I came across something discussing Gal. 3:10-14:

Similarly, Galatians 3:10-14 expounds the salvific character of the cross of Christ in ways well-oriented to the context Paul is addressing. At this juncture in his argument with Galatian Christians enamored with legal observance, Paul needs to overcome the obvious problem of the essential partitioning of Jew and Gentile--a distinction centered on the status of the law-abiding Jew in contrast to the lawless Gentile. Gentiles lived under God's curse as persons outside the law; how then could they share in the blessings of Abraham?

Paul's first answer was that those who use the law to drive a wedge between Jews and Gentiles have abused the law and therefore fall under the same divine curse. How then can anyone participate in the blessings of Abraham? Second, borrowing the imagery of Deut. 21:22,23, Paul writes that Jesus has in this crucifixion borne the curse of God--htat it, he has been placed outside the community of God's covenant. More than this, he has done so "on our behalf."

In his death he has exhausted the poewr of the law to segregate people from the covenant. It is not accidental that in constructing his argument Paul refers to "Christ" bearing the "curse," for this places in provocative juxtaposition two profoundly contradictory images: the one "anointed by God" is the one "cursed by God." If Jesus has identified with humanity in having been placed outside the covenant of God's people as one who bears the divine curse, his divine "anointing" signifies the acceptance of the "outsider," both Jew and Gentile. The death of Christ thus marks the new eon in which Gentiles may be embraced, in Christ, as children of Abraham. (The Nature of the Atonement, 4 Views, p. 171; emphasis original).

Note the following:



This is exactly the idea I presented!

Tom, you have no right to accuse of me of anything. This isn't about me or you, it's about the biblical description of a believer abiding in Jesus. Again, where in the Bible or the SOP does it say the righteousness of believers who are abiding in Jesus is tainted with traces of selfishness? In the quote you posted above she doesn't say the righteousness of believers is tainted with the sin of selfishness.

MM, Rosagela asked you:



You're answer was an implied "no." I wrote "seem" because your answer was an implicit "no," not an explicit one. So if you don't really mean "no," please explain that. If you really do mean "no," then conscience compels me to warn you that I believe this to be an exceedingly dangerous position to take. Not only do I have the right to warn you of this, but I have the duty to do so.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm simply reading what you wrote, and inferring something from that. I hope my inference is incorrect, and I'll be able to apologize for misunderstanding your meaning.

You didn't answer my question regarding the quote I presented. I asked you what you think it means. I didn't assert a meaning for it, but asked your opinion.

I’ve presented clear evidence that the word “righteous” is used in this sense by first-century Jews.
I’ve showed how the belief of many of the Pharisees was that their entire lives had been flawless, and how the rabbis thought the biblical heroes had never sinned. Although clearly wrong, these notions were based on the concept that righteousness is perfect obedience to the law during one’s whole life.
This concept, in its turn, was obviously based on the biblical statement (in Deuteronomy) that those who do not obey the law perfectly are under a curse of death - that is, they are lost. Paul later expands on this, arguing that we are only freed from this curse by Christ’s bearing of it.
Finally, Ellen White confirms this concept by saying that the law cannot forgive, and that the debt of sin we have incurred remains, condemning us to death, even if we try to obey the law in the future. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, I believe Ellen White was expressing a biblical concept, and not a modern western concept completely unrelated to the Bible and foreign to it.
I don’t think I have anything else to add about this.


Both sentences use the same verb in the same tense, voice and mood (died/died). But let’s translate it in the second sentence as “were dead,” as you wish.
Ara, the conjunction connecting the two sentences, means “therefore, so then, wherefore”.
What the verse says is:
If one has died for all, then all were dead.
What you want it to mean is:
If one hadn’t died for all, then all would be dead.
Therefore, the verse is saying the opposite of what you wish it to say. The first verb should be in the negative, and the second one in the subjunctive mood, for the verse to mean what you wish it to mean.


Because Ellen White says it clearly:

“Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him.” {DA 761.5}

When Satan chose to follow his own will there was no more that God could do to save him. Obviously he hadn’t chosen to follow his own will before that. And obviously it was when he chose to follow his own will that he defied God’s will.


Is it still in the registries of heaven or not?


What exactly is the debt that Christ paid and how did He pay it?


Comparing pardon in two completely unrelated circumstances (before fall/after fall) is impossible.


