God offered to pardon Lucifer's sin. Therefore, assuming Lucifer's sin was not one of ignorance (which looks to be what you're saying), God can pardon willful sin without atonement. But sins of ignorance require atonement. This appears to be what's being suggested (I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything here, by the way; just trying to make I've got the details right, according to your point of view).

Mike,

What is clear to me is that Christ's blood must cover both our sins and our good works, because even our good works are imperfect and defiled by sin. I don't have the least idea about how God will take care of the latter during the time of trouble. I'm glad this is His problem.


Do you mean to say that, for you, "inbred sin" is not sin?

Definition of "inbred":



Source:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inbred

When you say "defiled by sin" do you have in mind "sinning"? If not, how you explain the difference?


What is the nature and essence of "His problem"?


I mean to say Ellen's "inbred sin" is equivalent to her "hereditary tendencies to wrong" and that it isn't the same thing as sinners choosing to sin. Do you agree?


Please address this question. Thank you.

Do you agree with me that the "righteousness and true holiness" experienced after probation closes does not require the atoning blood of Jesus?

Do you agree that offering to pardon sin is not the same thing as actually pardoning sin? And, do you agree God did not actually pardon Lucifer?

PS - I'll keep asking these questions until you clearly answer them. So, cut to the chase, save tons of time, and answer yes or no. Thank you.

"‘And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment." Are we able to do that? Are we able to love God as He deserves to be loved? If not, aren't we transgressing the commandment, or failing to keep it? This, technically, would be a form of "sinning." Besides, doesn't the fact that it needs the blood of Christ confirm that it's a form of sinning? And if it needs Christ's blood and mediation now, won't it need it at the time of trouble? This would be the nature of God's "problem." Either this deficiency will cease to exist or God will have to take care of it without Christ's mediation.


Well, it's not the same thing as sinners choosing to sin, but "sin" is "sin." She still refers to this (sinful tendencies) as "inward sin" and "indwelling sin."


No, I don't think it implies they are sinning, or choosing to sin. Maybe it's a reference to sinful tendencies, but we cannot say it with certainty. Since you don't believe sinful tendencies can be removed before Christ's coming, how do you interpret this expression?

Tom,

You seem to be uncertain about some of the things I have said, as if you do not understand them. (I'm not sure if you were arguing or just asking questions.) Let me try to explain more fully.

Lucifer did, at first, experience sin ignorantly--that is, he was ignorant of sin, not of God. God first talked with Lucifer, showed him plainly the direction he was headed, and revealed the truth about the sinfulness of Lucifer's thought and talk. God offered to pardon him at that point in time--at the same time giving Lucifer a fuller revelation of God. However, Lucifer was too proud to admit that he had been wrong. When he chose to continue in his course--this time full knowing that what he did was wrong, and already having a perfect knowledge of God and His character--this became an unatoneable sin. It is possible that God could have forgiven this sin, had Lucifer been truly repentant. However, no atoning sacrifice of Christ would have served to reveal anything of God's character with which Lucifer was not already acquainted. Atonement would not be required in this case--and in fact, could not be applied.

Lucifer/Satan was not sinning ignorantly. He was not deceived. He knew full well what he was doing, but chose to do it anyway.

We are fundamentally unlike Lucifer, in that we have been and are still deceived into sin. Every sin we do can be attributed to our ignorance.


Ignorance, however, saves no one. It is not an excuse for sin. Jesus said "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Ignorance is bondage. Only a knowledge of the truth can free us from sin--and it will.

If/when we know the full impact of our sins, in contrast to God's beautiful image, we will no longer desire to sin. We will not choose to sin. Satan knows this, and this is why he fights to keep us ignorant.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Why do you think Lucifer sinned ignorantly? Elsewhere you wrote, “In fact, to know God is to comprehend our sin and sinfulness.” How could Lucifer know God perfectly and not know he was sinning? Ellen wrote: "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. {DA 761.5}

What did God say to Lucifer that he didn't already know so far as His character was concerned? Do you think offering to pardon him contributed to his knowledge in a way that motivated him to repent and resuming obeying and loving God? Ellen wrote:

"But His mercy was misinterpreted. Lucifer pointed to the long-suffering of God as an evidence of his own superiority, an indication that the King of the universe would yet accede to his terms. {PP 39.2}

Just to be clear, are you saying “righteousness and true holiness” is “a form of sinning”? Ellen wrote: “The Lord requires perfection from His redeemed family. He expects from us the perfection which Christ revealed in His humanity. (CG 477) Are you saying when believers experience “the perfection which Christ revealed in His humanity” it is “a form of sinning?

She also wrote: "The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome. Christ came to make us “partakers of the divine nature,” and His life declares that humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin. (MH 180) Are you saying humanity and divinity combined results in “a form of sinning”?


If, as you say, it is a sin, do you think it can, in and of itself, bar the gates of heaven? If not, why not?


If it’s a reference to “inbred sin” do you think it will be consumed before the time of trouble, before they put on incorruption? What do you think “consumed” entails? Ellen wrote: “God's love for His children during the period of their severest trial is as strong and tender as in the days of their sunniest prosperity; but it is needful for them to be placed in the furnace of fire; their earthliness must be consumed, that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected. {GC 621.1}

I don’t think “earthliness” refers to sin or “inbred sin”. I suspect it refers to our survival instincts, our natural ability and responsibility to meet our basic needs (food, water, shelter, etc). In the time of trouble, however, we shall have to rely on God to meet such needs. Consuming earthliness in this context results in a deeper, purer faith and righteousness. Ellen wrote:

“The assaults of Satan are strong, his delusions are subtle; but the Lord's eye is upon His people. Their affliction is great, the flames of the furnace seem about to consume them; but Jesus will bring them forth as gold tried in the fire. Their earthliness will be removed, that through them the image of Christ may be perfectly revealed. {PK 589.2}

“Their love is not a mere human affection; though defiled by the earthliness of its human channel, it is an outflowing from the fountain of His own redeeming love. He will not rebuke, but deepen and purify. {DA 548.6}

“Jesus longed to open before the minds of His disciples deep and living truths, but their earthliness, their clouded, deficient comprehension made it impossible. {AG 186.4}