This wonderful problem--how God could be just and yet the justifier of sinners--is beyond human ken. {TMK 35.3}

Jesus suffered the extreme penalty of the law for our transgression, and justice was fully satisfied. The law is not abrogated; it has not lost one jot of its force. Instead, it stands forth in holy dignity, Christ's death on the cross testifying to its immutability. Its demands have been met, its authority maintained. {HP 15.3}

Does God turn from justice in showing mercy to the sinner? No; God cannot dishonor His law by suffering it to be transgressed with impunity. {AG 138.4}

He pledged Himself to accomplish our full salvation in a way satisfactory to the demands of God's justice, and consistent with the exalted holiness of His law. {1SM 309.2}

Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice. What a price for Heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. {UL 378.4}

Sin is disloyalty to God, and [is] deserving of punishment. . . The law of God stands vindicated by the suffering and death of the only begotten Son of the infinite God. {UL 378.5}

The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen. {UL 378.6}

Christ was to die as man's substitute. Man was a criminal under the sentence of death for transgression of the law of God, as a traitor, a rebel; hence a substitute for man must die as a malefactor, because He stood in the place of the traitors, with all their treasured sins upon His divine soul. It was not enough that Jesus should die in order to fully meet the demands of the broken law, but He died a shameful death. {5BC 1127.4}

He who was the brightness of the Father's glory, the express image of His person, bore our sins in His own body on the tree, suffering the penalty of man's transgression until justice was satisfied and required no more. {TMK 35.2}

Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. (6BC 1095)

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin. (CON 22)

The passages above make it obvious to me that, among other reasons, Jesus had to die because law and justice require death for sin. God cannot disregard the demands of law and justice and pardon sinners without paying a ransom. Death must happen in consequence of sin. To justify saving sinners, Jesus had to suffer and die in their place. In this way God satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice as well as saving sinners from death.

The reason God must justify pardoning and saving sinners, rather than punishing and destroying them the moment they sin, is because law and justice demand death for sin.

"Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the son of God. {1BC 1104.5}

The same thing would have to apply to Lucifer.

According to Ellen White Lucifer's case was different. He was fully acquainted with the loving character of God by the time he chose to sin and rebel. There was nothing more God could to do to motivate Lucifer to love and obey Him. Neither can people sin with impunity nowadays who know God really well. There is no hope for them. Here is how it is described:


You seem to be suggesting that there was hope for Lucifer after he sinned, that provision had been made to save him after he ventured to transgress the law, namely, you seem to think God was willing to pardon and reinstate Lucifer on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus.

Yes, MM, Lucifer's case was different, which is the point. What was different about Lucifer's case is that he knew of love and character of God, whereas we humans did not:



What is necessary for at-one-ment to take place is repentance and submission, the very things God "required" of Lucifer (I put "required" in quotes, because it's not an arbitrary requirement, but simply what would need to happen; obviously there could be no reconciliation of Lucifer continued rebelling).

For man, it was necessary for to God's character to be revealed. I'd like you to take not of Ellen White's reference to I think it's 1 Pet. 3:18, where she says "might be drawn back to God." This is what Peter says, which he got from Isaiah 53. So the idea of at-one-ment is coming across clearly here.

What you haven't addressed is the point I was making about where your idea is lacking, and that is that if things were as you as suggesting, then God could not have treated Lucifer as He did. That is, you are suggesting that God is unable to pardon, because it would be a violation of the law, unless there is a substitutionary death involved. Yet God offered Lucifer pardon, which puts that idea to bed.

So it's clear that God treated Lucifer and Adam/Eve differently. The question is why. The quote you cited from DA 761 explains why. Your idea that God is unable to pardon without death doesn't fit how He treated Lucifer.

Regarding the following:



this is clear to see simply be reading the record. God offered Lucifer pardon, many times, and offered to reinstate Lucifer if he confessed his sin. Therefore it's clear that Lucifer sinned, it's clear that God offered him pardon, and the conditions were clearly stated:



From this we can see that not only did Lucifer sin, but even after he was shown to be wrong, and engaged in falsehoods misrepresenting God's character, God *still* was willing to pardon him.

God was amazingly patient with Lucifer, and treated Him with kindness, doing all He could to lead him to repentance, just as He does with us. The cross shows the lengths God is willing to go, if needed. For Lucifer, it wasn't needed, so God simply offered the pardon straight up. For man, it was needed, so the pardon is conditional, but the conditionality is all on man's side, not God's, which Lucifer's case makes clear.

