Lesson #6 - Planning AHEAD

Here is the link to the study and discussion material for Lesson 6 of this final quarter of 2009:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/09d/less06.html

MM started a thread that touches on one of this week's topics. Click here: Does the Bible envision converted Christians committing sins of ignorance?

I think this is a very important insight. There was a delay in the plan, but God's purposes could not be derailed.

PARABLE (by Joyce Griffith)

Once upon a time a woman named Sue decided to find out about God by reading the Bible.

She started with the book of Genesis. "Fascinating," she told her husband Sam. "It says God is very powerful. First he made the world and everything in it, and then he destroyed everything he'd made except for one family of people. Later He calls Abraham and promises to make a great nation of His son Jacob. And it happens. God can do anything."

"So now you know that God is powerful," Sam said.

A few days later Sue commented, "Exodus was interesting, too. It tells how God raised up a special people, gave them laws and promised He'd be with them forever. God is a wonderful leader."

"A leader."

The next week Sue reported she'd finished Leviticus.

"And what did the book of Leviticus tell you about God?" Sam asked.

"It's about how the Levites were supposed to be clean and pure. It gives all kinds of advice about offerings and what do to when one sins. I think Leviticus tells us that God is against sin."

"Are we ready for Numbers?"

"In Numbers the story is about the Jewish people walking around in the desert for forty years. They were rascals, those people were."

"And what did the book of Numbers teach you about God?"

"I think it tells us that God is very particular," she said slowly. "God cares about details. He really does, Sam. If He cared about exactly what each tribe should bring as an offering when the tabernacle in the wilderness was dedicated and all the other things in this book, then He must care about everything I do."

"I think you're right," Sam said.

It's also important to understand God did not promise to lead only victories believers (abiding in Christ, dead to sin, awake to righteousness) into the Promised Land, which is why, I suspect, God was able to keep His promise. However, if He had promised entrance and occupation conditional on everyone being victorious believers it is unlikely it would have ever happened.

Rosangela, nice story. Thank you. Truly, God does cares about the details, the spice of life.

So as not to cross-post, I have made a comment in the "Does the Bible envision converted Christians committing sins of ignorance?" thread. It ties directly in with Tuesday's lesson, and I somewhat differ with the lesson's conclusions on this point.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I will post here just a small comment.

These are the two classes of sin:

“Errors committed through ignorance, thoughtlessness, or weakness ... [and] willful, premeditated sin.” {5T 604.3}

A willful sin is when you decide that you will do something no matter what, and you plan ahead how you will do it. It's clear that this is very different from being overtaken by a sin.

Rosangela, I see 4 types of sin in the passage you posted:

1. Ignorance (they have no idea they are sinning)
2. Thoughtlessness (they don't care if they are sinning)
3. Weakness (they sin without a fight)
4. Premediated (they sin because they want to)

Consecration to God must be a living, practical matter; not a theory to be talked about, but a principle interwoven with all our experience. . . There would not then be such thoughtlessness of words and acts, such careless, indolent, irreligious living. {OHC 243.4}

There is great danger in indifference upon this subject; no folly is so subtle as thoughtlessness and levity. {MYP 267.1} There is sin in thoughtlessness about such matters. {GW 125.1}

Mike,

In the OT there were just two kinds of sins: sins of ignorance and willful sins, or how we would put it today, unintentional sins and intentional sins.

As to thoughlessness, I understand there can be intentional thoughtlessness and unintentional thoughtlessness.

Rosangela,

Given the interpretation you expressed here, how do you account for there having been no sacrifice for sins other than for sins of ignorance? Did Jesus, our Sacrifice, only die for our unintentional sins?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm with R on this one. (And on just about everything else, it seems. She must be one smart cookie. )

Anyway, look at Leviticus 6:1-7. That describes intentional sins and the sacrifice required. All the other sacrifices, as far as I know, are for unintentional sins. This passage is also notable because most of the time, intentional sin was handled by stoning, not an offering.

So, yes, Jesus died for intentional sins also. But the nature of intentional sin is that the sinner is often beyond restoration. The problem is not that the sacrifice is insufficient, but that the sinner does not want the sacrifice.

This week's lesson goes over the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. That was a nasty episode. But if we read the account in PP and we find that the different classes of sinners were treated differently.

