2. Lucifer's case is too different than the case of A&E to be compared. Lucifer had attained unto perfect knowledge and understanding of God by the time he sinned, whereas A&E barely knew Him by the time they sinned. Because of this huge and critical difference the same plan or offer is insufficient to pardon and save both. Like Jesus, Lucifer had attained unto a state where he could not sin and repent. No plan existed to save angels should they venture to sin. However, the opposite is true of men. A plan existed from eternal ages to redeem them should they chose to sin. That plan included the substitutionary death of Jesus. No plan existed to save angels for the simple reason they had attained unto a state where they could not sin and repent. Not even the substitutionary death of Jesus would have been sufficient to influence and motivate them to love and obey God. Since you believe the cases of men and angels are close enough to conclude the death of Jesus is not required to pardon sinners because it wasn't, according to you, required to pardon Lucifer, how, then, do you explain the fact a plan existed from eternity to save men should they sin but no such plan existed to save angels should they sin? Also, since you believe the cases of men and angels are close enough to compare, how do you explain the fact the death of Jesus would have had no saving effect upon the angels but it is the only way God can save men?

3. The fact God has never pardoned a sinner without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus is evidence against your idea God would have pardoned Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. And, the fact nowhere does it say in the Bible or the SOP that God would have pardoned Lucifer without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus is evidence against your idea. Furthermore, the fact God said, "Without shedding of blood is no remission", is evidence God has not pardoned a sinner without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. Finally, the fact God required the Jews to shed blood to receive pardon is evidence the substitutionary death of Jesus is required to pardon sinners.

4. Nowhere in the Bible or the SOP does it say repentance and submission are sufficient for God to pardon sinners without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. Do you agree? If you disagree with this observation, please post passages which portray God pardoning and saving sinners without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. NOTE: I am not talking about creature merit. Nor am I talking about God merely offering to pardon sinners; instead, I'm talking about God actually, in reality, pardoning sinners on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus.

5. I'm glad we agree God did not continue offering to pardon Lucifer after he rejected His final appeal. Now, here's a question based on this point: In what way was Lucifer's behavior and plan of action different before and after he rejected God's final appeal? Does this difference account for why Lucifer could no longer repent and be pardoned? If so, please explain why. Thank you. NOTE: Please include inspired quotes to support your explanation.

6. Again, asserting that God would have pardoned Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning without also requiring the death of Jesus is meaningless without posting inspired passages to support your assertion. So, once again, please post inspired passages to support your claim, that is, passages which plainly and clearly say, without requiring interpretation or extrapolation, that God would have pardoned Lucifer on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the death of Jesus. Thank you.

Sure He is. Had Jesus sinned, He couldn't have recovered from that. That's a special case. Why not? Because He was God. If He were any other human being, other than one who was also God, recovery would be possible.



No, not at all. I've been arguing against this idea this whole time. I never said that a person couldn't repent after he had a certain level of knowledge about God; this has been your idea.



They don't. They reach the point where they no longer choose to sin.



It really depends upon what one has in mind here. It's not possible in the sense that it is something that someone would actually choose to do. In order for it to be possible for them to actually choose to sin, they would have to be different than they are. This is why I said previously that they can't sin in the same sense that God can't sin. It's not that God is physically unable to sin, but God cannot sin because it is foreign to His character. In the same way, this applies to those in heaven.

True, but that's not what I was talking about. Read on to see what I was talking about.


Does this include Jesus? That's who I was talking about. By the way, I was talking about before not after reaching absolute knowledge of God. Given your reasoning in your previous post do you believe Jesus could have sinned and repented *before* He attained unto absolute knowledge of God?

As an aside, do you believe people can sin and repent after surpassing the level of knowledge of God described in the following passage, or would they be incapable of repenting after having passed that point?

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.


Lucifer lived sinlessly in the presence of God for a very long time. He knew God so well there was nothing else God could do to recommend His love more fully. And yet not even this experience prevented him from sinning. Are you implying that we can attain unto an experience in our pitifully short lifetime that exceeds what Lucifer attained unto?