Death was the penalty for willful disobedience, that is, for the choice of following one’s independent will instead of God’s will (which would mean a fall from allegiance). At the point Lucifer was offered pardon, he hadn’t yet made this choice.


My logic is valid and proves that your argument is invalid.

All of Satan’s accusations are based on false premises.
Accusations based on false premises don’t need to be refuted (your argument).
Therefore, none of Satan’s accusations need to be refuted.


No, I don’t think it has to do with that. What I see about the cross that has to do with my salvation is that the shame Jesus bore for me, the physical sufferings He bore, the agony He bore – all this shows the width and length and depth and height of His love for me. As Ellen White points out, the Jews didn’t need to have any part in Christ's crucifixion – if they hadn’t killed Christ the enemies of God would have done that. So, the fact that they did it is entirely their responsibility and entirely their sin (this, of course, refers to the Jews of that generation only).


This doesn't make matters better. Lucifer had more light than Adam, so his responsibility was greater. Therefore, if his sin had been graver than Adam’s, so would have been the consequences of it. Unless the universe that God created is unjust. Which would lead us, again, to the conclusion that God is unjust.

Where? That is, where is the word "righteous" used to mean "keep the law perfectly one's whole life"? I'm referring here specifically to the word "righteous."



Not at all! Have you ever met anyone who has this idea? I doubt anyone in the history of man, not counting Christ or mentally unstable people, have had the idea that in their whole life they never did anything wrong.



And I pointed out that even if this were true, this wouldn't mean that "righteous" means "keeping the law perfectly one's whole life." Indeed, the author of this article spoke of how these people believed the Bible heroes to have lives which were "extraordinarily righteous." Now the phrase "extraordinarily righteous" makes sense according to the standard definitions of "righteous" (I presented 6 or 7 of these), but doesn't make any sense according to your idea, which would be all or nothing to start with. You've not presented any source whatsoever as citing a Jewish definition of "righteous" as "perfectly keeping the law one's whole life," have you?



The idea was based on the Bible heroes being very good, not on the definition of "righteous" being "keeping the law perfectly one's whole life." I'm not following how you're coming to this conclusion.

Ellen White's comments have nothing to do with what "righteous" would have meant for a 1st century Jew. Unless you can present something saying, "I was shown that 1st century Jews understood 'righteous' as meaning ..."

Regarding 2 Cor. 5:14, do you have some point to make? If so, what is it?

You asked me what I thought it meant. I told you. I think it means the same thing that EGW is saying here:



I believe this reasoning is born out by the context. Paul recognized that he owed all that he had to the death of Christ. If it weren't for Christ, he would be death. He owed even his earthly life to Christ. Let's look at what he says immediately following:



Paul felt gratitude for Christ's death, which gave him life. Because of Christ's death, we are alive, and Paul argued that we should live for Him who gave Himself for us.



The fact that someone, at some point, follows his own independent will in no way implies that before this point he wasn't following his own independent will.

Let's just look at some things she writes:



Whose will was Satan following here, if not his own? Was it God's will that Satan's heart was filled with envy and hatred?



Whose will is Lucifer following here, if not his own?



Whose will was Lucifer following here if not his own?



Is it removed, or not?



I've quoted C. S. Lewis in response to this a couple of times. It would make this post too long to quote it here, but I like his thoughts. Also Fifield's:





Comparing pardon in two completely related circumstances -- after having sinned -- is very possible. God offered to pardon Lucifer his sin under the condition of repentance and submission. This is the same offer He makes to man. You're focusing on the wrong word-pair. The focus should be on the word-pair "sin/pardon" not "fall/pardon."



How does this prove my argument is invalid? What's your proof that your first premise is true? (that all of Satan's accusations are based on false premises)

*If* it were true that all of Satan's arguments were based on false premises, then, obviously, all that would be necessary would be to show that these premises are false. Indeed, to show anything other than this would be pointless.

If you argue: "Because pentagons have 3 sides, they have fewer sides than squares" once it has been established that the premise is false, and that pentagons really have 5 sides, there's no point to arguing anything further.



She writes that the books of heaven record the sins we would have committed had we had the opportunity. Why would we be any better than the Jews? Apart from the grace of God, we would have acted just like they did. There's a valuable spiritual lesson involved in perceiving this.



