Lesson #6 - Atonement in SYMBOLS: Part 1

Here is the link to the study and discussion material for this week:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/08d/less06nkjv.html

All the information from the Sabbath afternoon section is full of the fact that the necessity of the symbolic animal sacrifices pointed to the fact that Christ had to die for us as out substitute in order for us to receive forgiveness for our own sins.

I don't think this is how those who offered the sacrifices thought. That is, I don't think they thought in terms of, "I sinned. I deserve death. I'm sacrificing this animal to die in my place."

I think they thought in terms of, "I did something which is wrong. I'm sorry I did that. I'm sacrificing this animal to demonstrate that I am dedicating myself to God, and am sorry for what I did."

This was what God expected them to understand through the sacrifice, that is, the conclusion they should draw from the painful experience.


You don't need to take a life in order to demonstrate that you are dedicating yourself to God and that you are sorry for what you did. What is the correspondence between the two things (I mean, between being sorry and taking a life)?

This seems very unlikely. This isn't the way cultures of that time viewed sacrifice.



Animal sacrifice was the common way for people of that time to express dedication to their deity.

As I am working on a possible forum software glitch, can all of you see the link to the study material between the first and the second post?

Pagan cultures generally viewed sacrifices as a way to appease their gods.

But how did Jews view them?

Here you can find several early Jewish views. Among them you can find the following one (the Juridical explanation):

I see post #104143, and post #104144, and in post #104143 the link http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/08d/less06nkjv.html
Are you referring to this one or to some other link?

I see no link between the 1st and 2nd posts.

Was it a re-dedication of themselves because of a failure to live up to their deity's standards? Or was it a payment to their deity to show their dedication? Or was it an offering in order to appease their deity's anger?

Just a few thoughts for now.



Here's something I came across:



Something else:



Paul brings up the common meaning of sacrifice here:

1. Jesus’ death recommends us to God. "Jesus died as a sacrifice for man because the fallen race can do nothing to recommend themselves to God. {GC 73.1}

2. Jesus’ death makes satisfaction for sins. "Christ," {Zwingli} said, "who was once offered upon the cross, is the sacrifice and victim, that had made satisfaction for the sins of believers to all eternity."--Ibid., b. 8, ch. 5. {GC 175.1}

3. Jesus’ death appeases the wrath of God. "O Father," {Calvin} cried, "His sacrifice has appeased Thy wrath; His blood has washed away my impurities; His cross has borne my curse; His death has atoned for me. {GC 221.1}

4. Jesus’ death was substitutionary. "Day by day the repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle and, placing his hand upon the victim's head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. The animal was then slain. "Without shedding of blood," says the apostle, there is no remission of sin. "The life of the flesh is in the blood." Leviticus 17:11. The broken law of God demanded the life of the transgressor. {GC 418.1}

5. Jesus’ death remits sins that are past and reconciles man to God. "As the cross of Calvary, with its infinite sacrifice for the sins of men, was revealed, they saw that nothing but the merits of Christ could suffice to atone for their transgressions; this alone could reconcile man to God. With faith and humility they accepted the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Through the blood of Jesus they had "remission of sins that are past." {GC 461.1}

6. Jesus must apply the benefits of His death. "The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven. We must by faith enter within the veil, "whither the forerunner is for us entered." Hebrews 6:20. {GC 489.1}

7. Jesus died to demonstrate the immutability of God’s law. “But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die. He came to "magnify the law" and to "make it honorable." Not alone that the inhabitants of this world might regard the law as it should be regarded; but it was to demonstrate to all the worlds of the universe that God's law is unchangeable. Could its claims have been set aside, then the Son of God need not have yielded up His life to atone for its transgression. The death of Christ proves it immutable. And the sacrifice to which infinite love impelled the Father and the Son, that sinners might be redeemed, demonstrates to all the universe--what nothing less than this plan of atonement could have sufficed to do--that justice and mercy are the foundation of the law and government of God. {GC 503.1} “The cross of Calvary, while it declares the law immutable, proclaims to the universe that the wages of sin is death. {GC 503.3}

8. Jesus’ death proves God will execute the death penalty. “God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that "the wages of sin is death," that every violation of God's law must receive its just retribution. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. {GC 539.3}

PS - None of the explanations posted above teach Jesus died to motivate sinners to love and obey God.

Here's the first one:



This is clearly not only forensic. She says "The dependence of the soul upon Christ is as real, and its connection with Him must be as close, as that of a limb to the body, or of a branch to the vine." Where does this connection come from?



I'm sure one would find similar connections in the other quotes as well.

What does number 7 above have to do with motivating sinners to love and obey God? One of the reasons Jesus had to die was to satisfy the just and loving demands of the law.

She says:



This links together the cross and the dependence of the soul upon Christ. What is it about the cross that would make a soul depend upon Christ, and have a close connection?



This sets out the principle that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. She doesn't have to say this in every quote! We know this principle is true. So we know the cross had this purpose.

You mentioned 7, not 1. My quote above was from 1. Here are some quotes related to 7, the first one a paragraph (maybe two) before yours, the second one a little earlier in the chapter.

I touched on this in my sermon a couple of weeks ago. Give me a couple of days to catch up and upload it.

Ok. It will be interesting to see.

Check it out here: The Serpent and the Seed

So far I've only seen the slides. Very nice.

No, Tom, that's not the "common meaning" of sacrifice: that's the spiritual definition of daily conversion - nothing related to propitiation for sin, which is the heart of this week's lesson.

As for the meaning of sacrifice, substitution has been enunciated by MM's quotes as the replacement of the life of God's Lamb for the life of the sinner. Ezek 18:20a states it plainly: "The soul that sins shall die." This is the negative, justice element of Christ's death for sin. His merits are the positive, righteousness element, gifting eternal life to the world.

What do you have to say about any of MM's quotes? Your silence about the issues of justice expose you to a contradiction with Bible & SOP until you speak to the point...(!) When shall we hear from you, eh.

I was talking about the common meaning of sacrifice for the contemporaries of Paul. This *was* the common idea: a sacrifice expressed a dedication of oneself to one's deity.



The idea of propitiation popularized by Hodge wasn't an idea they had.



