You did not agree or disagree with the point I made. What do you think?

Also, I believe you are misunderstanding and therefore misapplying the point Ellen White made regarding the security of the Universe. You seem to think the unfallen beings were not secure until after Jesus died. However, this implies they were living in an insecure state for 4,000 years. The fact is, though, they have been secure from day one. Ellen White observed:

His justice will finally be acknowledged by the whole world, though the acknowledgment will be made too late to save the rebellious. God carries with Him the sympathy and approval of the whole universe as step by step His great plan advances to its complete fulfillment. He will carry it with Him in the final eradication of rebellion. {PP 79.1}


Actually, he wasn’t guilty of sinning until after he was convinced it would be a sin to pursue his course further and chose to continue pursuing. But let’s assume you’re right, on what grounds was God willing to pardon and reinstate Lucifer? On the basis of repentance and submission? If so, how is that not on the grounds of creature merit?


What would have been Lucifer’s motivation for repenting? If the cross would have failed to motivate him to repent, do you really believe simply offering to forgive him was sufficient? Keep in mind here that I’m playing along with your assumption that God offered to pardon Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning. In truth, though, I do not believe it unfolded that way.


People do not have to be guilty of sin to be pardoned. They need only be guilty of wrong doing. And neither do they have to be guilty of sinning to repent. As you know, God Himself repented on several occasions. Neither of us would presume to believe God repented because He was guilty of sinning. Repentance involves a change of mind, a change of direction.

Also, you are treating your assumptions as if they are indisputable facts. In reality, though, your assumptions are still under question. Again, your assumptions require us to believe things you cannot prove, namely, the law did not condemn Lucifer or demand his death, therefore, God could pardon him on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the death of Jesus. Since you cannot substantiate your assumptions, it seems premature to cite his case as proof Jesus did not have to die to also satisfy our sin debt of death.


Can I conclude then that what I wrote above accurately reflects what you believe?


I’m glad we agree on this point.


What is the context? What is the point as it relates to sin and salvation? And, does it matter if it is described in a different book?


Do you believe the penalty for sin is death, that the law demands the life of the sinner? If so, on what grounds, then, does God pardon and save sinners? Does He ignore the penalty of the law?


Thank you for answering my question. I agree with my most of what you’ve listed. However, in what sense do you think sin results in second death? What do you think will cause sinners to die at the end of time? Also, in what sense do you think Jesus’ death honored the law?


I’m saying the same thing. I can say this because you left out the word “sin” in your sentence above. In this sense, though, it doesn’t answer my question. Please answer my question. Thank you.


What do you think my thoughts are on this particular point? And, do you agree with me that law and justice did indeed demand death for his sin? If not, why not? If so, then why do you believe he could have been pardoned without it?


Here’s the context of the statement:


“But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law.” Are you suggesting that Lucifer’s behavior leading up to this point did not constitute sin, the transgression of God’s law?

“Satan grew bold in his rebellion, and expressed his contempt of the Creator's law.” Are you suggesting Lucifer did not show contempt for God’s law until after he began rebelling openly?

“He claimed that angels needed no law but should be left free to follow their own will, which would ever guide them right; that law was a restriction of their liberty; and that to abolish law was one great object of his standing as he did. The condition of the angels, he thought, needed improvement.” Are you suggesting Lucifer did not express these ideas until after he began rebelling openly?


How do you define creature merit? Does your definition include doing something that earns us forgiveness and salvation? If so, why do you think basing his pardon solely on the conditions that he repent and submit is not creature merit? Does God offer to pardon us on the sole condition that we repent and submit? If not, why not?


If it is so clearly stated, why, then, do so many other people see it differently than you do?

You wrote, “If your concept of the ‘penalty of the law’ were correct, this wouldn't have been possible.” What I’m saying about the “penalty of the law” is correct, therefore, I agree with you that God not have actually pardoned Lucifer’s sin without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. Ellen White described the penalty of the law is the following terms:

By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law (ST Sept. 5, 1892). {6BC 1095.4}

As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, for the obedient will be raised to immortality, and the transgressor will rise from the dead to suffer death, the penalty of the law which he has broken. {TDG 148.1}

Christ consented to die in the sinner's stead, that man, by a life of obedience, might escape the penalty of the law of God. His death did not make the law of none effect; it did not slay the law, lessen its holy claims, nor detract from its sacred dignity. The death of Christ proclaimed the justice of His Father's law in punishing the transgressor, in that He consented to suffer the penalty of the law Himself in order to save fallen man from its curse. The death of God's beloved Son on the cross shows the immutability of the law of God. His death magnifies the law and makes it honorable, and gives evidence to man of its changeless character. From His own divine lips are heard the words: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The death of Christ justified the claims of the law. {2T 200.2}


This point does not address my question and comment. Or, are you suggesting mere repentance is sufficient to atone for past sins, therefore, the death sentence need not be executed?


