Tom, please address 105641 and 105642 (above). Thank you.

Tom, please address 105641 and 105642 (above). Thank you.

Tom, please address 105641 and 105642 above. Thank you.

Regarding 105641, God offered Lucifer pardon under the conditions of repentance and submission. It wasn't necessary for Christ to die in order for God to do so. This establishes the point I wanted to make.

It looks like your wanting to argue that God didn't actually pardon Lucifer (which is true, since Lucifer didn't accept the offer), so one cannot reason that God can pardon sin without the death of Christ. This is a very weak argument. The offer was made, under the conditions stated, and would have been granted on the spot had it been accepted, and Lucifer would have been restored to his position. This disproves the idea that God needs the death of Christ. There was never anything lacking in God that He should need the death of Christ for anything whatsoever.



Not exactly. I think I spoke of willful sin. Of course ignorant sin would not be rebellion.



They could have stopped rebelling at the time EGW indicated, which is the time she identified as too late for Satan to go back, but not too late for his sympathizers.

It doesn't disprove it. You can surmise it, but you can't prove it. God offered to pardon A&E before Jesus died. This doesn't prove His death was not needed.


Do you think they were initially ignorant, that they didn't know they were sinning and rebelling?

Are you sure? Can you name someone God has pardoned without blood?


It would be a moot point if God actually pardoned Lucifer without blood. But the fact is it didn’t happen. You have no way of knowing if God would have pardoned him without blood. There is no inspired passage which says so.


On the contrary, it is true. God offered to pardon A&E 4,000 years before Jesus died.


Here’s the statement – “But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law.” {SR 18.2} She is clearly saying nothing could be done to save them should they chose to sin. You seem to be saying provision did indeed exist to save them if they repented. But she didn’t say anything about repentance being a provision. She simply says “no provision” existed. Neither can her statement be construed to mean no provision existed to save them in or with their sin. The construction of the sentence totally disallows it.


Please post the passages you believe conclusively support what you believe to be facts. Thank you.

A&E would have died because of one sin if Jesus hadn't pleaded with the Father three times to implement the plan of salvation. In heaven right now, the commission of one sin would be unpardonable. In the New Earth, the commission of one sin would be unpardonable.


Jesus could not have sinned and repented. His first sin would have been unpardonable. Can you explain why?


Please point it out to me. I couldn't find it in the quotes you posted.

PS - God knows who will and who will not accept His offer of pardon. Someone might ask, "Why does God bother offering to pardon people He knows will refuse to meet the conditions?" Is He somehow hoping He's wrong about them? Or, is there a different, more logical, more loving reason?

For example, Jesus knew Judas was going to betray Him. Yet Jesus labored long and hard with Judas. Why? To what end? In the case of Lucifer, God foresaw his sin and rebellion. He also foresaw him deceiving A&E and causing their fall. Given these facts, why did God offer to pardon him? Was He hoping He was somehow wrong? Or, was it so that he "might be left without excuse"? That's what I think.

I skipped several things because I've already explained my position several times on these skipped things. I think you understand it. I'm not sure why you're just repeating things we've already said and discussed. I've picked out things which looked to be new items, and responded to them.

If there's something I've omitted that I haven't recently explained my thoughts on several times that you'd like to have discussed, please bring it up.



I just wrote "of course ignorant sin would not be rebellion." The question, "Do you think they were initially ignorant, that they didn't know they were ... rebelling?" is asking an impossibility. If ignorance is not rebellion, then the could not be rebelling if ignorant, right?



This is true. If it were possible for God not to be merciful, then it would be possible for a single sin to cause one to be lost.



Why do you think this to be the case?



Same question.



I think this is scratching where it doesn't itch. This seems way off field, but if you want to discuss it, we can. Why do you think Jesus could not have sinned and repented? Why do you think this first sin would have been unpardonable?

This isn't really addressing my questions. That is, I said I wasn't aware of statements in the SOP which say that a person can be lost by committing one sin and asked if you were aware of any. Does the fact that you didn't produce any mean that you aren't aware of any?

My other question was requesting a person who was lost in the manner you are suggesting is possible. You didn't cite anyone here, so may I assume you're not aware of anyone who was lost in this way?



Here's one place:





There's evidence this is not the case.



Yes, the more logical, more loving reason is that your premise is false.



I think you have faulty premises here. I don't see how this ties into the discussion either.

I think God made the offers of pardon in good faith.

So, tell me if I’m hearing you right. You believe the angels knew they were guilty of sinning while God was offering them pardon, but God stopped offering them pardon the moment they rebelled. Is that what you think? If so, what is the difference between sinning and rebelling?


Because they know better. Also, they are dwelling in the direct, undiluted presence of God, and sin and sinners cannot exist in the direct, undiluted presence God. “To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. {DA 107.4}

Do you agree that they cannot sin and repent in heaven or in the new earth? If not, why not? Please be thorough. Thank you.


“All have sinned.” Thus, your requests are impossible. However, the fact Jesus could not sin once without committing the unpardonable sin is more than sufficient to prove the point. I suspect you disagree. If so, why?


First, this wasn’t one of the quotes you posted and asked me to “note”. Second, the use of the word “iniquity” in the new quote you just posted implies God viewed Lucifer as a transgressor the instant he was guilty of iniquity. However, it fails to confirm your idea that God bore long with Lucifer in heaven after he was guilty of iniquity. Neither does it confirm your idea that God offered to pardon and reinstate him after he was guilty of iniquity. The tone and tense of Ezekiel 28 strongly implies Lucifer was cast down the moment he sinned.


You have been unable to prove that God does not know who will be saved and lost. Neither have you been able to prove God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. People have labored to show you the truth about God’s foreknowledge but you have steadfastly rejected their testimony, which, of course, you are entitled to do.

However, God’s word speaks for itself. Throughout the entire Bible God has accurately foretold the future. Knowing the future as precisely and accurately as does God requires knowing in advance the outcome of every decision everyone will make. Naturally, this is the case. Otherwise, none could rely on the “sure word of prophecy” as that which is not “cunningly devised fables”.

In addition to the many testimonies in the Bible we also have the many new and clearer testimonies in the SOP. The SOP makes it abundantly clear God knew in advance Lucifer would sin and rebel and deceive A&E into sinning. Any theory that suggests God did not know these things with absolute certainty is an attempt to undermine the sure word of God.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say God offered to pardon and reinstate after he was guilty of iniquity. Given the fact the SOP does not contradict the Bible it is simple to conclude nothing Ellen wrote can be taken to mean otherwise. Also, given the fact God knew Lucifer would reject all efforts to restore him it is clear He did not offer to pardon him “in good faith” as if to say God was dispossessed of absolute foreknowledge.

So, the question remains – Why did God offer to pardon and reinstate Lucifer given the fact He knew all efforts to restore him would be rejected and result in the great controversy involving men and angels?

Again, I believe a partial answer is contained in the principles articulated in the following quote: “God's design that the knowledge of the truth should come to all, that none may remain in darkness, ignorant of its principles; but that all should be tested upon it and decide for or against it, that all may be warned and left without excuse. {2T 633.2} Namely, “That all may be warned and left without excuse.”