Tom, you did not adequately refute Rosangela's point. The quotes she posted plainly spell out the truth. Ellen makes it crystal clear that one of the reasons Jesus suffered and died on the cross was to pay our sin debt of death, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {Con 21.3}

“Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial.” {RH, March 8, 1881 par. 4}

"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. {PUR, September 4, 1913 par. 3}

"God will soon vindicate His justice before the universe. His justice requires that sin shall be punished; His mercy grants that sin shall be pardoned through repentance and confession. {UL 49.5}

"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}

MM, if the explanation you are suggesting were true, how do you explain the fact that God offered Lucifer pardon for his sin?



He was granted an opportunity to "confess his sin." Had he done so, he would have been forgiven. How is this possible?

I think the bottom line of our differences comes down to seeing sin as basically innocuous, as opposed to something deadly from which we must be healed or saved from.

Tom, once you again you didn't address Rosangela's point. Citing Lucifer's case is comparing apples and oranges. It proves nothing. The case of angels and the case of humans are so different nothing can be learned about the plan of salvation by comparing the two. God did offer to redeem or ransom Lucifer. No plan existed to save angels who sinned. Yet you keep insisting the angels sinned and that God was willing to pardon them on condition of repentance. But the opposite is true. Listen:

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. 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. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. {DA 761.5}

Good angels wept to hear the words of Satan and his exulting boasts. God declared that the rebellious should remain in heaven no longer. Their high and happy state had been held upon condition of obedience to the law which God had given to govern the high order of intelligences. But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. Satan grew bold in his rebellion, and expressed his contempt of the Creator's law. {SR 18.2}

I don't know why you would assert this. I disagree. The Plan of Salvation involved both men and angels. The same issues were involved for both:





I'm not "insisting" on anything other than what I quoted from Ellen White.



God offered Lucifer pardon for his sin. That's what this says.



This as well.



This is exactly the point I've been making. Man was deceived in regards to God's character, so there was hope for him to repent once he knew the truth. Hence Christ's sacrifice (which should be understood as His entire experience with us as one of us in the flesh). By the revelation of God, man could be set right with God. This was his "whole mission."

Since Satan knew God's character, and chose to rebel anyway, nothing more could be done. There would be no point for the sacrifice of Christ for him, so it is never mentioned in the context of his being pardoned. However, before his final decision to cast himself against God, he was offered pardon. Since he knew God's character, the sacrifice of Christ wasn't necessary, proving that Christ's death is necessary for the one who needs pardon, not the one who is giving it.

Regarding this statement:



this is true for both man and angel.



This is the same provision for both man and angel. There's no difference. A repentant sinner can and will be forgiven, but there is no provision for transgressing the law of God.



At any rate, your quote isn't dealing with an issue I've even discussed. I've said nothing whatever about the cases of the angels following Satan. I've only referred to Lucifer's situation.

No. Man ventured to transgress God's law, but there was provision for him. Angels ventured to transgress God's law, and there was no provision for them.

“In the council of heaven provision was made that man, though a transgressor, should not perish in his disobedience.” {Messenger, April 12, 1893 par. 2}

Tom, I agree with Rosangela. You say Lucifer transgressed the law before he openly rebelled and that God was willing to pardon his sin without requiring the subtitutionary death of Jesus. Then you go on to say this proves Jesus did not die to pay our sin debt of death. You also say God withdrew the offer after Lucifer openly rebelled. However, your comparison is unsupported. A&E openly rebelled, yet God offered to pardon and save them. You seem willing to acknowledge there are significant differences between angels and humans but ignore them when they conflict with your view. Lucifer committed the unpardonable sin the first time he sinned. Remember, no provision existed to save angels. They had long ago passed the point of sinning with impunity.

Since humans can reach a point in their relationship to God that they can no longer sin with impunity it stands to reason Lucifer reached that point before his first sin. The fact God was willing to pardon and reinstate Lucifer without requiring the death of Jesus clearly indicates he had not yet sinned. Pardon has never been granted without the death of Jesus. Nor has pardon ever been granted in cases involving the unpardonable sin. Again, Lucifer and the evil angels committed the unpardonable sin the first time they sinned. The same is not true of A&E and the rest of the human race.

Yes. God is not a respecter of persons.



This principle is true for all persons, whether human or angelic.



Later on in this same quote she writes:



Angels are God's creatures too. Therefore God did not desire their misery any more than man's, and was just as desirous that they should come to repentance and acknowledge the truth as He was and is for man.

The fact that angels were not saved has nothing whatsoever to do with God! God loves angels as much as man. It wasn't an arbitrary decision on God's part to treat angels one way and man another that led to angels being lost, but it was the decision of the angels themselves to refuse to repent that led to their being lost.

The difference in the case of angels and men is not God! God does not change. His love and desire for salvation is the same for all His creatures.



No, this isn't correct. I said that God offered Lucifer pardon for his sin, and that Christ did not die to enable God to do so. I've cited the following of proof of this:





No, this isn't correct either. MM, I think you would be better off quoting me. I've asked you to do this many times. I've never said what you are alleging here.

What I've said is that your view of Ellen White's writings is not correct because if it were then the same logic you are applying to man would apply to Lucifer's case, in which case God could not have offered Lucifer pardon without Christ's having died. But God did offer Lucifer pardon "again and again," so therefore your view is incorrect.



No, this is incorrect too. I've never said this. Please quote things I've actually said. I'm dumbfounded to see you assert one thing after another regarding what I've said that are just flat out wrong. I've never said what you're alleging here.



I'm the one who pointed out to you these differences. I've cited DA 761 over and over again to establish this point:



To say I "seem willing" to acknowledge this would be like me saying that you "seem willing" to acknowledge that Christ paid our debt by His death.