Yes it does! It makes all the difference in the world!

If the things which happens are not arbitrarily imposed, but rather the consequences of choices that are made, then we can understand God's actions as being involved with trying to get His creatures to not do things which are harmful to themselves, as opposed to trying to get them to avoid behavior which will lead to His killing them. That's a big difference!



But Satan will suffer more than any other creature when he suffers the consequences of his choices. So where is the injustice? The only thing God did was to postpone the consequences, for the reasons pointed out here:



God have very good reasons to postpone allowing Satan to reap the full result of his sin, in which case he would have perished. Here death is described as "the inevitable result of sin." I don't see the injustice here.

One final comment. You write:



If? You have some doubt about this? Here's a description of what Satan did:



Here's a description of what Adam did:



I don't see how anyone could perceive this latter paragraph as describing graver sin than the former one.

That Gal. 3:13 and 2 Cor. 5:14 are complementary. The liability to the curse is removed from those who are united by faith to Christ because Christ took on Himself the curse which the Law pronounces on the law-breaker. If one died for all, then all died. In Christ I am as if I had borne the curse and, therefore, I become free from it.

“In Christ we are as if we had suffered the penalty we have incurred. In Christ I am as if I had obeyed, and rendered perfect obedience to the law, which we can not perfectly obey without Christ imparts to us His merits and His righteousness. O, the plan of salvation is a wonderful matter, and we have enough to think of, and talk of, and to be thankful for every day of our lives.” {PUR, September 4, 1913 par. 3}


Tom, the text is clear enough. At the moment he chose to follow his own selfish, independent will, this choice was final. She is not saying at all that he chose to follow his own selfish, independent will several times, and at some point the choice became final.


The point was not if he was following his own will, but if he was making a conscious choice to follow his own will after understanding all that was involved in this.


It’s removed from my life, but not from the registries of heaven.


If I’m not mistaken C. S. Lewis considers the debt to be repentance, surrender of the will, death (to self?). I don’t know how this could be the debt. The debt is the curse the law pronounces on the law-breaker, and this curse is eternal death.


There are two kinds of sin here - one which necessarily led to a fall, the other which didn't.


This is a self-evident truth. Can any accusation against God be based on a true premise?


Of course she refers to sins we planned to commit but couldn’t commit for lack of opportunity.


Apart from the grace of God, I could be one of those criminals who are in jail. But I’m not responsible for the crimes they committed.


Again, I’m referring to his pre-fall sin, in case he had been pardoned, like Adam was. You are saying his sin was graver than Adam’s. How can this make sense? If Lucifer had been forgiven, he wouldn’t have experienced any bad consequences for a supposedly much graver sin, while Adam, although forgiven, experienced a series of very bad consequences for a supposedly lesser sin. According to this reasoning, either God is unjust or the universe He created is unjust (which also makes Him unjust).


1) the first paragraph doesn't make a distinction between what happened before and after Lucifer's fall.
2) during a long time Lucifer didn't understand he was wrong, nor what would be the result of his course. He had to be convinced that he was in the wrong. Adam had Lucifer's fall to warn him, he knew the laws of Paradise and the penalties for their transgression; he knew that what he was doing was wrong, but did it nonetheless. Therefore, his sin was equivalent to the sin of Lucifer in his final decision, not to his sin before that.

The "all died" would be every human being, then, wouldn't it? Since this is something which happened in the past, it can't apply only to believers, since they didn't exist yet. Iow, Christ would be corporately dying for the human race. This is the same idea that EGW expressed in saying, "To the death of Christ we owe even our earthly life." Not only believers owe their physical life to the death of Christ, but all men do. Paul recognized this debt, and argued that we should be grateful because of this sacrifice of Christ.



I agree! The text says that Lucifer followed his own selfish, independent will. *Not* that he *began* to do this at the time he made his final decision, which seems to be your interpretation of events. Clearly Lucifer was following his own selfish, independent will the entire time he was hating Christ, envious of Him, plotting to exalt himself, and so forth.



If what you were saying were true, then whose will was he following when he was doing the things I listed?



Up until now your argument was based on her saying that Satan chose to follow his own independent will. Now I understand you are agreeing with the point I have been making, which is that whole time Lucifer was doing the things I listed he was following his own selfish, independent will.