This soul that sins shall die is simply pointing to the effects of sin: it kills. It's the same as what James points out:



Nice paraphrase! Here's a more literal translation:



Or, as the SOP puts it, death is the inevitable result of sin.



Every point a person makes I respond to, except redundant ones, or points missed inadvertently. So, please, no need for accusations! If I missed something, just bring it to my attention, and I'll respond. But please leave off the accusations!

You're talking about the 7 quotes he made? I addressed the first one, and showed that EGW made the point I had been making. He asked about the 7th one, so I did that there too. If you have a specific one in mind, I'll comment on that too, but I don't see why I should have to go through every one.

It's a moot point anyway. Why should she have to make a specific point every time she speaks on a subject? She presented the principle very clearly here:



If the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, this certainly includes the cross. We have the principle expressed here as well:



The context here is the cross. This makes the point that we are drawn back to God by the cross because it reveals God's character and the height and depth of His love.

So the point is established. She doesn't have to speak about it every single time she discusses the cross.

MM's points 1 & 7 sound like your singular point of demonstrating God's love to change our minds about God's character; all his other quotes challenge you to agree with them, with their points on substitution and justice, which you don't support, or do you: what do you say to them?

It's known you differ with us on the meaning of Christ's sacrifice - this week's lesson on sacrificial symbolism for Israel till the Messiah should come, but the greek dictionary definition of propitiation for Rom 3:25 for example gives the meaning presented in the lesson. Even the NIV makes clear in the margin that propitiation means "one [Christ] who would turn aside his [God's] wrath".

Divine wrath propitiation is also well known among heathen religions, but you don't like Biblical wrath against sin do you. God's version can't be true?

I just started a thread on this at The Serpent and the Seed (sermon by Arnold Sy Go) for comments, concerns, or whatever.

Tom, what is your point? Do you agree Jesus' death was necessary to prove the law is immutable? If so, why was His death necessary to prove it? And, how did His death prove it? Also, what did dying to prove it have to do with motivating sinners to love and obey God? "But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die." The way she puts this implies different reasons.

I chose 1 arbitrarily because it was first. MM chose 7, so I addressed that one too.

I've responded to the points of substitution and justice many times. I like what Fifield says on this point, and have quoted him many times. For example:





I don't agree with all of "us." I can think of at least three people of the top of my head who agree with me who are, or have been, Maritime regulars. However, I don't see why you bring things like this up. It's irrelevant. Proof isn't determined by numbers. Otherwise, we might as well be Catholics.

What are you referring to here? Are you thinking of "hilasterion" or "hilasmos"?



Since you didn't cite the reference, I have to guess what you are referring to. I'm guessing it's either Romans 3:25 or 1 John 2:2, probably the former. If this is so, I note that NAB has the following comment in its margin:





The construction "but you don't like .... do you." is unpleasant. Please don't use this.

Also your question "God's version can't be true" sounds arrogant. You and I are having a difference of opinion. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we're both wrong. That I disagree with you does not necessarily mean I've disagreeing with God.

To deal with your question if I'm aware that "divine wrath propitiation is also well known among heathen religions" the following quote comes to mind:



This quote seems to be arguing against the idea you are referring to.

This question is vague. Point about what?



Yes.



The Fifield quote which I cited for Colin, in the post immediately preceding this one, explains why.



It also explains how.



It explains this as well.



Not to disagree with the idea that there are other reasons, it's certainly not the case that this particular quote is making this point. The reason for why she puts things as she did here is made clear immediately following where she explains that the "not merely" is in reference to what Christ did being for the good of other creatures besides man.

"Not alone that the inhabitants of this world ..."

Fraid not, no: she writes that Satan perverted God's propitiatory sacrifices into heathen propitiation in the hands of the Israelites- iow. not God's will & worthless, not that God didn't provide Jesus as propitiation for our sins and taught that through the sanctuary service.

Yes I did refer to Rom 3:25, and I don't accept "expiation" as an interpretational translation. The RSV shares that word with the NASB, but the NIV acknowledges that "propitiation" is in its original text, and that's the way the Bible is. I'll find a series of texts about wrath against sin...What's wrong with God propitiating his own wrath????

I didn't really follow you here. You wrote:



so I presented a quote which is dealing with this.



But you accept "propitiation" as an interpretational translation.



It's unlikely the NIV acknowledges this, since "hilasterion" does not mean "propitiaton" in the original. It means "mercy seat," which I'm sure the NIV translaters were aware of. You still haven't provided the note from the margin.

Young's Literal Translation has:





The Bible says that Christ is a propitiation (assuming we use this word, instead of the word "expiation") for our sins, not for God's wrath. Waggoner comments:



A point to especially note:



I think this is key.

Just as a side note, I don't have a problem with God's propitiating His own wrath, but I would understand this mechanism much differently than you do. I understand it how Fifield has explained it.

Law and justice require death in consequence of man's sin - not sinners.

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}

Soooo,...the judgement of the wicked in hell involves God's displeasurable wrath against sin: what, and Jesus' death didn't endure divine wrath against sin as he legally saved sinners from judgement?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The other post was just a quote, right?



No, Jesus' death was similar to the death of the wicked insofar as God's wrath is concerned. However, your whole conception of the matter is different than mine. What is the problem that had to be solved?

Ellen White wrote:



Whatever that problem was, it had to be something which could be solved by "the revelation of God," since that was the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission.

IOW, God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. And as part of His work, "Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon."


And "the revelation of God" apparently includes the fact that "the death penalty must be executed." The execution of the death penalty is as much a revelation of God as is the pardoning of sin. In Christ's life and death, He revealed that God's character requires both pardon for the penitent and death for the sinner.

Why does God demand this? Is it for Himself? Or for man's sake?

If it is for Himself, then why do we read this?:



God would have needed Christ's death to offer Lucifer pardon as much as He would for man. Given that God did offer Lucifer pardon, without the death penalty being executed, it seems the necessity was not God related, but man related.



Right!!



The execution of the death penalty was a part of the revelation of God which was necessary in order to set man right with God.