I'm not ignoring them, I'm explaining them.



MM, just a little thought should be sufficient to see that this is impossible. From the above quote in 4SP 319, we see that God was willing to pardon Lucifer's sin had he confessed it. Since God offered to pardon Lucifer of his sin, obviously it wasn't unpardonable!

Besides this, Lucifer had committed many other sins before this point, and God offered Lucifer pardon again and again for these:





Any creature who sincerely repents will be pardoned. There is no provision to pardon any creature in disobedience. To be pardoned, a creature must repent. Once the disloyal angels made the decision to rebel, there was no way for them to repent. Before making that decision, there was time to do so (time in the sense of capacity to do so, not in the sense of an arbitrary decision being made against them).



No, that doesn't stand to reason at all. First of all, your premise is wrong. Humans cannot reach a point in their relationship to God that they can no longer sin with impunity because there is never a time when humans can sin with impunity! I don't know why you would think this would be the case.



It has never been the case, and never will be, that humans (or any other creature) can sin with impunity.

Secondly, even if your assertion were true, the conclusion you are suggesting would not follow from that. There's no reason why it should.



No, MM. What it indicates is that your view is wrong. We know that Lucifer had sinned because Ellen White writes that he was given the opportunity to "confess his sin." If he had not sinned, as you are alleging, he would not have had any sin to confess.



Only because Lucifer did not accept the offer.



MM, how could pardon be granted for something which is unpardonable? What you're writing is self-evident.



Again, Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin," and be pardoned, so obviously it was not unpardonable.



Both Lucifer and A&E and the rest of the human race were/are offered pardon on the condition of repentance and submission.

Tom, God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer before he sinned. Yes, this was a unique situation. No one had ever questioned God's law or love. Everyone was perfectly content and happy. Sin had never happened before. So, of course, God handled Lucifer's case differently than He does similar cases nowadays. We cannot compare what Lucifer did in heaven (before his actions ended in open rebellion) to similar kinds of things that happen now.

God was lenient with Lucifer in heaven. He tolerated ideas and actions that we consider horribly sinful. But at the time God did not consider them sinful. None of us were there. We don't know the circumstances. We have no idea what it is like to be sinless, to live in a sinless world, to live in the presence of God. We have no idea what it would be like to be sinless and to be suddenly flooded with strange and startling thoughts and feelings about God.

The means and methods Lucifer employed to explore the strange and startling thoughts and feelings that were troubling him seem sinful to us now, but it didn't seem sinful to God then. It is arrogant and ignorant to accuse Lucifer of sinning since we have no idea what it is like to be sinless and suddenly overwhlemed with stange and startlng thoughts and feelings about God. The truth is - Lucifer was not guilty of wrongdoing until the moment it was clear to him that the thoughts and feelings troubling him were wrong and without merit, and that to pursue his course further would be sinful and rebellious.

The moment he chose to continue his course was the moment he sinned. At that precise moment he committed the unpardonable sin. Lucifer was already perfectly acquainted with God's law and love, and had been for a long time. There was nothing more God could do to win his love and allegiance. Lucifer learned nothing new about God during the time he explored his strange and startling thoughts and feelings. When God pleaded with him, when He assembled the heavenly host, when Lucifer sang the praises of God - he learned nothing new about God. He had long ago passed the point of no return.

You are totally misunderstanding or misapplying her statement. "But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law." Sin is the transgression of the law. You are saying the angels sinned before they rebelled. How can that be? How can sin not be rebellion? Besides, Ellen didn't say there was no provision to save those who ventured to rebel. She said there was no provision to save those who ventured to sin. Nor did she say no provision existed to save sinners in their sins. That's not at all what she said or meant. She simply said no provision existed to save angels after they sinned. The reason being is they had long ago passed the point of return.

To sin with impunity means to sin without punishment. You are saying God was willing to pardon Lucifer without punishing him, that all he had to do was submit and repent. But nowhere in the Bible has God pardoned sinners without requiring the death of a sacrificial substitute. Upon what precedence do you insist God would have pardoned Lucifer's sin (without requiring the death of Jesus) if he submitted to God and repented of his sin? When has God ever done such a thing? Since God has never done such a thing, what makes you think He would have done it in the case of Lucifer? Please don't say, Because I think Ellen said so, because that's what I'm debating, that is, your interpretation of what you think she said or meant.

PS - The idea that FMAs can sin and repent after they become so familiar with God's law and love that there is nothig else He can do win and woe them back ignores the truth about the blessings and benefits of developing godly taits of character. See Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-28. By the way, when do you think these scriptures become true of someone? At point are they true?

Of course not! What do you think pardon means? Leaving aside the discussion of Lucifer, can you present even one instance of God's offering anyone at all pardon which didn't involve sin?



This is quite as assertion here, MM.



God speaks of "iniquity" being found in Lucifer, yet you claim that God did not consider what Lucifer did to be sinful.

God offered Lucifer pardon over and over again, yet rather than consider this evidence that Lucifer sinned, you would redefine the meaning of the word "pardon."

The SOP tells us that Lucifer's heart was filled with "envy and hatred" of Christ. It seems fantastic to me that you would think God did not consider this sinful.



There's nothing anywhere, other than what you've written, to suggest that what Lucifer was doing was "exploring strange and startling thoughts and feelings." Instead, what inspiration tells us is that Lucifer indulged a spirit of self-exaltation.



Well, I disagree. I don't think Ellen White was being either arrogant or ignorant in writing:





MM, you're not considering the logic here. If God offered to restore him to his position if he confessed his sin, then his sin could not have been unpardonable.