it made rebellion possible, but isn't a cause. Also that there is no explanation for sin is a different concept than the fact that without the cross the angels are no less secure than when Satan began his rebellion. At least I see no connection. If you see one, you'll have to flesh it out.

T: Ellen White answers this question by saying: “Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.” What do you think this means?

M:I certainly do not think it means what you seem to be suggesting, namely, that they were not secure against evil, that they sinned and rebelled against God because they had not yet witnessed the cross.

T: MM, please read more carefully! She didn't say that they rebelled because they had not yet witnessed the cross. She said that they are no more secure without the cross than they were before Satan began his rebellion.

You're confusing cause and effect here. That the angels had not witnessed the cross is not a cause. She points out that without the cross the angels were no more secure than when Satan began his rebellion, but does not suggest that not witnessing the cross *caused* their rebellion. Do you see the difference?

T: Also, you didn't answer my question. You just said you don't believe it means something which I don't believe either. Please answer the question in a positive way; tell me what you think it means, not what you think it doesn't mean.

T: More later.

The fact the angels were ready and willing to destroy the world by fire was not the result of “incorrect” thinking or bad theology.

All heaven watched the movements of God with intense interest. Would He once more manifest His wrath? Would He destroy the world by fire? The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, whom, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation. (MS 22, 1890)

The heavenly intelligences were prepared for a fearful manifestation of Almighty power. Every move was watched with intense anxiety. The exercise of justice was expected. The angels looked for God to punish the inhabitants of the earth...

The heavenly universe was amazed at God’s patience and love. To save fallen humanity the Son of God took humanity upon himself. (RH 6/17/00)

Do you think that Jesus Christ died because God killed Him?

Why do you think the angels were “not secure against evil” in heaven before Lucifer rebelled?

That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. (QOD 680)...The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven (BTS December 1, 1907).

The phrase “no more secure against evil” in the context above to me means continual advancement is necessary, expected, even required.

for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God.

M: Again, if A&E had successfully resisted Satan at the forbidden tree, if they had remained faithful, loyal, and obedient to God – then what? What would have happened to evil angels? How would God have justified their death? How would He have explained it to unfallen beings so they didn't fear Him? Would Jesus have had to die to make FMAs secure against evil? If not, what would have made them more secure against evil than they already were?

T: What's the motivation for this question? We're not told. God would certainly have had some way of dealing with the issues Satan had raised.

Yes, and it would not have involved Jesus suffering and dying for sin.

That’s my point. The angels were familiar enough with the consequences of sinning soon after Lucifer rebelled so as to be cool with God executing capital punishment, with God inflicting punishment in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness.

The fact God banished evil angels to earth instead of immediately executing them amazed the loyal angels. The same is true of A&E. The fact God implemented the plan of salvation to ransom and redeem mankind instead of immediately executing them amazed the loyal angels. Had God executed the evils angels soon after they openly rebelled, no seed of doubt or rebellion would have remained to bear fruit later on. Listen:

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}

The angels were surprised by the Plan of Salvation. This was God's answer, not destroying those who rebel against him. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force (as the angels were thinking); force is not a principle of God's government.

Do you think that Jesus Christ died because God killed Him? You didn't address this.

MM, her point is that when Satan rebelled the angels were not secure! Not that they were secure, but that they weren't. She writes: "for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God." How is this not clear? It says the angels are "not secure" except by looking at the sufferings of the Son of God. That means before they saw His sufferings (which she explains is the cross) they were "not secure."

M: Again, if A&E had successfully resisted Satan at the forbidden tree, if they had remained faithful, loyal, and obedient to God – then what? What would have happened to evil angels? How would God have justified their death? How would He have explained it to unfallen beings so they didn't fear Him? Would Jesus have had to die to make FMAs secure against evil? If not, what would have made them more secure against evil than they already were?

T: What's the motivation for this question? We're not told. God would certainly have had some way of dealing with the issues Satan had raised.

M: Yes, and it would not have involved Jesus suffering and dying for sin.

T: You don't know this. You can't. There's no way you could know that God may not have had some other way of solving the problems Satan raised had man not sinned. At least, if you dispute this, I'd like to see your evidence.

M: That’s my point. The angels were familiar enough with the consequences of sinning soon after Lucifer rebelled so as to be cool with God executing capital punishment, with God inflicting punishment in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness.

T: Which is not God's character. They hadn't yet seen the Plan of Salvation. They didn't understand the cross. They were "cool" with something they should have abhorred.

M: The fact God banished evil angels to earth instead of immediately executing them amazed the loyal angels. The same is true of A&E. The fact God implemented the plan of salvation to ransom and redeem mankind instead of immediately executing them amazed the loyal angels. Had God executed the evils angels soon after they openly rebelled, no seed of doubt or rebellion would have remained to bear fruit later on. Listen:

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}

T: This is referring to the cross, not Adam and Eve. You should know this by now! (Remember, this is from the chapter "It Is Finished" which is dealing with the cross)

This quote deals with time just before the incarnation of Christ. By this time, the angels had witnessed God punish and destroy sinners on many occasions, in fact, they had participated in punishing and destroying sinners on many occasions. Also, they weren't surprised at the plan of salvation, they had known about it for 4,000 years. They knew the prophecies perfectly well, they knew all about every minute detail, they knew the time was at hand for Jesus' incarnation. It's just that they were amazed and surprised God did not also punish and destroy many of the sin hardened people.

The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, whom, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation." MS 22, January 10, 1890

Do you think that Jesus Christ died because God killed Him? You didn't address this.

Yes and no. Yes, because the Father did things that contributed to the intense suffering Jesus experienced between Gethsemane and the cross.