Now you're making an additional point, which is that the salient point is not simply that Lucifer was following his own selfish, independent will, but that he chose to do so after understanding all that was involved. A counter to this point is simply that Adam didn't understand all that was involved when he rebelled. Indeed, Adam understood far less when he ate of the apple than Lucifer did during the time he was making false claims and seeking to exalt himself above God (I'm speaking of the time before Lucifer made his final decision).



I believe the books of heaven are a faithful representation of one's life.



Here's the link: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_lewisatone.html

It looks to me that C. S. Lewis is making the same point that Fifield makes:



For example, C. S. Lewis speaks of our getting ourselves into a hole, and not being able to dig ourselves out, and of a debt being necessary in this sense. He says:



Fifield speaks of Christ's sacrifice being the price paid in order to bring us to a repentant attitude, so that He could pardon us freely. Lewis says that there is a description of what must be done, be we are unable to do it of ourselves. Both are conceiving of the price as not an arbitrary legal requirement, but as a description of reality, which reality cannot be realized without Christ's death.



This seems like not a helpful way of looking at things. The sin that led to the fall of Adam was clearly very different in nature than the final sin that led to the fall of Lucifer. At any rate, this seems not to have to do with the point I have been making, which is that if God is unable to forgive sin without someone being killed, then He wouldn't have been able to forgive Lucifer.



Yes, an accusation against God can be based on a false premise. An argument can be constructed like this:

a.True premise
b.Invalid reasoning resulting in an accusation against God.



Regarding Christ's prayer, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do," she writes:



Now this is dealing with the actual act of crucifying Christ, not simply our sins being upon Him. We are all guilty of crucifying the Son of God. Why? Because the acts of those who actually crucified Christ are the acts of humanity. We are no better than the ones who actually crucified Christ. But for the grace of God, we would have done the same thing, had we had the opportunity.



Of course not. Why are you making this point?

Ok, so you're saying, if God had forgiven Lucifer, then he would not have suffered. Yet Adam suffered greatly, for what I'm claiming is a lesser sin. How could this be just?

The first thing that comes to mind is that had Lucifer accepted God's offer of pardon, there would have been no sin to compare it against, as Adam's sin would not have happened. So this is a hypothetical question involving a comparison of two things which could not have both happened.



I was only considering things which happened before Lucifer's fall. I had written out a description of the specific things previously. A quick recap:

a.His heart was filled with envy and hatred of Christ.
b.He sought to exalt himself above God.
c.In order to do so, he presented false claims against God.
d.He indulged a spirit of discontent
e.He masked his true intent of self-exaltation under a guise of reverence for God.

These are all things he did before his final decision to rebel. All of the above was forgivable.



No, Adam's sin was not equivalent. Not at all. For one thing, if it were equivalent, Adam could not have been forgiven.

What happened in Lucifer's case is that he sinned over and over again against greater and greater light, until he hardened his heart to such a great extent it was no longer for Lucifer to be pardoned. God did not arbitrarily withdraw an offer of pardon, but Lucifer lost the desire and capacity to repent, after refusing to do so so many times.

In the case of Adam, Adam knew he had been told not to eat of the forbidden fruit, but he had much less of a concept of this being wrong than Lucifer did in terms of what he was doing. I mean, just look at the situation! In Adam's case, Eve was going to die. Adam resolved not to allow Eve to die alone. It's not at all an easy thing to see that this is wrong, even today. That is, even today many would question if what Adam did was wrong. His action was motivated by self-sacrifice.

Now I'm not saying Adam's decision wasn't wrong, but that many question this, and that it was motivated by self-sacrifice, a good motivation. Otoh, Lucifer's actions from the get go were motivated by a selfish desire to be exalt himself. No one would argue that Lucifer's decisions were not wrong.

On the one hand we have:
a.A creature resolving to sacrifice himself because of love for another

On the other we have:
b.A creature seeking to exalt himself, hiding behind a guise of reverence, using deception to get his desires, and motivate not by self-sacrifice but by envy and hatred.

IMO a theology which leads one to see Adam's actions as worse than Lucifer's needs to be seriously questioned. That is, there must be something wrong with the assumptions one is taking to arrive at such a place. Lucifer's actions were reprehensible. Adam's were bad, but understandable.