The PP account tells us clearly that this was rebellion, not some kind of accidental, unintentional sin. But look at this very interesting verse: "Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men;" (Numbers 16:1) Notice that there are FOUR rebels listed. But after this, you don't hear about "On the son of Peleth" anymore. Sometimes, Christ can save even rebels.

Arnold, I hope we both are right, otherwise we will both be wrong.

GC, that there was no atonement specified by law for many willful sins is a fact. The meaning of this, however, cannot be that forgiveness for these sins is impossible (otherwise David couldn't have been forgiven). The meaning, as Arnold says, must be that the nature of a willful sin is such that, in many cases, the sinner cannot be forgiven because he does not want, or care, to be forgiven.

"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries" (Heb. 10:26, 27).

Rosangela and Arnold,

Why is the Bible so clear that the sacrifices were only for sins of ignorance?

Certainly, Arnold, there were many names for the sacrifices. Among them, consider the following:

trespass offering
burnt offering
drink offering
heave offering
peace offering
meat offering
wave offering
sin offering

It is my understanding that all of the sacrifices were essentially divided among three purposes: 1) thanksgiving, 2) redemption (e.g. buying back the firstborn from God), and 3) sin.

I have not seen any distinction in the sin(s) as it relates to the sacrifice. Nor does the wealth of the sinner have any effect on the sacrifice, except in the more extreme cases of poverty where doves were permitted in place of the sheep.

Arnold, let's suppose for a moment, however, that you are correct in there having been differences among the sins or sacrifices. It stands to reason that with so many different ways of referring to the sacrifices, some terms would apply to one category of sin, while other terms represented another class. Would you agree?

Now, go back and read the five verses prior to the ones you asked me to read, keeping in mind that in the original Hebrew there were no chapter demarcations, so this was all part of the same passage. Those verses define the "trespass offering," which you seem to believe refers to intentional sin in chapter six. However, in chapter five, the definition for this is that of a "sin through ignorance."

That's where I am coming from. Every sacrifice was for a sin of ignorance. I have yet to find one defined for any other class of sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Indeed, most the sins I commit are thoughts, words, and deeds I know very well are unlike Jesus. I shudder to think they are unpardonable. Woe is me.

GC, I'm not sure what your point is. It seems you don't believe human beings can sin willfully. If they can't, why are willful sins not only mentioned in the Bible, but said to be punishable with death, and many examples of them provided in the OT?

Rosangela,

Willful sins have nothing to do with sins of ignorance, or at least, very little.

Let's just say you go to the store and choose to purchase some noodle soup for which the ingredients are all listed in Chinese. You willfully choose the soup, even though you know it probably has some black pepper in it, which Ellen White speaks against. You say to yourself, who cares if it has some spice--spice tastes good!

Is this a sin? Perhaps so. Do you know how much that black pepper will affect you? Maybe not. Do you know how sad your choice will make God? No. Do you comprehend the effect this may have on those around you? Likely not. Are you ignorant of these things, in spite of your choice? Yes.

Now, let's go a step further and add that there was also some shrimp and chicken fat in that soup--but you did not know this, as you could not read the label. Gets complicated, doesn't it?

Every sin we do, whether intentional or unintentional, is one of ignorance. We simply do not know God. We do not comprehend the weight of sin, nor its effects upon us, others, or eternity.

I might not know two people who are running for office in the local election. I am ignorant of their views. Yet, as a registered voter (FMA), I can still exercise my power of choice to intentionally choose one of them on my ballot. Is my action intentional? Certainly. Is it based upon knowledge or ignorance? Ignorance.

Now, put God and His law vs. Satan and sin on that ballot. Are you voting ignorantly, or do you fully know and comprehend the character of each? We see through a glass, darkly. "No man hath seen God at any time." We do not know God fully, nor do we know the full depths of sin. We are largely ignorant.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Mike, this does not fall under the category of a willful sin. A willful sin is a sin in which you despise the Word of the Lord (Num. 15:31). The verb bazah, “to despise,” means to treat something as worthless, to treat it with contempt, to look down the nose at something as it were.

GC, I'm not following you. The Bible says willful or presumptuous sins can be committed, and so does Ellen White. What do you do with these passages?
You cannot use terms as you please. Sins of ignorance are, both in the Bible and in the SOP, opposed to willful sins, which means these are the two main classes of sins.