In what sense do you think mere repentance restores or makes restitution?


Is your view based on the assumption that the penalty for breaking the law is not death but rather repentance and submission? If not, what do you think the penalty for breaking the law is, and how does it relate to Lucifer’s case?


Are you suggesting law and justice do indeed demand death for sin?


I believe law and justice demands the life of everyone who sins, including Lucifer. You seem to think the facts, as you understand them, make it clear that God was willing to pardon Lucifer’s sins merely on the condition that he repent and submit, and that God would not have also required the substitutionary death of Jesus. You then go on to cite this idea as proof that Jesus did not have to die to pay our sin debt of death, to satisfy the death demands of law and justice. You see no lawful or legal reason why Jesus had to die. Since this is the case, why are you hesitating to plainly answer the following questions:

1. Are you saying law and justice did not demand the life of Lucifer for his sin?

2. Or, are you saying God disregarded the death demands of law and justice in the case of Lucifer?

in reading the pioneers and the points they cover and some they stress, it seems to me that,
1. we have drifted from the original biblical understanding in areas, and

2. we dont have a clue that we dont know many things. it has not occured to us to "dig deeper" because it seems so clear on the surface. but we dont know that we are only looking on the surface.

the "penalty" is one of those issues that we dont know that we dont know. on the surface it seems that God is saying, if you sin I will put you to death.

but that is not what the pioneers understood in their prayerful studies, which we are given record of, in their search for truth.

one of the things they stress, always, is in reference to the text Gen 2:17... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
the king james mistranslated this clause. no translation in and of itself is reliable.


this is all in keeping with what ellen white has stated.

Let me know what you decide. Did you read my last post (118361)?

The reason A&E did not die "in the day" they sinned is because Jesus died in their place. He is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Otherwise, if God had not implemented the plan of salvation, what purpose would it have served to allow them to live one moment longer?

"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. {1SM 230.1}

hmmm, that does present a problem. she says one thing one place and "contradicts" it in another place.

i guess ill have to wait on the Lord to explain the discrepancy.

i see you have decided to chose one over the other instead.

There were other issues involved. The cross was necessary to deal with all the issues involved. I don't think the idea that a lesser demonstration of His love is a good idea. For example, where do you draw the line? Say person A would respond to a "lesser demonstration of His love" as you call it, but not person B. Wouldn't God, because of His character, choose a greater demonstration of His love so person B could be saved as well?



The following quote speaks to the question at hand:



The quote you cited doesn't look to speak to the issue. Of course the unfallen beings and holy angels were in sympathy with what God was doing. The quote you cited doesn't speak to the issue of security, but this one I've cited does, and what it says is clear (see especially the part in bold).



MM, consider what Lucifer actually did. He

1.Hated Christ.
2.Made plans to exalt himself.
3.Stole homage from God's creatures.

These things are sin, aren't they?

In addition, he was offered pardon and given the opportunity to confess his sin, which means, of course, he was guilty of sin. This is obvious.



That's what Ellen White said.



Consider the case of the man who owed the king 10,000 talents, asked for time to pay the debt, and the king forgave him the debt. Was this "creature merit"?

Repentance is a change of heart. It's not "creature merit."



The same as yours when you've wronged someone and want to be in harmony with that person.



We're told Satan was given the opportunity to confess his sin, and offered pardon on the condition of repentance and submission. You agree with this, don't you?

In answer to your question regarding sufficiency, we're told that Lucifer came very close to repenting, that only pride forbade it, so sufficient motivation doesn't look to have been an issue.



You like to ask for inspired passages, so I'll return the favor. Where is an inspired passage that says that God can forgive a person without the person not being guilty of sin?



The context is clearly speaking of Lucifer's sin. In addition to saying he was offered pardon many times, it also says he was given the opportunity to confess his sin.



The facts are what I've said, which is that Lucifer was offered pardon on the condition of repentance and submission, and given the opportunity to confess his sin, and it wasn't necessary for Christ to have died in order for these things to happen, since they did happen, and Christ hadn't died.



I think I'd put it like this:

1. Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin.
2. Lucifer was convinced he was wrong about God.
3. God had been repeatedly offering to pardon Lucifer.
4. Lucifer continued to sin.
5. God continued offering to pardon Lucifer, until Lucifer so hardened his heart, he lost the capacity to respond.

(More later)

This is after it was too late for Lucifer. She's saying that if the angels who were thinking of rebelling continued, they would be lost. She not saying that if Lucifer sinned, he'd be lost, which is obvious, as he was given the opportunity to "confess his sin".