As Fifield so eloquently put it:

Tom, law involves justice but allows mercy: you demand mercy but cancel justice: therefore you have abrogated the "righteous requirements of the law".

If you can't see that, then you have failed to understand, let alone allow for, the whole of the Gospel of Christ.

Understanding God is love is the relationship humans need and have with the Father through his Son. Unless God's Son died the eternal death of sinners required of the divine character and its law of holy justice, the possibility of relating to God with the righteousness of faith, is barred.

Lucifer isn't comparable to us, since his fate of hell fire isn't reserved for any human being: further, the Bible reveals the truth for our salvation, not the whole detail of what Lucifer could have had - to extrapolate from Lucifer to us is both unrealistic for lack of context and illogical since Jesus isn't the Saviour of fallen angels at all!

Lucifer's case isn't ours to solve, since such requires knowing the mind of the Father, i.e. searching the things of God: it also requires knowing the mind of Lucifer. Since we can barely understand that God is love, and are given the promise of eternity to learn more of him than this life of faith affords us, but he, the highest created being in the unblemished universe, serving in the presence of the Father's throne itself, and knowing his Son's divine authority - with or without formal pronouncements of such from God - sinned against God's known law.

Just whom hell is reserved for, as Jesus himself said, not forgetting that bolt of lighnting falling from heaven - Satan's banishment before punishment, shows that Lucifer's case isn't just different in sinning in the present itself of God his creator, but also he is under justice in just the same way as those on earth who are unrepentant. We know no more, and have no authority to dismantle God's justice in the plan of salvation and before it too, for the sake of establishing relationship with Jesus: without justice in the person of Jesus for everyman, there is no relationship, for sin - natural and personal - separating from relationship has not been removed from barring that relationship.

Nuff said.

The other way around makes more sense to me, that is, since A&E were unfamiliar with the love and character of God it seems to me that a lesser demonstration would have sufficed to motivate them to love and obey Him. But in the case of Satan and the evil angels it seems to me that the ultimate demonstration would have been necessary to motivate them to love and obey God. (By lesser and ultimate demonstration I am referring to the cross).

Lucifer's strategy and behavior leading up to the moment he was convinced it would be a sin to pursue his course further was not considered a sin in the sight of God. Also, God did not offer to pardon Lucifer after he was convinced it would be wrong to pursue his course further. The fact is, God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer on condition of repentance and submission before he was guilty of sinning.

A person need not sin to experience repentance and submission. Remember, repentance involves sorrow for wrongdoing and a commitment not to continue in it. Yes, Lucifer was wrong about God, and the way he went about trying to understand his strange thoughts and feelings was wrong. However, God did not consider it a sin. Not until he was convinced it would be a sin to continue pursuing his course, and then chose to press ahead anyhow, not until that point did God consider Satan guilty of sinning.


It is alarming to me, Tom, that you can boldly say, "For Lucifer, [the cross] wasn't needed [to motivate him to repent and to love and obey God], so God simply offered the pardon straight up." It has the ring of blasphemy. To say simply offering to pardon his sin was more effective than the death of Jesus would have been is outrageous. The idea that apologizing for his sin would have been sufficient to atone for his sin, to satisfy the demands of law and justice, is creature merit at its worst.

Again, Ellen White made it abundantly clear that "no provision" existed to save angels should they choose to sin. And yet you are bravely saying the exact opposite, that God was more than willing to pardon Satan's sin and to reinstate him on conditions of creature merit. This view ignores the "penalty of the law". It treats past sin as something insignificant so long as the sinner sins no more. But not sinning any more does not satisfy the demands of law and justice. Only death can satisfy the sin debt of death.

Here's something I've quoted a number of times from Fifield. I'm doing so because he eloquently communicates what I think is correct:





Not necessarily. It's clear to me that you are perceiving justice differently than I, or Fifield, whom I've quoted. What we consider the Gospel to believe is dependent upon our perceptions of justice, what the law required, and, above all, upon God's character. In reality, I'm sure neither you nor I have the complete picture. I think my picture's more accurate than yours, and I'm sure you feel the same about yours.