Rosangela,

I don't know how I can be more clear. Can you make a choice without knowing the full facts? If you are ignorant, does this mean you can no longer do something intentionally? Why do you think intentional actions cannot be done in ignorance?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I've edited my post but I think you had already replied to it. Both the Bible and the SOP use the term "sins of ignorance" as a technical term for a class of sins opposed to willful sins (Num. 15:28-31).

Rosangela,

I guess I'm with Mike then. I know I've sinned willfully on too many occasions to count. I guess there is no atonement for me? No forgiveness? No salvation?

Woe is me!

Green Cochoa.

Again, willful sin is also a technical term. Do you premeditate your sins??
And, as I said, willful sin is dangerous not because God cannot forgive the sinner, but because it leads the sinner to not wanting or caring to be forgiven.

I think we're defining "sin of ignorance" differently.

Here's Lev 6:2 - "If a person sins and commits a trespass against the LORD by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor"

Can one say, "Oops, I didn't know I was lying to you"? That is not a sin of ignorance. That is a willful sin, done intentionally.

A sin of ignorance would be someone keeping Sunday conscientiously because he had not yet seen the light on the Sabbath. Continuing to keep Sunday after one has been given the light on the Sabbath is a known, willful sin. Those are the two classes of sin I'm talking about.

This is in contrast to committing a sin, some aspect of which the sinner is ignorant. For example, the guy who was picking up sticks on the Sabbath did not know that he was going to be stoned for it. But his was not a sin of ignorance because he knew the commandment and broke it anyway.

Yes, the trespass offering is also used for sins of ignorance. But the willful sin was covered only by the trespass offering. (It's the inverse.) The other sacrifices were only for sins of ignorance.

Did those who crucified Jesus know what they were doing? Did they crucify Him unintentionally?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think some knew precisely what they were doing (the Pharisees), some knew partially, and some didn't know (the Roman soldiers).

The times when I think, say, or do something I know very well is unlike Jesus, are you saying these are sins of ignorance? If I'm fully aware of wrong doing how can it be considered sin of ignorance? Were the Jews sinning ignorantly, unintentionally when Jesus prayed, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing"?

The idea of lisgagah seems to be that of “inadvertence” or “without intent.” Thus, "unintentional" is a better translation than "of ignorance." The idea is ampler than mere “ignorance.”
Again, “errors committed through ignorance, thoughtlessness, or weakness” are different from “willful, premeditated sin” (5T 604.3).
Can a real Christian sin with the intent of sinning, or because he wants to sin? (Notice that this is different from being suddenly overcome by a sinful desire, which would be classified as "weakness.") Can a real Christian sin because he despises God and His law?

"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34

The crucifixion is a good Biblical example of an intentional sin of ignorance.



To me, Mrs. White has stated here that there is no sinner that God is unwilling to forgive. This means, it does not matter whether the sinner has sinned willfully or not--if he but asks pardon, Christ is willing to offer it. The unpardonable sin is the one which is unconfessed and for which pardon is unrequested.

"They know not what they do" applies to all of humanity in the broadest sense. Jesus prayed for all with this prayer. We do not know what we do, even when we have done it intentionally--perhaps thinking we know.

Note that I am not saying there is no difference in the level of guilt between those who choose to sin, knowing that it is sin, and those who sin unawares. I agree that the term "ignorance" can also be applied to this class of unconscious sin, but it is a more specific application of the word, which has also a broader sense that encompasses ALL our sins. It was the broad sense of ignorance spoken of by Jesus on the cross. It was also the broad sense of ignorance typified in the sacrificial system. Every sin of humanity is one of ignorance in this sense.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Notice in the above post I took pains to specify that it is the sins of humanity which are done in ignorance. This is because the fallen angels' sins are not in the same class.



