Au contraire!



All he had to do was repent and submit and he would have been saved.

Colin, we just look at this differently. Here's how I look at:

1.Sin is destructive. It results in death. It's like poison. We need to be saved from it.
2.Because of sin's danger, God warns us from it.
3.Satan misrepresents God's character, presenting Him as doing that which sin does.
4.God gives us Christ, in order to save us from Sin.

God's role is ever that of Savior/Warner. So that right way of looking at it is, "If you sin, you will die," as opposed to, "If you sin, I will annihilate you in hell."

You look at the problem as a court problem, to be solved by legal maneuverings. What I see are sin-sick human beings, who need to be saved from sin.

no, the tree of knowledge but i cant find where i think i saw it. ive been skimming a lot today and my mind may have connected "tree" with "probation". oh well.....

there are several chapters that are good to read about lucifer. they all add thoughts left out by the other chapters.

He was shown that while the sacrifice of Christ would be of sufficient value to save the whole world, many would choose a life of sin rather than of repentance and obedience. Crime would increase through successive generations, and the curse of sin would rest more and more heavily upon the human race, upon the beasts, and upon the earth. The days of man would be shortened by his own course of sin; he would deteriorate in physical stature and endurance and in moral and intellectual power, until the world would be filled with misery of every type. Through the indulgence of appetite and passion men would become incapable of appreciating the great truths of the plan of redemption. Yet Christ, true to the purpose for which He left heaven, would continue His interest in men, and still invite them to hide their weakness and deficiencies in Him. He would supply the needs of all who would come unto Him in faith. ... {PP 67.3}

The sacrificial offerings were ordained by God to be to man a perpetual reminder and a penitential acknowledgment of his sin and a confession of his faith in the promised Redeemer.

They were intended to impress upon the fallen race the solemn truth that it was sin that caused death.

To Adam, the offering of the first sacrifice was a most painful ceremony. His hand must be raised to take life, which only God could give. It was the first time he had ever witnessed death, and he knew that had he been obedient to God, there would have been no death of man or beast. As he slew the innocent victim, he trembled at the thought that his sin must shed the blood of the spotless Lamb of God. This scene gave him a deeper and more vivid sense of the greatness of his transgression, which nothing but the death of God's dear Son could expiate. And he marveled at the infinite goodness that would give such a ransom to save the guilty. A star of hope illumined the dark and terrible future and relieved it of its utter desolation. {PP 68.1}

!!se llama justicia!! this is Gods justice, freeing the guilty while still upholding His law, and it ticks satan off no end!!


this is what God wants us to behold and become like.

Very interesting! I'm sure I've read this, but somehow missed this part:



Is this implying that had man not sinned that the Plan of Atonement would still have had to have been enacted? Seems to be, doesn't it? Or perhaps the context is taking into account the sin of man, so this statement cannot be generalized to the case where man did not sin?

If any of us believe that everything that Ellen White has said has authority to establish doctrine. Then quotes like that and many others will lead into confusion and can be contrary to Bible truth.

So, to me, this has no weight, and we need to seek what the Bible says. If no one can find these Bible texts that clearly says that there is no pardon for Rebellion; then this weekend I'll make it a duty to bring these here.

I believe Satan committed the sin against the Holy Spirit when he chose to engage in a pure Rebellion scheme. I'm sure there was a progression in his thinking before he resolved to a rebellious position. But was that sin? Having questions is that Sin?

During his quetioning time and realization of "self" time, I would see that God did everything possible in showing clearly His love and works, so that Lucifers questions and thinking wouldn't have any reason to conclude the accusations he aimed at God.

Despite of God's revelations and Truths, Lucifer chose to Rebel. The angels that ranked with him, commited the same sin which there's no forgiveness possible. I'm sure God would of had forgiven them and died for them, if there was possibility of return, but I believe there was none. However, we don't know much about this for the Bible does not expand much on this. So what the Bible doesn't reveal, we should not go into speculation.

Tom, man only needed to be saved after he fell. You must apply the same to Lucifer.

SOP has helped establish doctrine after deadlock in Bible study, so it's not altogether true it played no part: SOP is a "continuing source of authority and truth": isn't that what it says in our beliefs?

As my last word to Tom mentioned that the Bible and SOP don't speak to this, so we can't speculate as far as Tom does, Rosangela's point of Lucifer's fall being final looks good since I agree with him committing the unforgivable sin.

Hi Colin, I haven't read the whole context of the quote Tom brought here, however, this quote does say that Lucifer could of been pardon without the shedding of the blood of Christ. So that is quite a strong EGW quote that can negate the belief of "penal substitution".