If I were going to summarize the Gospel in a sentence, (and didn't choose John 3:16) I'd probably choose John 1:18, where John says "No one has seen God at any time. His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like) or John 14, not sure the verse off the top of my head, where Jesus said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father."

What we perceive the Gospel to be is going to be strongly influenced by what we see the problem(s) to be.



The bold part represents an area of disagreement. As I understand your view, you believe the "divine character" requires that God, in the judgment, kill those who have sinned and not accepted Christ, whereas I see that God warns those who sin to stop it, because if they don't, it will result in their death. The difference would be somewhat analogous to executing smokers as opposed to warning them of the dangers of smoking.

I agreed with this sentence: "Understanding God is love is the relationship humans need and have with the Father through his Son." but it seems disconnected from the rest of what you wrote.



The point of comparison had to do with the idea that God needs the death of Christ in order to pardon us. From my perspective, if we set aside the SOP, the discussion is very easy, because there's nothing in Scripture which suggests such a thing. However, there are things from the SOP which give this idea, so to counteract these I bring up Lucifer's case. If Christ had to die in order for God to be able to pardon man, because that's a requirement of the law, then this logic would apply equally to Lucifer. But the SOP describes Lucifer's fall in detail, and tells us that God was willing to pardon Lucifer, and, in fact, offered to do so, on many occasions, even *after* he had been misrepresenting God's character and had been shown to be wrong.

So I think this is very relevant if we're going to discuss the topic from the standpoint of SOP quotes. If we're looking at the topic from just a Scriptural standpoint, then I would agree that considering Lucifer's situation doesn't make much sense, since Scripture tells us very little about it.

? I don't follow this. Since Adam and Eve weren't familiar with God's love and character, they needed a demonstration of it. By beholding His character they could be drawn back to God. Since Lucifer already knew His character and love, he just needed to repent. I don't see what you mean that the other way around makes more sense.



Here's DA 761:



1.Lucifer knew God's love and character, but chose to follow his own independent will.
2.Man did not, and could be brought back to God by a revelation of the love and character of God.

That's what this is saying, isn't it?



One might be able to argue this if:
a.God had not offered to pardon Lucifer many times.
b.God did not give Lucifer a chance to confess his sin.
c.We didn't look at what Lucifer was actually doing.

Regarding c, we're told that Lucifer hated Christ and was envious of him. That's sin, MM! We're told that he misrepresented God's character for the purpose of exalting himself, and did so *after* he was shown to be wrong. That's clearly sin.



Yes he did! That's right in the quote I presented, in 1SP 319, 320. *After* he was shown to be wrong, and spoke falsehoods against God, it says that God offered to pardon him.



Same three points:

1.If he wasn't guilty of sinning, he wouldn't need pardon.
2.If he wasn't guilty of sinning, he wouldn't have been given the opportunity to "confess his sin."
3.The things he did, hating and being envious of Christ, desiring to exalt self, stealing homage from God's creature, misrepresenting God's character, were clearly sin.



A person has to sin in order to be pardoned for sinning. A person has to sin to be able to confess sin.



These things are rather trivial compared to being envious and hating Christ, seeking to exalt self, stealing homage from God's creatures, and purposely misrepresenting God's character.



Of course He did! That hating Christ is a sin is clear, as well as the other items mentioned. Plus God offered to pardon him, and allow him to "confess his sin."



God was willing to reinstate Lucifer if he confessed his sin, so clearly *after* Lucifer had sinned, God was willing to take him back.



MM, this is from DA 761:



If the cross would have motivated Lucifer to repent, this wouldn't be true, because, in this case, there *would* have been something else God could have done. God offered to pardon Lucifer if he would repent, so clearly it's something he could have done. Why does this ring of blasphemy?



Huh? You're clearly not understanding something here.



I haven't asserted any of these things, MM.



What could God have done? DA 761 addresses this point.



I have asserted no such thing. This isn't even close to anything I've suggested.



First of all, what you've stated here is not a view that I have. Secondly, your concept of the "penalty of the law" is what I'm taking issue with. It doesn't match with the facts of Lucifer's case. Lucifer sinned, and God was willing to take him back if he confessed his sin. If your concept of the "penalty of the law" were correct, this wouldn't have been possible.



Again, this isn't a view I've been asserting. Also, what you are suggesting doesn't take into account restoration, or restitution, to name just two things.



If this were true, then how Lucifer's case was recorded doesn't make sense.