It's hard to classify a sin as falling outside the realm of ignorance when it was a result of deception, and lack of knowledge. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." To our perspective, those conniving enemies of Christ knew very well what they were doing. They knew Jesus was innocent, and that they had no legal right to execute Him. That is why they paid people to testify falsely against Him. They were deceptive, jealous, arrogant, proud, and hateful...and I think they had some inkling of it. Yet Jesus recognized that they were truly "ignorant." Praise God for His mercy! Praise Him for His willingness to forgiven our very worst sins on account of our ignorance!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC,

We don't need to know everything - we just need to know enough to not commit a sin. We sure don't know everything perfectly.
The expression "sin of ignorance," though, as used in the Bible and in EGW, does not refer to that. It refers to a class of sins opposed to willful sins. Willful sins are sins committed with a defiant attitude toward God; it is to know the truth and say, "I'm not going to obey it because I do not want to obey it"; it is to treat both God and His Word with contempt.
This kind of sin is dangerous, not because God is unwilling to forgive, but because the sinner eventually becomes unwilling to be forgiven.
Writing, for instance, about the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, Ellen White says,

The Lord's announcement that He would disinherit Israel had roused a spirit of rebellion. One of the people, angry at being excluded from Canaan, and determined to show his defiance of God's law, ventured upon the open transgression of the fourth commandment by going out to gather sticks upon the Sabbath. ... The act of this man was a willful and deliberate violation of the fourth commandment--a sin, not of thoughtlessness or ignorance, but of presumption. {PP 408.4}

Please notice that she says, "not of ... ignorance, but of presumption"

Rosangela,

The sense is different. There are two kinds of "sins of ignorance." The use of the term by Mrs. White regarding the man gathering sticks is to help us know that this man had not sinned without realizing it. He knew he was sinning. He was not ignorant of it.

However, he was still ignorant of the true nature of sin, including the one he committed. He did not know God fully. He did not understand the terrible results of sin, nor what would come to him or to others by it. In this sense, his was still a sin of ignorance.

It is just this kind of "sin of ignorance" that the sacrifices atoned for. Jesus, being the Anti-typical Sacrifice, fulfilled the type in asking forgiveness for us on account of our ignorance.

Obviously, the Sabbath-breaker sinned in angry defiance, and we have no record of him showing any kind of remorse or penitence afterward. I like to think that had he realized his sin, and wished to offer sacrifice for it, he might have been spared. However, his rebellious spirit was more dangerous to God's people than a contagious plague, and he was put to death for the protection of others.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is a new thought to me. I'm trying to wrap my mind around it. What are some biblical examples of people committing intentional and unintentional sins? Were the Jews sinning ignorantly, unintentionally when Jesus prayed, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing"?

Also, did Lucifer sin ignorantly before his final decision to rebel openly?

GC, please cite biblical examples of people committing the unpardonable sin. If it requires perfect knowledge of God's law and love to commit the unpardonable sin, who in the Bible was capable of doing so? Must we reach the point of no return to commit a sin that can bar the gates of heaven against us?

Mike,

I guess we are speaking of two kinds of "unpardonable sin" here. I tried to speak to this earlier, but I probably was less than clear. Here are the two I see, and they are different situations:

1) Sins which cannot be atoned for on account of a perfect knowledge while willfully committing the sin; and

2) Sins which cannot be atoned for on account of the fact that no request for pardon was made.

The former applies to Satan and his host. The latter applies to those who have hardened themselves through consistent denial of the voice of conscience, or through some heinous act (such as suicide), which prevents them from asking pardon, or feeling any desire to repent.

As for Biblical examples: Judas, the Pharisees upon having crucified Christ, King Saul -- each of these knew and understood his guilt, but felt no desire to seek God's forgiveness. They knew they were lost, and were afraid, but were not penitent. It is my believe that any one of these might have received pardon had he only humbly sought God, repentant, and with confession of their sins. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

The key in that text is "if." If we do not confess our sins, there is no pardon for them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Sure. That's why it took me a while to understand what you meant. But AFAIK neither the Bible nor Ellen White use the term "sin(s) of ignorance" in the sense you are using it (although it seens to me the concept you are presenting is true).


What do you make, for instance, of this passage?

Those who have an opportunity to hear the truth and yet take no pains to hear or understand it, thinking that if they do not hear they will not be accountable, will be judged guilty before God the same as if they had heard and rejected. There will be no excuse for those who choose to go in error when they might understand what is truth. In His sufferings and death Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance, but there is no provision made for willful blindness. {LDE 218.1}

Ellen White is mentioning here a kind of sin for which there is no provision.