What makes the difference? If you answer, Jesus' revelation of God's love on the cross, then are you not suggesting Lucifer was at a disadvantage in that God chose not to allow Jesus to die for him? And if you answer, Our experience with sin, then are you not suggesting Lucifer's experience with sin was not sufficient to lead him back God?

PS - Tom, please do not forget to reply to #106208. Thank you.

PSS - To the rest of you who are reading this thread please feel free to join in the discussion. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

This seems to me to be a really odd argument. First of all, Jesus did not "attain unto a state where He could not sin and repent." Jesus was God. The issue of Jesus' sinning is much more involved than Lucifer's sinning because Jesus was God, and the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. If Jesus had sinned, He would have proved that Satan's allegations against God were true.

Regarding Lucifer not being able to repent after sinning, of course this is false:



Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin." Had Lucifer repented, he would have been restored to his position.

This has been repeatedly pointed out to you. I don't know why you continue to assert the reverse of this. It seems we're just going in circles here. The SOP tells us that Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin," and that he would have been restored to his position had he done so. So obviously Lucifer had sinned by this point, and obviously this sin was pardonable.

Regarding your questions at the end of 2., DA 761, 762 addresses this.

3.We've discussed these points. I'll comment on one:



As I've pointed out to you many times, if Lucifer had accepted God's offer of pardon, God would have pardoned him. That God didn't pardon him isn't evidence of anything except that Lucifer did not wish to be pardoned. It's amazing to me that you would try to formulate some argument here regarding God based on something which didn't happen simply because Lucifer chose for it not to happen.

4.The account of Lucifer's fall makes clear that God would have pardoned Lucifer and what the conditions for pardon were.

5.I don't see that Lucifer acted differently, but that he continued in the direction he was going. Reading 4SP 316-320, it seems clear to me what is being said is that Satan embarked on a course, and was steadfast in continuing on that course, regardless of what the loyal angels or anyone else said to him. As to why Lucifer could no longer repent and be pardoned, I believe this is for the same reason as anyone else, and that is that he so hardened his heart against the truth, that he lost the capacity and the desire to repent.

6.That Lucifer was guilty of sinning is made clear in 4SP 320, where he was given the opportunity to repent, as well as GC 496, which says he was offered pardon again and again. Pardon is forgiveness for breaking the law. Breaking the law is sin. That the death of Christ was not necessary for God to do so is evident by the fact that this is not suggested as a condition. The condition was stated:



If you wish to assert that the death of Jesus Christ was necessary in order for God to pardon Lucifer, please provide some inspired passage to support your assertion, that is, passages which plainly and clearly say, without requiring interpretation or extrapolation, that God would not have pardoned Lucifer on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the death of Jesus.

Yes. I don't believe Jesus couldn't repent because He had obtained some certain level of knowledge of God.



Jesus was God. I think this is why Jesus could not have repented. Had Jesus sinned, He would have proved that Satan was right, that God was self-serving, and the GC would have been lost.



I don't think the passage is speaking of obtaining a certain level of knowledge of God. EGW speaks of the unpardonable sin here:



She explains it in terms of resistance to the Holy Spirit. Every description of the unpardonable sin that I am aware of describes being lost in this fashion; that is, in terms of resistance to the Holy Spirit.



I feel like the Pharisees questioning of Jesus. You're really trying to leave me without an out here, aren't you?



This brings out that men, through redemption, have an even closer relationship than that which the angels can know. That's an amazing statement, given how long the angels have known God, and their understanding of His love and character, but there you have it.

As to what makes the difference, certainly Jesus Christ taking our flesh, becoming one of us, must have something to do with it, don't you think? Of course, the cross comes into play as well, as does all that Jesus Christ revealed about God in His humanity. Given that we are ourselves are human, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that there are things of Jesus Christ that we can understand better and more profoundly than angels, who do not know what it's like to be human.

Somewhere you said Jesus could have sinned and repented before He attained unto a full knowledge of God. You asked me to post a quote which said He couldn’t. And I did. Did it change your mind?


Again, I have explained my position on this point. Here it is – It would have been a sin to continue pursuing his course after he was convinced it would be wrong and sinful to do so. He was not guilty of sinning before this time. “He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God.”