Just one question for now: you admit that God demands the death penalty for sin??! You NEVER argue this truth while you argue against legal requirements for forgiveness in your promotion of God revealing his character in Jesus. Why DO you only concede this points when pressured by evidence but appear to resist it when others suggest it? In OUR discussions you have certainly disagreed with me that God's justice demands/requires Jesus' death for our forgiveness: do you consider this requirement for forgiveness as something different than God's demands that the death penalty be executed?

"It seems" is the operative part of your argument: are the rules for man's salvation equal to the rules for angles' salvation? Quite likely, since the same law is involved with both. You are rather speculating about an atoning sacrifice not being necessary for Lucifer, based on nothing other than Scripture & SOP's silence.

What I'll say this time is that a promise of a Saviour for Lucifer and his angels should they repent isn't mentioned because what is mentioned is that the fire of hell is prepared for only the devil and his angels, whose history of unrepentance is fully disclosed. There is no revealed promise of a sacrifice for their salvation because the revelation is their story of entrenched rebellion in the presence of God's glory and his Son's counsels with them: they are without excuse for their lost state because of rebellion in heaven itself - not because they haven't availed themselves of a Saviour.

I am thinking of other possibilities here, but they follow the same line.

You've never admitted this before in my discussions with you, so why now?

What I agree to was that the death penalty must be executed. Here's an explanation I've quoted often:



I understand that it was necessary for Christ to die because that was the only way by which man could be reconciled to God. I reject your legal argument in regards to the SOP because of how she describes Lucifer's situation. Lucifer sinned, but was given the opportunity to confess his sin. God offered Lucifer pardon again and again on the condition of repentance and submission. If the legal argument you make were true, Christ would have had to die in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon.



It's hardly speculating. The SOP wrote many pages regarding Lucifer's fall. She is very clear regarding the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon and what the conditions for that pardon were.



Please, would you stop with the accusations? Can't you adopt a more friendly tone? I've quoted the following many, many times:



This quote is speaking of Christ's death. I've also quoted the Fifield quote, which I quoted in this post, many times. This also speaks of the sacrifice of Christ. This sacrifice was necessary for *man*, not for God. It was necessary to bring us to God, as Peter puts it. I've made this point many, many times.

Our differences come down to differing assumptions. It appears to me that you see the fundamental problem to be a legal one. God's law was broken, first in heaven, then in earth, and the breaking of that law requires certain actions on the part of God, including the death of His Son, in order for God to be able to do certain things, like forgive man.

I see the issue as one involving God's character. Man was deceived by Satan, who resorted to deception in order to lead man into sin. Sin causes us to believe things about God which are not true. The condemnation which man feels comes from sin. Man needs to be healed from sin, and the only way to do this is by making known that truth about God.

In addition to man's problems, there are the greater problems of the universe as a whole, and the vindication of God's throne. In order for God to be vindicated, it was necessary that Satan's claims be proven false, and that God's true character be revealed. Thus revealing the truth about God, and Satan, solves both man's problem and the problem of the universe as a whole.

That's a short description. I can go in more detail, if desired.

I think our discussion might be more fruitful if we discussed our basic differences. Then you might understand how I'm understanding the quotes that are presented. I'm not expecting you'll agree with me, but at least you might understand how I'm thinking. Once the thinking is understood, the reasoning immediately follows. If you asked these same questions of Scott, for example, he would give answers very similar to mine, simply because he perceives the problem along similar lines as me.

I don't remember seeing this one posted yet:

Isn't this what I've been saying?

Do you agree that "the Son of God...die[d] in the sinner's STEAD"??? - substitutionary death?! What do you understand by Christ "saving fallen man from [the] curse" of the law?? You agree that God's justice demands the punishment of sinners?

Your "legal issues" with the cross bring these questions to mind, but, while you reject the legal arguments I at least believe also the philosophical issues of clarifying God's character by Jesus' demonstration of agape. Atonement still has a legal basis for me...

Yes. I've quoted the following many times:



I agree with substitutionary death, just not the penal substitution idea, such as Hodges presented.



What I quoted in the thread about "Christ Victor" deals with this. Also what Waggoner says in "The Glad Tidings" is very good. I agree with what Waggoner said.

Regarding God's justice demanding the punishment of sinners, I agree, but I understand it along the lines of what I've quoted from Fifield.



It has a legal basis for me to, but I see the legal basis as recognizing reality, not creating it. Iow, I believe what Ellen White wrote here is true:



This revelation of God has a legal basis, but the "whole purpose" is not something having to do with the law, but with God's character.

Also I don't reject all legal arguments. For example, Fifield has much to say about the law. His book "God is Love" has a chapter dealing with how the death of Christ honors God's law. I agree with what he wrote.

Ah yes, does the law create order or acknowledge order?...: BOTH. Custom is law recognising reality, legislation is law creating order: the Ten Commandments would fit better with custom, defining righteousness and sin as our reality.

The everlasting covenant is not customary, but creates a legal process for the Son of God to re-establish the order of holiness and right that he also created. This also distinguishes the true, Biblical deal in salvation from the true promise of salvation without a deal being allowed in fulfilling it: while the Son of God chose to give himself for us - rending both his and his Father's heart..."rending the powers of heaven" - as the promise to Adam & Abraham fulfilled, the deal which preceded this promise to us was God promising to reward his Son with saving his brethern from sin should his Son be incarnate as Jesus and produce the righteous merits necessary for both our eternal life as well as suffering our due execution, assuming, living and dying with our nature due that execution.

God isn't just love, he is also law: before Lucifer fell God's law was implied, since it being stated merely openly contrasted the opposites of God and Satan. Law and character are complimentary and mutually inclusive, the two acting in concert and harmony - producing harmony out of disorder.

That you avoid the legal basis of salvation brings in also a different view of the covenants such that Christ didn't achieve anything of the covenant by his death: what covenant terms did Jesus fulfil and put into effect with his death??? Sorry if you've mentioned such things elsewhere...

1.From what you wrote, it sounds like you agree with me in regards to the law recognizing reality as opposed to creating it. That's correct?

2.It looks like our disagreement is more in regards to the Covenant then, since you say that the Covenant is not customary, to use your word, but rather creates something (specifically a legal process).

I see the Covenant along the terms Waggoner laid out.

3.You write "God isn't just love, He is also law." This is an interesting statement. I *really* disagree with this. This might be something we could discuss further.

