repentance for what if he was not sinning? do you see repentance as a mere apology? what do you understand repentance to be?

isnt heart repentance when we deeply regret and hate what we have done? when we hate it so much we would rather die than do it again?

God "repented" without sinning, right? "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." (Ex 32:14)


Perhaps you overlooked the following comment:

Since A&E were unfamiliar with the love and character of God, it seems to me a lesser demonstration of His love (less than the cross) would have yielded the mere results you speak of, namely, to motivate them to love and obey Him. The cross was overkill (no pun intended) if God was merely trying to motivate them to love and obey Him.

Lucifer, on the other hand, was beyond hope after he sinned. What more could God do for him if the cross, the ultimate demonstration of love, would have been insufficient to motivate him to love and obey Him? Also, what good would it do to offer him pardon after he was guilty of sinning?


Here is how it is described:


God offered to pardon Lucifer while he was in the state of mind described in the 4 points listed below:

1. He was not immediately degraded from his exalted station when he first indulged the spirit of discontent, nor even when he began to present his false claims before the loyal angels.

2. Lucifer bowed with them, but in his heart there was a strange, fierce conflict. Truth, justice, and loyalty were struggling against envy and jealousy. The influence of the holy angels seemed for a time to carry him with them. As songs of praise ascended in melodious strains, swelled by thousands of glad voices, the spirit of evil seemed vanquished; unutterable love thrilled his entire being; his soul went out, in harmony with the sinless worshippers, in love to the Father and the Son.

3. Lucifer himself did not at first see whither he was drifting; he did not understand the real nature of his feelings.

4. He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God.

Again, 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. Eve's case confirms this point, although not in as drastic a manner. That is, she entertained all sorts of lies about God before she was actually guilty of sinning. She was not guilty of sinning until the instant she actually bit into the forbidden fruit. All the lies she indulged up to that point did not constitute a sin.


Here’s the quote the way you posted it:


It appears you believe this passage should be read this way - “Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission.”

That is, you seem to think the chronology goes like this:

1. Lucifer was guilty of sinning
2. Lucifer was convinced he was wrong about God
3. God offered to pardon Lucifer
4. Lucifer continued to sin
5. God continued offering to pardon Lucifer


During this time, the following was also true of Lucifer:

1. He was not immediately degraded from his exalted station when he first indulged the spirit of discontent, nor even when he began to present his false claims before the loyal angels.

2. Lucifer bowed with them, but in his heart there was a strange, fierce conflict. Truth, justice, and loyalty were struggling against envy and jealousy. The influence of the holy angels seemed for a time to carry him with them. As songs of praise ascended in melodious strains, swelled by thousands of glad voices, the spirit of evil seemed vanquished; unutterable love thrilled his entire being; his soul went out, in harmony with the sinless worshippers, in love to the Father and the Son.

3. Lucifer himself did not at first see whither he was drifting; he did not understand the real nature of his feelings.

4. He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God.


The evidence does not support it. “But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. Satan grew bold in his rebellion, and expressed his contempt of the Creator's law. {SR 18.2}


Here’s what I hear you saying: "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." I also hear you saying that Lucifer knew the love of God so well that not even the cross could have added to His knowledge of God’s love. Based on this idea, you go on to conclude that God offered to pardon Lucifer “straight up”, which I took to mean without offering to demonstrate the ultimate evidence of His love, namely, the cross, that such evidence was unnecessary, and that simply offering to pardon him was all that was needed.

Your conclusion makes it sound like offering Lucifer pardon was better than offering to demonstrate the ultimate evidence of God’s love – the cross. I think it borders on blasphemy. To top it off, you go on to speculate that your view of these things proves the death of Jesus was not necessary to offer us pardon or salvation, that it “primarily” serves to influence and motive us to love and obey God. I put primarily in quotes because you say there are others reasons why Jesus had to die; however, you have not stated them. So, let me ask, Why else did Jesus have to suffer and die besides to motivate us to love and obey God?


Are you saying repentance and submission would not have served to atone for Lucifer’s sin? Consider this insight: “Satan watched every event in regard to the sacrificial offerings with intense interest. The devotion and solemnity connected with the shedding of the blood of the victim caused him great uneasiness. To him, this ceremony was clothed with mystery; but he was not a dull scholar, and he soon learned that the sacrificial offerings typified some future atonement for man. He saw that these offerings signified repentance for sin. {Con 22.1}

Are you saying law and justice did not demand death for sin in Lucifer’s case? Consider these insights: “The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. {PP 63.2} “Christ on the cross not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law--for whom God pardons He first makes penitent--but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body, satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made. He suffered in the flesh, that with His bruised and broken body He might cover the defenseless sinner. {AG 153.2}


Nothing! That’s her point. DA 761 does not negate this point.