1) Sins which cannot be atoned for on account of a perfect knowledge while willfully committing the sin.

Who is an example of someone committing this type of unpardonable sin?

2) Sins which cannot be atoned for on account of the fact that no request for pardon was made.

What if they are ignorant of the need to repent?

Intentional X unintentional sin. I would give Judas and Peter as a classical example.


The Jewish leaders were sinning intentionally, however what GC said is true. Perhaps all willful sins have some degree of ignorance in them (which will be removed on the Judgment Day), and perhaps some sins of ignorance have some degree of willfulness in them.


IMO Yes, to a great extent.

Which is which? Seems to me both sinned intentionally. In what sense was Peter ignorant? In what sense was Judas not ignorant?


How can the line between the two be so blurry if they represent the only two categories of sin? Does the following passage shed any light:


I am inclined to believe there are two categories and eight types of sin. The two categories are accountable and non-accountable. Accountable sins are unholy thoughts, words, and deeds we know are wrong and God requires us to repent of them. Non-accountable sins are specific types of sins that do not require repentance.

The five accountable sins are:
1. Intentional: an intentional sin is premeditated and deliberate.
2. Unintentional: an unintentional sin is spontaneous and unplanned.
3. Omission: a sin of omission is leaving a good deed left undone.
4. Faithless: a faithless sin is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
5. Unpardonable: an unpardonable sin is any sin we refuse to confess and forsake.

The three non-accountable sins are:
1. Ignorant: a sin of ignorance is any sin we commit unknowingly or unwittingly.
2. Sinful Flesh: the unholy thoughts and feelings generated and communicated by our sinful flesh are only temptations.
3. Forgiven: sins forgiven are sins confessed, forsaken, and pardoned.

There is also an age of non-accountability, a period of time when small children are not held accountable for their thoughts, words, or deeds. Eventually, however, children come of age and, depending on the individual and the specific issue, they become responsible for their moral thoughts, words, and behavior. Every sin, when reduced to its lowest common denominator, is selfishness.


It is hard to read the SOP accounts of Lucifer's strategy and actions, before he made his final decision, and conclude it was “inadvertent” and “without intent” and "unintentional" and “errors committed through ignorance, thoughtlessness, or weakness”. It seems rather intentional to me.

You asked, "Can a real Christian sin with the intent of sinning, or because he wants to sin? Can a real Christian sin because he despises God and His law?" Assuming Lucifer was a "real Christian", one could assume he was incapable of sinning ignorantly. His knowledge of God's law and love was perfect, lacking nothing. How could he sin ignorantly?

Did Peter plan to sin, did he premeditate his sin? Or was he overcome by weakness? He said to Christ, "Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death" – and meant it.
What about Judas? Did he plan to sin, did he premeditate his sin? Was he warned about it but decided to go ahead with it no matter what?
It’s easy to see de difference.



There are only two classes of sin: intentional and unintentional (see comments above).


Lucifer was blinded by his selfish thoughts and feelings.

Lucifer himself had not at first been acquainted with the real nature of his feelings; for a time he had feared to express the workings and imaginings of his mind; yet he did not dismiss them. He did not see whither he was drifting. But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt. Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. ...The time had come for a final decision... {PP 39.1}

There was a moment when he finally was convinced that he was in the wrong and saw that the Lord and His statutes are just. Until then he had been sinning without an intent (partially at least); from then on, his sin became willful.

“When the light shines, making manifest and reproving the errors that were undiscovered, there must be a corresponding change in the life and character. The mistakes that are the natural result of blindness of mind are, when pointed out, no longer sins of ignorance or errors of judgment; but unless there are decided reforms in accordance with the light given, they then become presumptuous sins.” {5T 435, 436}

Rosangela, thank you. To say Peter sinned unintentionally is hard to swallow. He knew perfectly well he was sinning. His sin was inexcusable. It was intentional. It was self-serving cowardice. Also, to say Lucifer was ignorant of wrongdoing or even partially ignorant is too far out there to accept. There is no way he was uncertain his course of action was contrary to God's will. Nor do I agree with Tom that he sinned willfully. I think his thoughts, words, and actions were pardonable without requiring the death of Jesus for the simple reason God did not consider them sinful. Otherwise, law and justice demand death for sin. But no provision existed to save angels the moment they choose to sin.