I've quoted the following quite a few times in answer to this question, or similar ones:



The main point of difference regarding "penalty" between our views, it seems to me, is that I view it as the simply a way of saying that "the inevitable result of sin is death". That is, that violating the law leads to death as a natural consequence. You view it as an arbitrary (i.e. artificial, imposed, not a natural consequence) punishment. So He doesn't ignore it, but deals with it by providing a way for the sinner to avoid the death which sin causes. I've also quoted the following many times:





Regarding the last question, the first quote from Fifield above is from the chapter called "How the death of Christ honors the law" and deals with this question. Regarding how sin results in death, DA 764 discusses this.



Well, obviously Lucifer sinned. He hated Christ. That's a sin. He stole homage from God's creatures, told lies about God to exalt himself. These things are obviously sin. And, before saying God offered Lucifer pardon again and again, she wrote that Lucifer was given the opportunity to, and I quote, "confess his sin." Now obviously if he hadn't sinned, he could not confess it, right? That should be clear. I'm not understanding how you can think Lucifer didn't sin given the fact that he given the opportunity to confess his sin. What could be clearer than this?

Regarding your question, no, that's not what I'm saying, which is why I answered by saying, "I've said ..."



I think you perceive that death is an arbitrary punishment which must be imposed in order for God to be able to pardon.



I think I answered this above, and in the previous post. In short, I think you've misframed the issue, and DA 761 explains why the issue needed to be dealt with different for man and Lucifer.



An attempt to earn God's favor.



Because God's favor is freely given.



The following explains the process of being saved:



It does seem to me this could be summed up as repentance and submission.

(More later)

On this specific point, I'm pretty sure everybody on the forum agrees with me. There's no question this is clearly stated in 1SP 319, 320. No one I know, other than you, has disputed this. Here's where it says it:





This is wrong twice. First of all, what you're saying about the "penalty of the law" can't be right, because God offered to pardon Lucifer again and again, and to give him a chance to confess his sin. Secondly I don't agree with you, but disagree with you. I don't understand how you could confuse this point, given the conversations we've had.

Very odd.



We're just going around in circles here. You see a problem that doesn't exist, IMO, and can't exist, given how God treated Lucifer. You keep asking me questions that require I see things as you do, but I don't. That is, they are based on false assumptions from my point of view, assumptions I don't hold because I see in the case of Lucifer that God freely offered him pardon for his sin on the basis of repentance and submission, and the opportunity to confess his sin, as Ellen White states.



You need to provide more background for your questions, MM. So many of them are just baffling. That is, I don't see why you're asking them. For example, here you ask in what sense do I do something, but you've given no reason as to why you assume I'm thinking the thing you assert. You need to explain these things.



No.



The penalty for breaking the law is death, meaning that death is the inevitable result of sin. The only way to eternal life is to be freed from sin, whether in Lucifer's case, or anyone else's.



Yes, but not according to your understanding, IMO, which is based on the concept that the law demands an arbitrary, or artificial, penalty.



This is what the evidence indicates. We're told God offered to pardon Lucifer again and again, and to restore him to his position, if he confessed his sin.



No, I've never said this. Not ever. Not once. Never, ever, ever.

What I've said is that your view of what this means does not match with the facts of the case.

Do you see the difference?

Please, MM, refrain from asserting I've said things I've never said. I've asked you this repeatedly, and I think it's a reasonable request. Because you view things in a certain way does not mean things are actually that way, so the fact that I disagree with your view of an interpretation of Ellen White, or Scripture, in no way means I've disagreeing with what Ellen White or Scripture says.

I do hope you grasp what I'm saying here.



Again, this is incorrect. I've never asserted this. I've said I don't agree with your interpretation of Ellen White's writings, and I've explained why I disagree.



It's not the case.



I've answered these questions many, many, many times. In this very post, for example, you've already asked these questions more than once, and I've responded to them.

While Satan can employ fraud and sophistry to accomplish his objects,

God cannot lie;


while Lucifer, like the serpent, can choose a tortuous course, turning, twisting, gliding, to conceal himself, God moves only in a direct, straight-forward line. Satan had disguised himself in a cloak of falsehood, and for a time it was impossible to tear off the covering, so that the hideous deformity of his character could be seen. He must be left to reveal himself in his cruel, artful, wicked works.... (1SP 319, 320)

it says God cannot lie. it doesnt say God will not lie, God refuses to lie. it says God cannot lie.

i read that as impossible for Him to lie.

what else is impossible for Him, or He cannot do?

When it says "God cannot lie," I understand this to mean that it is contrary to His character to lie (as opposed to His not being physically able to lie). I believe we could say this regarding His law in general. That is, God cannot transgress His law.