Just a momentary cameo before I go.

Those who "work harder and longer" on earth will have advantages in heaven. For example, let's say you and I both live for 100 years. You spent the first 20 years wandering, but found Jesus and spent the rest of your life serving Him, getting to know Him better, and becoming more like Him. At the resurrection, you will have 80 years of Christian character development under your spiritual belt.

But what if I spent 99 years in debauchery and general evil living? And on my 99th birthday, I submitted to God, and spent the rest of my life serving Him, but in a weakened physical and mental condition due to my years of bad living. When I am resurrected, my Christian character development will be a bit behind yours. Agreed?

So we both go to heaven, and learn at the feet of Jesus. Will I learn faster than you, given that you have known Jesus for 80 years and I only one? Or will you learn faster than me, since you've got some of the basics down already? Or will we go at the same pace?

Unless the one-year Christian learns faster than the 80-year Christian, which seems unreasonable to me, you will always be "ahead" of me in spiritual development. After 100 years in heaven, you will have had 180 of being with Jesus, and I only 101. In short, you will have more goodies.

While you don't get to live longer, you did not spend as much time "dead in trespasses and sins" as I did. IOW, you are dead shorter. And the value of that blessing can only be known by those who are sick and tired of being dead in trespasses and sins.

Well, I guess that answers my question! You don't see the difference. I see a difference, however, and ask that you quote me accurately.



Not it's not. I've presented quotes to support what I've shared; they're not ideas I've pulled out of my head for no reason.



What do you mean "legal reasoning"? The reasoning is sound, which is what counts. If you wish to dispute this, go ahead! Present some counter-argument with evidence. I'll glad to hear you out!



I see the issue. I just don't agree with your understanding of it. I agree with Fifield's. I think his agrees with reality. I don't think yours does. I've explained why.



I agree completely with this! Fifield wrote a whole chapter called "Christ's Sacrifice Honors God's Law." He explains how the sacrifice of Christ satisfies the demands of justice. I've quoted this to you quite a few times. I agree with Fifield.

That you and I understand what it means to say that "Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice" differently is fair to say, but I agree with this just as much as you do. I just don't believe one has to believe in penal substitution to believe that Christ's sacrifice satisfies the demands of justice.



I believe she is saying the same, precise, exact thing as Fifield. I've quoted Fifield several times. I think his understanding of what this means is correct, and for the reasons he cites.



You're just avoiding the issue of Lucifer. Simply turning a blind eye to it doesn't make it go away. If she thought in typical penal substitution terms, what she wrote about Lucifer simply doesn't make sense.

I don't think you can compare one person with another (for example, one person might learn much quicker than another). I think the valid comparison is that the 1-year Christian is behind where he would have been, had he not wasted time. I don't think the 1-year Christian would care about this, though. The thing to care about are the souls lost because the 1-year Christian didn't respond to the Spirit of God earlier.

There's the well-known statement from the SOP that it would be well to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, especially that latter scenes. When this really began making sense to me was when I understood her statement that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was the "revelation of God to set men right with Him." Now it makes perfect sense!

Given that the purpose of Christ's earthly mission was to reveal the Father, it makes perfect sense that we should study His life.

Also:



Given that the power of Satan like in his deceiving us in regards to God's character, it stands to reason that the "anti-dote" would be knowing God as He is in truth, which again leads us back to studying Christ's life.

which can lead us to the cross, if we dont resist, then we can apply the formulas....but first things first.

Those are even more important goodies to consider. But tq was asking about 1 person compared to another, so I tried to oblige.

Arnold, as I see it, time is a very small factor in this. The most important aspect is the intensity of one's experience with God.

"The one who stands nearest to Christ will be he who on earth has drunk most deeply of the spirit of His self-sacrificing love,--love that 'vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, . . . seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil,'--love that moves the disciple, as it moved our Lord, to live and labor and sacrifice, even unto death, for the saving of humanity." {ST, January 22, 1902 par. 13}

my question has to do with "justice" and "rewards". if the lost will burn according to their deeds then will the acceptors of grace get gradiated goodies, also? justice is justice, after all.

like, does one get a bigger, better mansion? more property?along those lines.

Better views. Smaller maintenance fees. Elevator building. Cats OK.

The issue of lucifer is no argument against Sister White supporting penal substitution, because she doesn't deal with penal substitution when dealing with Lucifer.

Establishing a legal precedent: judgements are precedents for a particular point of law only when the reasoning for that judgement was based on that point of law once it is actually argued in court. It's a rule of legal argument in court hearings that conclusions of the judge reached on grounds other than have been presented to the judge are not an authority for those, unargued grounds supporting that conclusion. Unless any lawyer argues a specific issue for the judge to decide the case on, whatever reasoning the judge does use to decide the case other than that specific, unargued issue means the judgement is not a precedent for the issue that wasn't argued.

I'm sure you followed the logic of that rule of legal procedure.

I bring up "precedents" because you're using Lucifer's case as a precedent, a principle, for God's operative justice in all cases: precedents, for anyone who doesn't know ;), are court decisions of higher courts which are binding on lower courts handling the same issue, and of course legal arguments in court generally use both statute and precedents in favour of the said case.

Therefore, Ellen White's emphasis on God's fairness with Lucifer, the issue she was arguing for on God's behalf in Lucifer's case, in heaven, is no argument against penal substitution - it being clearly presented in & for our case down here (when she speaks of man's salvation), since she didn't say anything to that point, in relation to the prelude to heaven's war.

You want evidence for your case, or against it? There's no evidence for your argument, so the matter ends there, I'm afraid, as in thrown out of court in your case against penal substitution.