Mike, I gave examples in my earlier post. Nevertheless, Lucifer is guilty of the first point, and we can never be guilty of it, since we are ignorant, and are deceived by sin. The second point may apply equally to Satan as to us (although Satan's sin is already unpardonable per #1). We can ignore the voice of conscience to the point we do not hear it anymore. We then feel no prompting, nor desire, to repent and ask forgiveness. The sin is unpardonable, for we do not request pardon.

When we are genuinely penitent and feel prompted to confess, repent, and renew our allegiance to Christ, we have not committed the unpardonable sin. Well, this requires the working of the Holy Spirit as well.

There is one other class of "unpardonable sin" which deserves mention: sins unconfessed during one's period of probation. When probation closes, it's too late, regardless of one's desires at that point (although I tend to think that the Holy Spirit will have been withdrawn from the lost at that point, and they will not be truly penitent--only remorseful and fearful of the consequences).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Mike, no sin is excusable. Yet it wasn't a premeditated sin. Under the strain of the moment he gave down. Peter didn't cherish evil; he didn't resist light, which Judas did. These characteristics define a willful sin.


As to Lucifer, one can only resist light after understanding it.
How can God not consider sinful something that is sinful? This is only possible if it is done in igorance or is an error of judgment.

GC, I hear you saying 1 applies only to evil angels, and 2 only applies to humans who harden their hearts beyond the point of no return. Everyone else sins ignorantly. What about people who die before they repent and before they reach the point of no return? Are they saved by default?

Rosangela, to say Peter didn't cherish evil or resist light is to say he had no idea he was sinning. Cowardice is choosing evil, rejecting light. And, as to Lucifer, what light did he lack while he was, as you say, sinning ignorantly? What was he thinking, saying, and doing that he was unsure was contrary to God's will?

Mike,

I'm not following you. What is your point? That there is no difference between Peter's and Judas' sin? That both are willful sins? Or what?

When one errs, others too often feel at liberty to make the case appear as bad as possible. ... Errors committed through ignorance, thoughtlessness, or weakness are exaggerated into wilful, premeditated sin. {PUR, April 10, 1902 par. 7}

How would you classify Peter's sin in view of the quote above?


Since he thought he was right, he probably believed that if he only kept on insisting about his point and was able to convince others to join him, he would be able to convince God that he was right and make Him change His mind, so that His will and God's will would again harmonize.

Now, about your view. You said God didn't consider Lucifer's thoughts, words, and actions as sinful. Could you present some plausible reason for this?

Rosangela, yes, both Peter and Judas knew they were sinning. Peter's was spontaneous, whereas, Judas' was premeditated. In fact, Judas was hoping Jesus would declare Himself king and appoint him as His right hand man. Peter simply lied to save his hide.

Regarding Lucifer, he was the highest ranking sinless angel, who knew God so well there was nothing he didn't know about Him. We have no way of relating or identifying with him. His experience was ground breaking and unheard of. He was dealing with and trying to understand things so strange that we cannot begin to imagine what it was like. His thoughts, feelings, strategies, and actions were awkward attempts at coping with something so foreign and so unfamiliar that it is impossible for us to grasp or comprehend.

Mike,

The first point is correct. On the second point, let me urge again that even those people who commit the unpardonable sin (working away of the Holy Spirit, until they no longer have sorrow, nor repentance, for their sin), do so ignorantly. Again, this is the broad sense of "ignorant," but I suspect in many cases it also is ignorant on the specific sense of realizing this sin is being committed. How many people, would you think, even suspect that they have committed the unpardonable sin? It seems to me that those who have would not realize it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, what about people who die before they repent and before they reach the point of no return? Are they saved by default?

I think I already answered this in an earlier post:

When one dies, that closes their probation, right?

God may save some who have unconfessed sins when they are suddenly cut down, but this is because He looks at the general trend of their life and character. Just because they have some fresh sins on their slate when they die does not mean they were purposefully unrepentant, nor does this mean those sins suddenly turn into "unpardonable" ones. The unpardonable sins would be those which have been deliberately cherished--where the sinner either refused to repent, or sought to delay repentance.