I believe the law is simply a description of God's love. Or, to state it another way, God is righteous *because* He is love, and His acts of righteousness are simply acts of love. The law describes His righteousness.

4.I'm not avoiding the legal basis of salvation. I'm disagreeing with you in regards to how this legal basis functions.

Do you agree with Waggoner's view of the Covenants? I see things as he does in regards to the Covenants, so if my theology means Christ didn't achieve anything of the covenant by His death, then neither does his. AFAIK I don't differ with Waggoner on his view of the covenant.

I'm bringing him for two reasons. One is you've expressed in the past an appreciation for the 1888 message. Two is Waggoner has written a lot regarding the Covenants, so there is a lot of material to draw from.

Unfortunately, I just moved, and don't have my "Everlasting Covenant" book of his, and it's not online to the best of my knowledge. There's still quite a bit about it in "The Glad Tidings" which is on line though.

I think I have some other material which touches on this. I'll see if I can find it. Specifically I'm thinking of the remark by Christ



Anyway, this is a very good question you're asking, Colin. One of the things I like about forums like this is when people ask questions that trigger thinking about things from a different angle.

A couple of thoughts come to mind, but not clearly enough to express right now, so I'll respond later.

No, given your second point, you don't think so either: both ordering reality and creating reality, in different forms and ways, like the Commandments and the covenant, respectively.

The covenants are truly the making or breaking of the gospel: whether we relate to and rely on Jesus alone or try to deal with him...

The everlasting covenant changes sinful man's customary legal standing of condemnation, under the curse of law: that creates a new reality - a new creation, literally a new, meritorious righteousness, and the covenant creates the heirs of that righteousness. The testator of the covenant, alluded to in Hebrews, did achieve a legal breakthrough, called salvation, by validating the covenant with his death. That is the law personified.

I recall agreeing with EGW, EJW & ATJ on Christ's accomplishment of grace for all men, and the cross thus is a legal event of salvation. The other, actual contract of salvation, made by Christ's death was for the Father to reconcile and restore man to himself should his Son produce righteousness and offer himself to suffer the penalty for our sin. EGW speaks of this penalty, as others here have quoted - but somehow you don't agree with or that that is penal substitution?

Regarding the first point, I don't understand what you're saying.



I don't really understand this either.



Can you quote something from Waggoner?



You're saying that Christ made a contract with the Father in which the Father agreed to do certain things if Christ held up his end of the bargain?



I don't see the penalty as something arbitrarily imposed by God, but as being the "inevitable result of sin." So when Christ took upon Him our sin, He suffered that penalty. Not because God arbitrarily imposed a penalty against Him, but because sin kills. By Christ's death, we can be delivered from sin. Being delivered from sin, we are delivered from death (the penalty for sin) since death comes from sin.

I think our basic difference stems from what we perceive is the problem which needs to be fixed. I see the problem as being related to a misunderstanding of God's character, and living contrary to His principles.

For example:



The short version of this is that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, to set man right with Him.

The two covenants are "1 right; 1 wrong": making a deal with God, even if merely promising to obey...is the wrong idea, and destroys the Gospel. God's promise to Adam & Abraham to save us from sin & death to righteous living, needing a mere belief in the truth that Jesus is the world's Saviour and therefore my Saviour too, is the right idea. God fills that belief with his love & power for our good works prepared by Jesus.

So you do think Christ achieved something with his death - a revelation of God's love costing his life, but nothing of legal import? How do you think the true covenant was connected to the cross if there's no legal event involved? Did Jesus achieve nothing of a legal nature by his death - if not, why not? Iow, what do you think the covenant has to do with Christ's death? Clarifying these issues helps strengthen the faith

I agree with your first paragraph.

Regarding the second, I think the "revelation of God's love costing his life" is of legal import. In regards to what the Covenant has to do with Christ's death, it seems to me that Covenant is a means of communication, one of several which God uses, to communicate the truths of the Gospel. I think the basis problem is that man was separated from God, and needed to be reconciled. In order to be reconciled, it was necessary for Christ to come to this earth and reveal the truth, and, in particular, the truth about God. Part of that revelation involved His death on the cross.

The New Covenant is the promise of God to forgive our sins and write the law on our hearts, if we believe in Christ. An SOP quote:



This looks to tie how the Covenant and Christ's death fit together. As the sinner believes in Christ, the New Covenant becomes effective.

The problem is twofold: 1) the broken law of God, and 2) the absence of love and obedience. In other words, God must first deal with past sins and then He must motivate and empower sinners to love and obey Him. Dealing with past sins means satisfying the just and loving demands of law and justice by paying our sin debt of death. Death must come in consequence of sin because the integrity of the law must be served and upheld.

Motivating and empowering sinners 1) to cease sinning, 2) to love God, and 3) to obey the law from now on - does not satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice so far as past sins are concerned. Our love and obedience does not atone for past sins. Ceasing from sin does not atone for past sins. Only the substitutionary death of Jesus satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice thereby granting God the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners.

I think this is the wrong way of looking at things. It makes it seem like there's nothing really wrong with keeping the law, but only arbitrarily wrong. You say that death must come in consequence of sin because "the integrity of the law must be served and upheld." This means you see death as something imposed arbitrarily, in order to impose a penalty, in order to obtain a given result (specifically, in order to maintain the integrity of the law).

I see that death is the inevitable result of sin. Put simply, when people sin, they die. Not as an arbitrarily imposed penalty, as if sin were innocuous, but as a result of the fatal effects of sin.

Sin is likened to the fatal bite of a serpent. The poison was healed when the sinner looked to the lifted up serpent, which presented the truth that the fatal bite of the other serpent Satan, which is sin, is healed by looking to Christ.

It looks like our basic difference, or a basic difference, is that you see sin as innocuous, whereas I see sin as deadly.



Are you thinking of "the wages of sin is death"? That's the only thing I can of that you are referencing.