No, it wouldn’t. It’s like in Rom. 5:18, “Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment to condemnation came upon all men, even so by the righteousness of One, the free gift unto justification of life came upon all men.” It’s true that the gift of justification came upon all men, but it is made effective by faith – so only those who have faith are justified. In the same way, it’s true that all died in Christ, but this gift is also made effective by faith – so only those who are united by faith with Christ are considered to have died in Him.
If Christ had paid the death penalty for all men and faith was not necessary to make this effective, then all would be saved.


Lucifer had not been following the will of God, of course, but his own will. However, he didn’t have a clear notion about the result of persisting in revolt, he didn't think he was wrong, and he didn't think the divine statutes were just. But when he finally understood all that, and even so he chose to follow his own will – it was a conscious choice after God had given him enough light to make an intelligent decision. Therefore, this was a defiant, presumptuous sin.

“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 divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. ... The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion.” -- PP 39.

Adam also had enough light to make a decision, so his sin was also a defiant, presumptuous sin.

"To Adam and Eve were plainly stated the laws of Paradise, with the penalty for willful disobedience. They disobeyed, and disobedience brought its sure result." {HP 153.2}

"The words of Christ are both explicit and comprehensive. 'Whosoever... shall break one of these least commandments'--willfully or presumptuously, as did Adam and Eve--is included in the condemnation.” {ST, September 4, 1884 par. 11}

"God's law appeals to man as an intelligent being; he possesses a mind to understand its demands, a conscience to feel the power of its claims, a heart to love its requirement of perfect righteousness, a will to render prompt and implicit obedience. God does not compel men to render obedience to his law. If man purposes to defy God, and transgress his law, as did Adam, he may do so, but he must suffer the terrible consequences" {ST, May 12, 1890 par. 6}

Notice that it is said about both that they refused to obey the law:

“Evil originated with the rebellion of Lucifer. It was brought into heaven when he refused allegiance to God's law. Satan was the first lawbreaker.” {RH, June 4, 1901 par. 3}

“By rebellion and apostasy man forfeited the favor of God; ... The moment the workmanship of God refused obedience to the laws of God's kingdom, that moment he became disloyal to the government of God.” {FW 21.1}

Adam still had Satan’s fall and its results to warn him, so he made a very conscious choice.


Self-sacrifice? This was idolatry! He put his wife above his Creator. He also put Satan’s words above God’s words.


Ellen White tells us what would have happened if Lucifer had accepted God’s offer of pardon, so we can compare what would have happened to him with what happened with Adam after Adam accepted God’s offer of pardon. This is not hypothetical and it’s a legitimate comparison.


The investigative judgment happens exactly to blot out the sins repented of and forgiven. If they have already been blotted out, there is no need for an investigative judgment.


He is saying that the debt is repentance, surrender of the will, death to self, and that since Christ did all that, He can now do it in us. But the debt is not repentance, surrender of the will and death to self; the debt is the penalty of the law – eternal death.


You obviously mean a true premise. If that is the case, you should have no problem in listing the accusations based on true premises.


Again, I disagree with this. We all crucified Christ by our sins. But the acts of those who actually crucified Christ are only repeated (in fact, in a greater degree) by those who reject Him (Heb. 6:6, 10:29).

“In our day greater light and greater evidence is given. We have also their [the Jews’] example, the warnings and reproofs that were presented to them, and our sin and its retribution will be the greater, if we refuse to walk in the light. Many say, ‘If I had only lived in the days of Christ, I would not have wrested his words, or falsely interpreted his instruction. I would not have rejected and crucified him as did the Jews;’ but that will be proved by the way in which you deal with his message and his messengers today. The Lord is testing the people of today as much as he tested the Jews in their day. When he sends his messages of mercy, the light of his truth, he is sending the spirit of truth to you, and if you accept the message, you accept of Jesus. Those who declare that if they had lived in the days of Christ, they would not do as did the rejectors of his mercy, will today be tested. Those who live in this day are not accountable for the deeds of those who crucified the Son of God; but if with all the light that shone upon his ancient people, delineated before us, we travel over the same ground, cherish the same spirit, refuse to receive reproof and warning, then our guilt will be greatly augmented, and the condemnation that fell upon them will fall upon us, only it will be as much greater as our light is greater in this age than was their light in their age." {RH, April 11, 1893 par. 7}