I’ll reword it. “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 condition of repentance and submission.” Is this what you’re saying? If so, please explain how it has nothing to do with creature merit.


Again, your view denies what Ellen White said about it. “But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. Satan grew bold in his rebellion, and expressed his contempt of the Creator's law.”


What is your view of past sins? Sounds to me like you think God disregards them once sinners cease sinning and love and obey God.

What do you mean that what I am “suggesting doesn't take into account restoration, or restitution, to name just two things”?


Or, your view of it is what makes it make no sense. Also, are you suggesting law and justice do not demand death for sin? Ellen White wrote:


Are you saying law and justice did not demand the life of Lucifer for his sin? Or, are saying God disregarded the death demands of law and justice in the case of Lucifer?

Laws are good only if they are enforced. If a law is not enforced it only becomes a suggestion.

What would we think if the president of the United States issued a blanket pardon to all prisoners in country? What message would be given to the criminals? "YOu can break the law and get away with it".
Oh -- they first have to promise submission?
It's easy to promise, but with the popular thinking that we can't help ourselves and will always sin, what good is a promise of submission?

What happens to the law when all violators are pardoned?

A law must have consequences for it to be a law.


Take the story of Daniel --

King Darius had issued a law.
The penalty for violating that law was to be lion's lunch.

Now these kings realized that to be wishy washy about laws would jeordize the government. The purpose of law and courts is to ensure justice.

Darius was in a delemma.
Daniel had broken his law.
The penalty was "to lion's with him".
Darius did NOT want to send Daniel to the lions.
But to pardon would weaken justice and power of the law.

Only the gospel can reconcile justice and mercy.
Had Darius followed the gospel method, he (as the law maker) would have had to go into the Lion's den in Daniel's place.
Darius loved Daniel, but not enough to give his life for him.

However, Christ (the lawgiver) did love us enough to take our penalty.

There were other issues at stake as well. As you'll recall, the security of the universe was settled by the cross.



No, indeed. God offered to restore Lucifer to his position if he confessed his sin.



This is so clear, MM. Why do you keep insisting that Lucifer was lost once he sinned?



He could have pardoned him, had he chosen to repent.



What an odd question! Pardon doesn't do anyone any good if they're not guilty of something. Why did you ask this question?

Regarding Lucifer's fall, I quoted from 1SP 319-320 which shows that Lucifer was offered pardon *after* he had uttered falsehoods and misrepresented God's character(320), which was *after* he had been give the opportunity to confess his sin.(319) So not only was Lucifer offered pardon *after* he was guilty of sin, he was offered pardon *after that*!



That's what the passage says, except instead of 1. ("Lucifer was guilty of sinning") it says that Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin. Of course, that he was guilty of sinning is a reasonable inference, which I'm not disputing. I'm just pointing out what the passage actually says.



I agree. In addition to Lucifer's being envious and hating Christ, seeking to exalt self, stealing homage from God's creatures, and purposely misrepresenting God's character, the things you wrote were also taking place.



Clearly it does. All one has to do is read that God gave Lucifer the opportunity to confess his sin, and offered him pardon again and again.



You're taking this out of context. This isn't even from the same book.



Ok.



Not exactly. I said (quoted) this:





I didn't really "conclude" this. This is what Ellen White wrote. God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again."



This follows from DA 761.



Huh?



What?! I don't think you're thinking this through clearly, MM. This is straight from DA 761 and 1SP 319. No, Ellen White's not being blasphemous!!



No!!!!!!! It wasn't necessary for God to be able to legal pardon us. It WAS necessary for our salvation.



Where did I say this, MM? Can you quote something please?



Yes I have. I've gone in great detail regarding DA 764, to name just one. I did this just today.



I'd suggest you read the chapter "It Is finished." Many reasons are given there. Here are a few.

1.To reveal the character of Satan to the unfallen universe.
2.To reveal the nature of sin (it results in the second death).
3.To reveal the character of God.
4.To reveal the love of God.
5.To honor the law of God.
6.To reveal the nature of our sinfulness.