Past sins are an issue only if one is trying to work one's way into heaven. If one wishes to earn heaven by one's own righteousness, then the fact that one has sinned makes that impossible. Actually, even aside from that it's impossible, because only an unconverted person would think this way anyway. But once one is converted, past sins are not an issue, because God forgives our sins if we repent. The death of Christ is necessary not for God to be able to forgive us (that God offered Lucifer pardon for his sin proves this) but to bring us to a repentant attitude so that we can repent and accept the pardon which God freely gives us:



But this all stems from understanding what it is that causes death. Is death an arbitrarily imposed penalty by God upon those who disobey Him? Or is death the inevitable result of sin, something of which God warns us? Does God urge us to invite Christ so that we will be saved from His wrath? Or does He warn us of the fatal effects of sin, from which He wishes to save us?

The cases of Lucifer and A&E are so different that it is impossible to draw this kind of conclusion. Also, you have not proven it. Nowhere in the Bible is willful, deliberate, intentional sin pardoned. Only unintentional sins could be pardoned. The sacrificial system did not make provision for the forgiveness of willful sins. Listen:

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Lucifer's sin falls into this category. He knew God so well that the instant he sinned was the moment he committed the unpardonable sin.

The penalty for breaking the law is capital punishment.


If this were true then the human race would have ended with the death of A&E. Also, there would have been no need for God to station angels at the tree of life. Remember, sinners can live forever if they regularly eat from the tree of life. Obviously sin does not kill sinners.


The only reason sinners do not die the day they sin is due to the fact God is withholding capital punishment. The plan of salvation gives God the legal right to grant sinners grace and probation to cease from sin and to begin abiding in Jesus maturing in the fruits of the Spirit.


". . . so that he could pardon us freely." Even Fifield agrees Jesus died "so that" God could pardon penitent sinners. By the way, you make it sound like repentance atones for past sins. But nothing could be further from the truth.


God lovingly warns sinners to seek refuge in Christ that they might escape the wrath to come. Sin does not kill sinners. If it did, there would be no reason to resurrect them at the end of time. The fact sinners live for years without dying is convincing evidence sin does not kill them. Again, even you believe and teach sinners must be exposed to the unmingled wrath of God in order to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness.

Matthew
3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
3:10 And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

John
3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Ephesians
5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Colossians
3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
3:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

1 Thessalonians
1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Revelation
6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Revelation
14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Lucifer sinned, and God offered him pardon. That's all we need to know to establish that God does not need Christ's death to offer pardon.



??? What? Willful, deliberate, intentional sin can be pardoned. Of course it can. When we repent, our sin is pardoned. Why do you think willful sin cannot be pardoned? Have you never committed a willful sin? If so, then you are unpardoned?



This stems from the idea that sin is innocuous, only resulting in death if some external power is applied to kill the offender. This makes it unlike the serpent's bite, which causes death, not because capital punishment is applied to the offender (i.e., the one who is broken) but because poison causes death.



??? No, the human race continued because of procreation.



No, this isn't obvious. The tree of life has healing properties. That sin kills in implicit in God's warning that they would die if they ate of the tree.



We disagree here. You see sin as innocuous. I see it as deadly.



How could God pardon us if we did not repent? If you agree with what Fifield said, we are in agreement?



I don't understand this. I'm not conceiving of the problem as a legal one. It looks like you're taking my statements, which do not accept your paradigm, and applying them to your paradigm.

I would never say that repentance atones for sins. That makes no sense to me. Christ's death atones for sins for the reason that Fifield brought out.



Ok. We disagree. I believe sin kills sinners, and God does all He can to save sinners from sin so they won't be killed. You believe God kills sinners. We disagree.

I think you're way of looking at things portrays God in a negative way, and that it leads to a relationship with God where fear is an underlying motivation (we must act in a certain way to make sure God does not kill us).



So the only possible reason for God to resurrect the wicked is so He can kill them?



Why isn't it evidence of God's grace, giving them the opportunity to repent?



What I understand will happen is totally different than what you understand. The wrath of God is not His being angry and venting that anger against the wicked by burning them alive and then killing them. It is His "giving them up," as Paul puts it in Romans 1.

Tom, can you prove from the Bible that sin kills sinners? I see no evidence in the Bible or in reality that sin kills sinners. People sin all the time without dying. Instead, I see people dying of diseases, accidents, wars, murder, etc. But I have never witnessed sin killing someone.

When I read about it in the Bible, I see God punishing and destroying sinners. I see holy angels killing sinners. I see evil angels killing sinners. I read about God resurrecting sinners at the end of time and then judging them and then killing them. But nowhere do I read about sin killing sinners.

Again, if sin kills sinners, as you say, why, then, do sinners sin all the time without dying? Does God somehow override the natural effect of sin? If so, why don't we read about it the Bible? Instead, we read about God raining down fire from above, raising up fire from below, and exposing them to the light of His radiant presence and brightness.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Lucifer's case in heaven and Adam's case in Eden are so different that they cannot be compared. Lucifer sinned in perfect knowledge of God's love and Adam sinned in perfect ignorance of God's love. No one tempted Lucifer to sin but Adam was tempted to sin.

These critical differences account for why God could offer to pardon Lucifer without the death of Jesus and why He couldn't offer to pardon Adam without it. Nevertheless, it also accounts for why God did not perceive Lucifer's actions as sin before he openly rebelled. It also accounts for why God did perceive Adam's actions as sin when he ate the forbidden fruit.


Perhaps you overlooked the following quote (quoted in a previous post):

Hebrews
6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Sure.





Yes, of course.



We do. 2 Cor. 5:14, 15 speaks of this. Romans 5:12-18. Those are a couple of spots.



Sure they can be. They both sinned, and God offered both pardon.



This makes it even more amazing that God offered Lucifer pardon!



Why? Why would sinning in ignorance require Christ's death, but sinning in light wouldn't? I actually agree with your statement, but I would read God's not being able to offer pardon without death as a constraint upon man, not upon God. Like explained here:



This makes perfect sense. God did what was necessary to enable man to repent, so that He could pardon him.

However, I don't see the sense in your idea, which is that God was constrained, so that He could not offer man pardon without Christ's dying, because man sinned by being temped, and not with as full an understanding of God's character as Lucifer had. Otoh, God was not constrained to offer Lucifer pardon. This seems backwards. What would the presence of ignorance constrain God?



??? He clearly did. In Ezekiel, it speaks of Lucifer's being perfect until iniquity was found in him. The SOP, in speaking of Lucifer's fall, applies this passage to the *beginning* of Lucifer's fall, well *before* his actual rebellion.