NOTE: There are few scriptures on the topic of the "unpardonable," so I count this as being more opinion than supportable fact.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That's the point. Ellen White classifies willful sin as premeditated sin. Therefore, Peter's sin wasn't willful.

In such cases do you think God will impute repentance knowing that they would have repented had not death taken them?

Romans
4:7 [Saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
4:8 Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

True, Peter didn't premeditate denying the Lord thrice. Each time he denied Jesus, he knew it was wrong. He was not ignorant. His sin was all the more wrong because Jesus forewarned him and because he passionately promised not to deny Jesus.

Here are some insightful passages on sin:

As I said, the word in Hebrew refers not merely to sins of ignorance, but to all sins where there wasn't a (previous, premeditated) intent to sin.
As I also said, Ellen White contrasts "errors committed through ignorance, thoughtlessness, or weakness" with "wilful, premeditated sin" (PUR, April 10, 1902 par. 7). That's why, to me, Peter's was a sin committed through weakness, while Juda's was a willful, premeditated sin.

I hear what you're saying, however, Judas' plan was to push Jesus to declare His kingship and overthrow the Romans. Peter merely denied knowing Jesus to save his hide. Both were forewarned. Neither one listened. Each committed a horrible sin. Judas killed himself. Peter died to self. The other 10 disciples abandoned Jesus to save themselves. All committed terrible sins. All 12 were fully aware that they did something grievously wrong. Not one of them was ignorant. They all sinned intentionally.

I think that, except for the sin of the African native who has never heard about a book called Bible and thus could never have kept holy a day called Sabbath, every sin is, in a sense, intentional. At some point, whether consciously or unconsciously, you choose to sin. But the term "unintentional" would apply to a sin where there wasn't a previous, premeditated intent to sin.

Okay. But I still don't see how you can say Peter sinned unintentionally. Just because he didn't premeditate denying Jesus hours or days in advance it doesn't mean he sinned unintentionally. He had plenty of time to think about it, especially between the first and second denial, and even more so between the second and third denial.

I can see Moses sin of striking the rock as an impulsive sin, but Aaron's sin?
I have a hard time seeing Aaron's sin as anything but deliberate.
He had to collect gold from all the people. Get the equipement and the fires going to melt it all down and shape a golden calf. That took some pretty good planning. Yes, I know he made it sound like the calf just kind of jumped out of the fire, but that was the speech of man trying to avoid blame.
He even called the people to worship this calf, saying it was a day of worship to the Lord!


I mean, he didn't just hide in fear and let the people do what they wanted, he actually LED OUT in the whole affair!


If Aaron was not chargeable with deliberate or willful sin, then Peter most certainly wasn't either.

I think Peter was so emotionally distraught with fear and disappointed hope (after all he still didn't understand the sacrificial work of the Messiah and thought Christ should be king) that he didn't even realize he was fulfilling Christ's prediction of denial UNTIL the cock crowed the second time and it hit him like a thunderbolt.

Have you been reading the gosple of Judas?
Actually, Judas, thought he was better than Jesus, smarter. He thought Jesus needed a manager to keep Him on track. Judas wanted to be "the boss" and use Jesus for his own ends. In fact the continuous arguing amongst the disciples as to who would be greatest was usually instigated by Judas. And remember what event sent Judas scrurrying to the priest to make the betrayal arrangements. Money and power motivated Judas. Judas sin was not something of the moment -- it was the result of a lot of little steps into sin.


Judas was never sorry for his sins, he was merely sorry that things hadn't worked out as he had planned, and couldn't live with the consequences.

Peter, on the other hand, loved the Lord with all his impetuous heart. He was ready to fight the whole mob there in the garden of Gethsemane, but Christ told him to put away his sword.
Now Peter felt helpless, disoriented, confused, and fearful, out of control, totally uncertain of the future, as he saw the Man in whom he had placed all his hopes, beaten, and abused and condemned, AND DOING NOTHING. Peter's denial wasn't premediated, it came from his emotional confusion and fears.
Once the reality of what he had done hit him, it nearly crushed his heart. He was truly sorry for what he had done!

Are you applying the quote in CC 110 to the story of the golden calf? Of the golden calf debacle, Ellen wrote:


Seems to me Aaron was guilty of deliberate sin in the golden calf incident, but was not chargeable with deliberate sin when he and Moses disobeyed God at Meribah.