No, because Jesus laid down His own life. He was not killed by anything or anyone.

22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.(Acts 2)

She doesn't simply say "not secure", she specifically says "not secure against evil".

for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God.

Being more secure against evil on account of the cross does not in the least mean they were not secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled.

If, as you say, they were not secure against evil then all of the angels would have rebelled and not just one-third of them.

The fact the majority of them did not rebel is convincing evidence they were secure against evil.

Yes, they are now even more secure against evil this side of the cross, but being more secure doesn't mean they were not previously secure against evil. [/qoute]

If you say "even more secure," it's clear you're not understanding her point. Here's her statement:

[quote] Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.

The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God.

M: Yes, and it would not have involved Jesus suffering and dying for sin.

T: You don't know this. You can't. There's no way you could know that God may not have had some other way of solving the problems Satan raised had man not sinned. At least, if you dispute this, I'd like to see your evidence.

If man had not sinned, then Jesus' suffering and death would have served no purpose as the evil angels were beyond redemption. I agree God would have done something else to win the GC, but it's clear to me it would not have involved Jesus suffering and dying.

I'm surprised you are as comfortable as you are making this claim. The angels were totally familiar with the plan of salvation.

The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, whom, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation." MS 22, January 10, 1890

Jesus explained it to them in great detail. Also, the angels will clamor for the double death and punishment of sinners during the 7 last plagues, which is well after the cross. Justice is as much a part of God's character as is mercy.

Law and justice require God to punish and destroy sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness.

The angels have been cool with this aspect of God's character from the very beginning of the GC. And, it was not the result of incorrect thinking or bad theology.

Thus, the idea that FMAs required the suffering and death of Jesus to be secure against evil is not true since God could have done something to make them more secure against evil without Jesus having to suffer and die.

It's talking about the GC. At the end of the GC the angels will not doubt the goodness of God when He punishes and destroys sinners in the lake of fire. My point is they were at this point from the moment Jesus explained to them in great detail the plan of salvation. To the angels Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. To the angels Jesus won the GC from the foundation of the world. Also, if man had not sinned, the angels would have been cool with God punishing and destroying the evil angels soon thereafter. They ready early on for God to punish and destroy the evil angels.

M: This quote deals with time just before the incarnation of Christ. By this time, the angels had witnessed God punish and destroy sinners on many occasions, in fact, they had participated in punishing and destroying sinners on many occasions. Also, they weren't surprised at the plan of salvation, they had known about it for 4,000 years. They knew the prophecies perfectly well, they knew all about every minute detail, they knew the time was at hand for Jesus' incarnation. It's just that they were amazed and surprised God did not also punish and destroy many of the sin hardened people.

T: Right. They were amazed and surprised. That was my point. I guess you're disputing that the Plan of Salvation amazed them? That is was the fact that God didn't kill people?

The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, whom, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation." MS 22, January 10, 1890

T: This is clear, MM; this has in view the unveiled Plan of Salvation, not simply God's not killing people.

T: Do you think that Jesus Christ died because God killed Him? You didn't address this.

M: Yes and no. Yes, because the Father did things that contributed to the intense suffering Jesus experienced between Gethsemane and the cross.

T: What did He do?

M: No, because Jesus laid down His own life. He was not killed by anything or anyone.

T: Peter said: "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.(Acts 2)

Christ was put to death by being nailed to a cross. When Christ said He was laying down His life, He meant that He went to His fate voluntarily, not that He was not killed.

M: She doesn't simply say "not secure", she specifically says "not secure against evil".

T: I quoted what she said. She said, "for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God."

M: Being more secure against evil on account of the cross does not in the least mean they were not secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled.

T: You are the one misquoting her! She didn't say "not more secure" she said "not secure."

M: If, as you say, they were not secure against evil then all of the angels would have rebelled and not just one-third of them.

T: Not at all, MM. The angels, as a class were not secure at the time Satan began his rebellion. They didn't become any more secure than this until the cross. The status of a class is not dependent upon the actions of specific individuals of that class. It's the fact that *any* of the angels rebelled that shows that the angels, as a class, were not secure.

M: The fact the majority of them did not rebel is convincing evidence they were secure against evil.

T: Not at all. The fact that *any* of them rebelled is 100% proof that they were not secure.

M: Yes, they are now even more secure against evil this side of the cross, but being more secure doesn't mean they were not previously secure against evil.

T: If you say "even more secure," it's clear you're not understanding her point. Here's her statement: Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.

She is not arguing that the angels were really secure when Satan rebelled, and even more secure after the cross, but that the angels were not secure when Satan rebelled, and no more secure than that without the cross.

She doesn't say that the cross provided more security, but security. The issue she addresses is not security vs. more security but a lack of security vs. security.

"The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God."

T: Apart from looking to the sufferings of the Son of God, what are the angels? Quoting from above: "not secure." She doesn't say, "not more secure," but "not secure."

M: At the end of the GC the angels will not doubt the goodness of God when He punishes and destroys sinners in the lake of fire. My point is they were at this point from the moment Jesus explained to them in great detail the plan of salvation. To the angels Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. To the angels Jesus won the GC from the foundation of the world. Also, if man had not sinned, the angels would have been cool with God punishing and destroying the evil angels soon thereafter. They were ready early on for God to punish and destroy the evil angels.

T: This doesn't fit with what we're told. I've already cited three points above which bear this out, so I won't repeat the argument. However, I'll point out that "being cool" with God's destroying evil angels is exhibiting the very misunderstanding the cross was designed to correct.

True, the angels weren't ready for God to punish and destroy the fallen angels the instant they were cast down to earth, but they were ready soon thereafter, even before A&E ate the forbidden fruit. The quotes you posted about it do not disagree with this observation.

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)