In "The Great Controversy" she writes that God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again," so clearly Lucifer had sinned.

In 4SP, I think, she writes that *before* being banished from heaven (which is *before* Lucifer's open rebellion) he was given the opportunity to "confess his sin."

Before his open rebellion, his heart was full of envy and hatred against Christ, which is sin (Hating Christ is sin).

Lucifer made false claims to the loyal angels. This is sin. *After* doing this God offered to pardon him.

Lucifer indulged the spirit of discontent. This is sin. *After* doing this, God offered to pardon him.

I don't know how anyone could read either of what Lucifer did and not think that he sinned.



Hebrews is speaking of the unpardonable sin.

Let me just ask you, have you ever commited a deliberate, intentional sin? If so, were you pardoned of it?

1. Tom, at what point do you think Lucifer committed the unpardonable sin?

2. How did his unpardonable sin differ from the sins leading up to the unpardonable sin?

3. When do humans commit the unpardonable sin described in Hebrews?

4. How does the unpardonable sin differ from the sins leading up to it?

PS - I'll answer your pointed and personal question after I understand more of what you think and believe about it.

Immediately before being banished from heaven.



The unpardonable sin is a gradual hardening of the heart. It doesn't happen in a moment, but as the Holy Spirit is continually rejected, eventually one becomes unable to respond to Him. So asking how it is different isn't really addressing what happened.



Same answer.



The answer to 2. should answer this.



I'm just asking if you've ever committed a deliberate sin and been pardoned of it. This doesn't seem like a personal question to me. I'm not asking you what it is. You've quoted Paul as saying, "All have sinned." Do you you think he only had sins of ignorance in mind?

I agree that this applies to unconverted sinners, but I disagree that it applies to seasoned saints "who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come." People such as this cannot indulge sin without committing the unpardonable sin. Lucifer was in this category before he sinned. I am not yet in this category.

Hebrews
6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

I don't understand why you wouldn't think this applies to people who have been converted. By this, I mean that the unpardonable sin is a gradual hardening of the heart. What else could it be?

I'm not talking about just any converted believer. I'm specifically talking about seasoned saints "who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come."

People such as this cannot indulge sin without committing the unpardonable sin. The 144,000 are examples. Angels are examples. In other words, there comes a time when FMAs cannot indulge a single sin without also committing the unpardonable sin. "It is impossible . . . to renew them again unto repentance." (Heb 6:4-6) It says "impossible" not "unlikely" or "very difficult".

We don't have any examples of this. In the case of Lucifer, we see a prolonged period of time, during which he was again and again offered pardon. Indeed, this is how EGW describes it. "God bore long with Lucifer." "Again and again he was offered pardon."

Similarly in the case of men, we see that only after a prolonged period of time does the heart become so hardened that one eventually reaches the point of no return. Judas is an example of this. It wasn't one sin which led him to be lost, but a rejection of Christ over time that eventually brought him to this point.

This describes the process:



Every act of transgression makes it easier to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. This ties in to discussions we've had regarding death being the inevitable result of sin.

Why do you think one of the 144,000 could not be pardoned if he sinned? The way I would put it is that, because of his love for God, a member of the 144,000 would not choose to sin, but I see no reason why such a sin would be an unpardonable one. Why wouldn't he be able to repent?

We do have examples of this.

When the law was proclaimed, Satan said: "Here is work for us. At the foot of Sinai, in the very presence of God, let us lead the people to break the law." God called Moses into the mount, and during his absence Satan worked among the people. He told them that Moses would not return, and suggested that they make a golden calf to worship. {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 3}

... By yielding, he [Aaron] sanctioned a great sin, made tenfold greater because the people were in the immediate presence of God and the holy angels. {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 5}

Going down to the camp, Moses stood in the gate, and said, "Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me." Opportunity was given for all to take their stand against idolatry. Those who remained obstinate and defiant must bear the penalty of sin. To those who had taken their position on the Lord's side Moses said: "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men." {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 12}

Thus God showed the fearful result of bold, defiant sin. He commanded that the leaders of the treason should be slain. Thus he bore a public testimony against sin, so that in the future, when God's people condemned idolatry, and their enemies threw at them the taunt that they had themselves deserted God for a calf, they could answer, "It is true; but judgment fell upon the transgressors. God's government is unsullied; for swift punishment overtook those who rebelled against him." {YI, November 21, 1901 par. 13

This is a completely different thing. For one thing, this isn't an example of an unpardonable sin, but of capital punishment.

Tom, there comes a time when FMAs cannot indulge a single sin without also committing the unpardonable sin. "It is impossible . . . to renew them again unto repentance." (Heb 6:4-6) It says "impossible" not "unlikely" or "very difficult". When do you think this applies to FMAs.

Also, do you think the 144,000 are less apt to sin than was Lucifer before he sinned? IOW, compare Lucifer before he sinned and the 144,000. Who would you say is less likely to sin? And why?

If you answer the 144,000 are less likely to sin because of their knowledge of the cross, what, then, are you saying about Lucifer before he sinned? Wouldn't you be implying Lucifer was more likely to sin because he lacked knowledge of the cross? And, doesn't this also imply God failed to adequately safeguard Lucifer against sin, and that God is partly to blame for his fall?

So do you think that God inflicts capital punishment, or commands it to be inflicted, to people for whom there is still hope of salvation?
Now show me an EGW quote saying that Lucifer committed the unpardonable sin.

If you mean like the straw that broke the camel's back, I agree. As EGW explained, each transgression makes it easier to transgress again. Eventually one reaches the point of no return, like the straw that broke the camel's back.



Of course. Incomparably less.



The 144,000 have overcome by the blood of the lamb. They would rather die than sin. Lucifer preferred rebellion to death to self.



No, there's no implication of failure on God's part. God did everything possible to save Satan. He even offered him pardon over and over again for the many things he had done wrong. But Satan chose to follow his own independent will.

Since you asked me these questions, what do you think? Do you think the 144,000 are any less likely to sin that Lucifer was?

I said there was no example of a person's committing a single sin and that sin being unpardonable. Instead the unpardonable sin is a gradual hardening of the heart. Do you disagree with this?