I've said that God offered to pardon Lucifer on the condition of repentance and submission. (actually, I've quoted Ellen White saying this)



No. I've said I think you understand what this means incorrectly. I've never said this isn't true, only that I don't believe your thoughts regarding this are correct.



I didn't say it "negates" this point, but that it addresses it. Anyway, you're taking her statement out of context. The statement you're quoting is after Lucifer had gone too far, after the rebellion was well under way.



That's appropriate. I hope to see something resembling what I've said.



I quoted from the SOP:



I don't see that this has anything to do with "creature merit."



Again, this is out of context. This is after the fact. God clearly offered to pardon Lucifer, and gave him a chance to confess his sin. There's no doubt about this. It's clearly stated.



No, I've not said this. God offered to pardon Lucifer's sin on the condition of repentance and submission. I've said that.



Just what I said. You said, "It treats past sin as something insignificant so long as the sinner sins no more." This is incorrect.



I think what Ellen White wrote makes sense. Lucifer sinned, and God offered to pardon him for in on the condition of repentance and submission.



No.



I'm saying that you're understanding of the issues doesn't match that facts, which are that God offered to pardon Lucifer for his sin upon the condition of repentance and submission.



No, I'm saying you're understanding of things doesn't match the facts. God offered to pardon Lucifer for his sin on the condition of repentance and submission. Your view of things doesn't match up with this.

Ded, in response to your post, I've often quoted the following:

Tom, since Scripture is so strong on God's character, law, justice..., and mercy, Ellen White cannot be Biblically authoritative if she neglects any of them.

Her emphasis regarding Lucifer is his "relationship" in the very sight of God: free choice is the essence of her position. That's the reality of "peace with God" which the legal event of the cross - Christ paying the penalty for all men's sin and sins - not only doesn't get in the way of but without which "peace with God" is impossible, for the barrier in our nature and character of sin.

Whatever we aren't told of Lucifer's case doesn't is implied by obvious requirements of God's law. Pure logic cannot see that, it seems, so logic needs a reality check!

Satan and his angels are alone reserved for hell fire: that's judgement under law, so, whatever the explicit statements about Lucifer in heaven, he was subject to the law, and retained free choice in that context. He chose against God's visible, holy and righteous presence and character, without any undue influence.

That God is holy and just and good makes his mercy both graceous and the beginning of our understanding of him! We understand him to be the Judge of all the earth, since he is its Creator and Redeemer, the propitiation for us, but I'll stop there, since you don't allow for Ellen White's well known support of Christ's substitution for God's judgement of us and paying the penalty for our sin.

I have no problem not using Ellen White in this subject. As I stated, I think it's easier to discuss from Scripture. I respond using her to others who use her.



What does this sentence mean? (this last one)



You're assuming what you think is true, and concluding if she says something different than that, then it's illogical. There's not much to discuss given this way of looking at things.



This is your opinion, which you're not backing up by anything. My opinion, which I'll also just state, is that the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves, they would long to flee from heaven, and that they suffer hell fire because they have ruined their characters, so much so that the mere presence of God is to them as a consuming fire. The glory of God will destroy them.



I don't think anyone is disputing this.



This looks to be simply arguing in a circle. What I'm arguing is that if you want to use Ellen White statements on this question, then consider the ones involving Lucifer's case, and see if the suggested theory (e.g. God is not capable of pardoning others of sin unless someone dies) holds up. If it doesn't, then perhaps the assumption leading to the contradiction should be questioned.

Tom, I sat down this morning and penned this summary. This is how I see things as they relate to the demands of law and justice. As always, though, please bear in mind there is more to the picture. By focusing on justice I am not implying mercy is unimportant.

Ok, don't know what happened there, but...



Penalty is required and that is implied in all instances of God's justice against sin. Lucifer's case clearly includes divine justice against him, for he's destined already for judgement, punishment and annihilation: that reality for him...is proof that he is subject to the law of penalty for transgression and its implicit rules.



No issue arises between our case and Lucifer's, even for Ellen White, since God isn't redeeming Satan but mankind, and Lucifer's case is different to us only in terms of God's revelation in each case; yet the same law applies to both. The requirements of justice are known, unchangeable - hence God's Son had to die for us, and implicit where not stated. Also, God was fair to Lucifer, and holy, just, good, and merciful, to everyone. Legal events of salvation don't block relationship unless faith is only seen as a legal event, too.

I agree with MM to large part, but still have to look at it carefully.