I don't understand why you wouldn't think this applies to people who have been converted. By this, I mean that the unpardonable sin is a gradual hardening of the heart. What else could it be?

I'm not talking about just any converted believer. I'm specifically talking about seasoned saints "who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come."

People such as this cannot indulge sin without committing the unpardonable sin. The 144,000 are examples. Angels are examples. In other words, there comes a time when FMAs cannot indulge a single sin without also committing the unpardonable sin. "It is impossible . . . to renew them again unto repentance." (Heb 6:4-6) It says "impossible" not "unlikely" or "very difficult".

We don't have any examples of this. In the case of Lucifer, we see a prolonged period of time, during which he was again and again offered pardon. Indeed, this is how EGW describes it. "God bore long with Lucifer." "Again and again he was offered pardon."

Similarly in the case of men, we see that only after a prolonged period of time does the heart become so hardened that one eventually reaches the point of no return. Judas is an example of this. It wasn't one sin which led him to be lost, but a rejection of Christ over time that eventually brought him to this point.

This describes the process:



Every act of transgression makes it easier to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. This ties in to discussions we've had regarding death being the inevitable result of sin.

Why do you think one of the 144,000 could not be pardoned if he sinned? The way I would put it is that, because of his love for God, a member of the 144,000 would not choose to sin, but I see no reason why such a sin would be an unpardonable one. Why wouldn't he be able to repent?

We do have examples of this.

When the law was proclaimed, Satan said: "Here is work for us. At the foot of Sinai, in the very presence of God, let us lead the people to break the law." God called Moses into the mount, and during his absence Satan worked among the people. He told them that Moses would not return, and suggested that they make a golden calf to worship. {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 3}

... By yielding, he [Aaron] sanctioned a great sin, made tenfold greater because the people were in the immediate presence of God and the holy angels. {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 5}

Going down to the camp, Moses stood in the gate, and said, "Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me." Opportunity was given for all to take their stand against idolatry. Those who remained obstinate and defiant must bear the penalty of sin. To those who had taken their position on the Lord's side Moses said: "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men." {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 12}

Thus God showed the fearful result of bold, defiant sin. He commanded that the leaders of the treason should be slain. Thus he bore a public testimony against sin, so that in the future, when God's people condemned idolatry, and their enemies threw at them the taunt that they had themselves deserted God for a calf, they could answer, "It is true; but judgment fell upon the transgressors. God's government is unsullied; for swift punishment overtook those who rebelled against him." {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 13

This is a completely different thing. For one thing, this isn't an example of an unpardonable sin, but of capital punishment.

Tom, there comes a time when FMAs cannot indulge a single sin without also committing the unpardonable sin. "It is impossible . . . to renew them again unto repentance." (Heb 6:4-6) It says "impossible" not "unlikely" or "very difficult". When do you think this applies to FMAs.

Also, do you think the 144,000 are less apt to sin than was Lucifer before he sinned? IOW, compare Lucifer before he sinned and the 144,000. Who would you say is less likely to sin? And why?

If you answer the 144,000 are less likely to sin because of their knowledge of the cross, what, then, are you saying about Lucifer before he sinned? Wouldn't you be implying Lucifer was more likely to sin because he lacked knowledge of the cross? And, doesn't this also imply God failed to adequately safeguard Lucifer against sin, and that God is partly to blame for his fall?

So do you think that God inflicts capital punishment, or commands it to be inflicted, to people for whom there is still hope of salvation?
Now show me an EGW quote saying that Lucifer committed the unpardonable sin.

If you mean like the straw that broke the camel's back, I agree. As EGW explained, each transgression makes it easier to transgress again. Eventually one reaches the point of no return, like the straw that broke the camel's back.



Of course. Incomparably less.



The 144,000 have overcome by the blood of the lamb. They would rather die than sin. Lucifer preferred rebellion to death to self.



No, there's no implication of failure on God's part. God did everything possible to save Satan. He even offered him pardon over and over again for the many things he had done wrong. But Satan chose to follow his own independent will.

Since you asked me these questions, what do you think? Do you think the 144,000 are any less likely to sin that Lucifer was?

I said there was no example of a person's committing a single sin and that sin being unpardonable. Instead the unpardonable sin is a gradual hardening of the heart. Do you disagree with this?

For your example to be a valid example it would have to be the case that both this sin was the only relevant sin (i.e., the guilty parties had not been willfully sinning before this sin) and that it wasn't possible for them to be pardoned of this sin.

But we know it was possible for them to be pardoned of it, because God offered to pardon them of it. They were given the opportunity to "stand on the Lord's side." So if one were going to characterize a sin as unpardonable, it would have to be the sin of refusing to accept the pardon God was offering.




Why? Are you saying Lucifer's decision to refuse to confess his sin and continue in rebellion was not an example of the unpardonable sin?

Interestingly, Ellen White never refers to it as the unpardonable sin, but I believe it's more or less equivalent to it.
The right comparison, in my opinion, would be with the example I gave, that is, a willful, defiant sin in the immediate presence of God.
There is no registry that these people had been sinning defiantly before. It was like the sin of Ananias and Sapphira. There are some choices that are final, because of the measure of light the person has had.