For your example to be a valid example it would have to be the case that both this sin was the only relevant sin (i.e., the guilty parties had not been willfully sinning before this sin) and that it wasn't possible for them to be pardoned of this sin.

But we know it was possible for them to be pardoned of it, because God offered to pardon them of it. They were given the opportunity to "stand on the Lord's side." So if one were going to characterize a sin as unpardonable, it would have to be the sin of refusing to accept the pardon God was offering.




Why? Are you saying Lucifer's decision to refuse to confess his sin and continue in rebellion was not an example of the unpardonable sin?

Interestingly, Ellen White never refers to it as the unpardonable sin, but I believe it's more or less equivalent to it.
The right comparison, in my opinion, would be with the example I gave, that is, a willful, defiant sin in the immediate presence of God.
There is no registry that these people had been sinning defiantly before. It was like the sin of Ananias and Sapphira. There are some choices that are final, because of the measure of light the person has had.

There is no reason to suppose that things would work differently for them than for the hundreds of people of whom we do have a registry. Ellen White explains the principle:





This is hardly support for the idea that the principles Ellen White laid out in 1SM 235 should not be considered! Let's consider being who acted similarly of whom there is a record.

Judas is such a one. He had even greater light than Ananias and Sapphira, having walked for several years with the Light Himself. Judas, even before knowing Christ, had the same ill traits of character that he demonstrated afterwords. He rejected every effort of Christ to save him, and the principles of 1SM 235 played themselves out, until Judas betrayed Christ and killed himself. If we had a record of the life of Ananias and Sapphira, I'm sure we would find that their covetous was nothing new, nor their rejection of the wooing of the Holy Spirit.

God is not willing that any of His creatures should perish. He does all He can to save them. It's not easy to be lost:



Regarding Lucifer's fall, we have a lot of information.



This brings out that Lucifer was perfect until iniquity was found in him. This is a long time before he had fully made up his mind to rebel no matter what.

Notice it is written that what happened to Lucifer happened "little by little." So what we have is the following

a.Lucifer indulged a spirit of self-exaltation
b.Lucifer sought to win the homage of God's creatures for himself, instead of leading them to honor God, which was his duty.
c.Lucifer aspired to the power that was Christ's prerogative alone.

So we see Lucifer slipping into a pit of his own making, little by little.

Continuing on we read:



Here we see the same desire for self-exaltation, the same purpose of winning the homage of God's creatures. We see that he used deception to attain his purposes.

Then we read this comment:



This continues to bring out that Lucifer's fall was a gradual one. It was something which happened "little by little." We see that God "bore long" with Lucifer, that "long was he retained in heaven."

Now, of course, there must come some point where a person goes from the point of being able to repent and return to God and no longer being able to do so. Eventually the hardening of the heart reaches the point to where it's no longer possible to response to the wooings of the Holy Spirit. Lucifer gradually, eventually, after a long time, reached this point.

This was not a case of Lucifer doing one thing wrong, one rebellious or defiant act, and that was that. The evidence in no way supports this idea. Instead what we see is that Lucifer persisted in the same course of action, his rebellion, and that this rebellion continued to bloom until it reached full flower.

That Lucifer was acting defiantly before his final defiant act is clearly seen:



The underlined portion underscored Lucifer's defiance. Lucifer was told exactly what he was doing, and what the consequences of his actions would be. Yet he "allowed jealousy" to prevail, and became more determined, or defiant. Continuing on:



Another defiant act. Continuing:



Finally we come to the quote mentioned above, which points out that God long bore with Lucifer, and was offered pardon again and again.

Looking at the overall picture Ellen White portrays, we see that Lucifer fell little by little, that he was warned not to continue on, that he was told what would happen if he did, and that he continued to indulge the same spirit of self-exaltation and jealousy. We see there was an actual fight within himself to yield to the wooings of the Holy Spirit, and that He chose not to respond.

This is a classic example of the unpardonable sin!



This is just a little before the statement above that unutterable love thrilled his soul.

Here's a similar account in regards to Judas:



We see the same principles at work. The tender love of God. "How can I give thee up." We see that constraining love was felt by both Judas and Lucifer. We see the heart and soul of both thrilling to that love. We see a struggle in both, that both felt a strong desire to confess their sin. And we see that both refused to humble themselves.

In both Judas and Lucifer the fall was a long, gradual one, eventually reaching the point to where it was no longer possible for them to return.

In conclusion, we see the same principles at work in Lucifer's fall as what EGW laid out in 1SM 235. Lucifer's fall was a gradual one. Lucifer indulged a spirit of jealousy, of self-exaltation many times, and each time he did so, it made it easier for to do so again, just as 1SM 235 explains. Eventually he brought ruin upon himself, by cutting himself off from God, again just as 1SM 235 explains.

I suspect Lucifer knew God more intimately, more thoroughly than will the 144,000. The description of the 144,000 in the GC indicates some of them barely make it through Jacob's time of trouble.

Does this mean no? That is, you are saying that the 144,000 are not less likely to sin than Lucifer was?

What description is it that makes you think that some of the 144,000 will barely make it through?

I think the 144,000 will know God better than Lucifer did. This is rather an interesting question to consider.

Lucifer knew God perfectly for who knows how many hundreds of years. I have no doubt he knew God better than the 144,000 will know God by the time they begin experiencing JTOT. He knew God so well that there was nothing else God could do to woo and win him back. Can the same thing be said of the 144,000?

"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}

"Those who exercise but little faith now, are in the greatest danger of falling under the power of satanic delusions and the decree to compel the conscience. And even if they endure the test they will be plunged into deeper distress and anguish in the time of trouble, because they have never made it a habit to trust in God. The lessons of faith which they have neglected they will be forced to learn under a terrible pressure of discouragement. {GC 622.1}

I don't think this is the case, if by knowing God better you mean closeness of fellowship. Is this what you have in mind? Or are you thinking of just knowing things about Him?



This seems like an apples and oranges question. For one thing, the 144,000 will not need to be wooed and won back, since they are loyal to God.


I think I figured out why you included those quotes from the GC in regards to the 144,000. (It would be easier to follow your train of thought if you put some sort of explanation to go along with the quotes you provide.) I think it's in answer to my question as to why you think some of the 144,000 will just barely make it through. I don't see anything in those quotes which imply this, if I've guess correctly in regards to why you included these quotes.

Yes, I posted those quotes in answer to your question. Sorry I forgot to say so.

Did Lucifer, before he sinned and rebelled, need to have his "earthliness . . . consumed, that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected"? Some of the 144,000 will need it. Can it be said of Lucifer that he "never made it a habit to trust in God"? It will be said of some of the 144,000. It will also be said of some of the 144,000 that "the lessons of faith which they have neglected they will be forced to learn under a terrible pressure of discouragement." This was not true in Lucifer's case.

The point is - I believe Lucifer loved and served God for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years before he sinned and rebelled. During that time I am quite certain he developed a relationship and intimacy with God that will take the 144,000 hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years to duplicate. Whatever the case, it is true that not all of the 144,000 will be spiritual giants more than those who will come up in the first resurrection. Many of them will have a greater faith, a more mature faith, and a more intimate relationship with Jesus.

At any rate, my actual question has to do with when you think Lucifer committed the unpardonable sin. You seem to think it was after sinning in heaven for a long time. You wrote, "Eventually the hardening of the heart reaches the point to where it's no longer possible to response to the wooings of the Holy Spirit. Lucifer gradually, eventually, after a long time, reached this point."

Paul wrote about another way people can commit the unpardonable sin. Listen:

Hebrews
6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

IOW, people can reach a point in their walk and relationship with Jesus that to sin afterward would be to commit the unpardonable sin. Surely Lucifer reached this point in heaven, which is why there was no provision to save him should he venture to sin. The same thing is true of the 144,000. They will reach a point where they cannot sin without committing the unpardonable sin. They will not require years of sinning before they become too sin hardened to repent. The same thing is true of unfallen FMAs throughout God's vast universe.

Yes, I think it was after a long time, because EGW wrote that God bore with Lucifer a long time, offering him pardon again and again.

I think what Paul is speaking about in Hebrews is exactly the same thing I'm saying. A person is not lost after one bad action, no matter how close they are to God. Moses is a perfect example of this.

Ellen White pointed out that it is not the occasional good deed or misdeed that reveals the character, but the trend of the life. Even though Moses sinned at a time when he was perhaps closer to God than anyone else every has been (excluding Christ), he wasn't lost because he did so. He simply repented, and was forgiven. Had he persisted in sin, then eventually he would have hardened his heart to the point to where God could no longer have cured him, just like anyone else.



No, the evidence suggests otherwise. In addition to Moses, David was one who walked after God's own heart. He also sinned, doing terrible things, far worse than Moses, but his sin was pardoned, because he repented.

The only way a person can commit an unpardonable sin is to commit a sin for which he refuses to repent. This involves a gradually hardening of the heart.

Don't you think it means people reach a point where they are incapable of repenting? Refusing to repent implies they are capable of repenting but just don't want to. There is hope as long as they are capable of repenting.

A&E would have died in the day they sinned had God not implemented the plan of salvation. Therefore, one sin is enough to qualify as unpardonable. The reasons A&E were pardonable is twofold: 1) Jesus paid the sin debt of death, and 2) A&E were capable of repenting.

Also, do you think it's theoretically possible for the 144,000 to sin and repent after probation closes, after Jesus ceases mediating in the sanctuary? And, do you think the same thing is possible for unfallen FMAs?

To those who saw the glory of God on Sinai, a willful violation of the law was punishable with death – which means that their sin was unforgivable (because a willful violation on those circumstances meant contempt for the authority of God and nothing could be able to move these people to repentance).

Would you say that the example of what happened to that person who knowingly, willingly, and rebelliously broke the Sabbath and his resulting death by stoning was a symbol of a person who commits the unpardonable sin, which in so doing there isn't any atonement?

I think that God wouldn't command anyone to be stoned to death if there was still any hope for that person, would He? And if there was no hope for that person it was because that person couldn't be led to repentance. So I think this is a case comparable in its results to the unpardonable sin.

Yes, that's exactly what I think it means.



I agree.



I think point 1) had to do with 2); that is, they are not unrelated points.



I'm not sure what you're wanting to get at here. Certainly they continue to have free will. God has free will, and could sin if He wanted to. However, to do so would be contrary to His character, so it's not something He would do. Once the 144,000 become sealed, I see there situation as similar to this, and the same for the unfallen FMA's.

A person doesn't out of the blue suddenly defiantly rebel against God when that had never before been his disposition. The unpardonable sin results as a gradual hardening of the heart, not as the result of one sin. As the SOP points out, the character is revealed by the trend of the life, not by the occasional good deed or misdeed.



I agree with MM's comment earlier, which is a point I've made many times previously, that committing the unpardonable sin means reaching the point where one is no longer able to repent. One could reasonable expect such a person to unreasonably defiant towards God, and expect that the episodes you are referring to would be revealing such a characteristic.

Another possibility is that capital punishment was instituted for the good of the nation, an emerging nation of ignorant recently freed slaves. Some people sentenced to capital punishment may have repented before dying, who knows. If so, then they didn't commit the unpardonable sin.

At any rate, one is not lost because of one sin.

What do you mean? That the person committed the unpardonable sin before committing the defiant sin? No, as I see it the person committed the unpardonable sin by committing the defiant sin. Just like in the case of Lucifer and his angels. This doesn't mean the person hadn't been sinning before, but that, by a conscious act of defiance in the presence of God, the person commits a sin of enormous magnitude and has his/her heart sealed against repentance.

No, I meant what I said:



The defiant sin could have been the straw that broke the camel's back, the final unpardonable sin. However, it's not a sin out of the blue, a one-time sin which is unpardonable. This isn't how the unpardonable sin works. It's not a one time sin, but a gradual hardening of the heart.



This is possible, even likely (since some sin has to be the last one, it makes sense that it would be a strong, defiant one, as the Spirit of God would no doubt be making a strong last-ditch effort to save the one in danger of being forever lost) as long we recognize that, just like as with Lucifer, it wasn't a one-time sin, but the last straw in a long time pattern of resistance, of continuous rejection of the Spirit of God. This is how one is lost; by continued resistance against the Spirit.