No it doesn’t. Please address these issues in your own words. Thank you.


Lucifer waffled between thinking he was wrong and then thinking he was right. He refused the offer of pardon because he landed on believing he was right and God was wrong. Why would he submit to the conditions of pardon?

You have no way proving God would have pardoned Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning. The fact God has never pardoned a sinner without also requiring the death of Jesus is evidence he wouldn’t have pardoned Lucifer without it.


Yes, before Lucifer was guilty of sinning God would have pardoned his activities on condition of repentance and submission. But after the final appeal, the offer was no longer available.

Again, the fact God has never pardoned sinners on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus is proof God would not have pardoned Lucifer without Jesus’ death after he was guilty of sinning.


Would you say Lucifer was guilty of transgressing the law the instant he left God’s presence and began disseminating his new and strange thoughts and feelings about God? Please answer this question in light of the following quote – “But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law.”


Actually, given the facts as I see them, Satan was not yet guilty of sinning, therefore, there was no need for Jesus to die. Under the circumstances, pardon and repentance do not relate to the transgression of the law. Again, no provision had been made to save angels once they ventured to transgress His law. The angels, Lucifer more so than the others, knew God too well to be wooed back from sin. “There was no more that God could do to save him.”

What did Paul mean in Heb 6:4-6?



You wrote, “You're really trying to leave me without an out here, aren't you?” Yeah, I can see how you would think that. But actually I was trying to save several volleys back and forth. I wanted you to know what I was thinking.

You wrote, “This brings out that men, through redemption, have an even closer relationship than that which the angels can know.” It’s because we an experiential knowledge of sin like Jesus. “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” If I had it to do all over again I would choose to be an angel.

You wrote, “As to what makes the difference, certainly Jesus Christ taking our flesh, becoming one of us, must have something to do with it, don't you think?” Why didn’t Jesus do this for Lucifer? I mean, why didn’t He become like Lucifer in his rebellious state? Wouldn’t that have enabled Him to demonstrate to Lucifer how to overcome his rebellious thoughts and feelings?

Also, please explain why you think Jesus' death would not have served to help Lucifer in the way it serves to help us?

No, I didn't say this.



MM, it says he was given a chance to "confess his sin." How can you hold to the idea that he didn't sin when he was given the chance to confess it?



4SP 319 proves this. God offered to pardon Lucifer and restore him to his position if he confessed his sin.



You already that God would not have offered pardon without being willing to grant it. Lucifer would have been pardoned had he accepted the offer. So your assertion here is completely moot. This should be easy to see. That God didn't pardon Lucifer proves nothing since the salient action here was not an action on God's part but on Lucifer's. God did all he could to pardon Lucifer. It was purely because of what Lucifer did that he was not pardoned. So if you wish to assert anything on the basis of an action of someone, it would have to be on the basis of an action of Lucifer.



No, I would say he was guilty of transgressing the law before this, starting from when the SOP quotes Ezekiel in regards to Lucifer's being perfect until iniquity was found in him (a couple of pages before what you're mentioning). Also Lucifer's heart was filled with envy and hatred of Christ before this. It is my believe that hatred of Christ is transgression of the law. Do you agree?



I see no reason to. First of all, I completely disagree with your understanding of what God is wishing to communicate. Your idea is that God arbitrarily decided he would forgive men but not angels. I don't think that's the idea at all. That the angels could not be saved if they continued in rebellion had nothing at all to do with a provision that God had or not had made. That's not the point. The point is there was no way to save them; that's it. DA 761, 762 discusses why.

Secondly, I don't see the connection between this quote and when Lucifer started sinning. I don't see why you would want to tie when Lucifer started sinning to this quote, as opposed to, for example, the quotes dealing with his heart being filled with hatred for Christ.



This makes no sense, because Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin."



Of course pardon and repentance relate to transgression of the law. Pardon is forgiveness for an offense against the law. That's what pardon is. Repentance was a condition for pardon because if Lucifer was determined to continue to break the law, pardoning him would not be possible.

We started this argument some years ago. When I first brought up the GC quote, you responded that "pardon" and "repentance" did not mean what they ordinarily mean. You said that Lucifer didn't sin. You hounded me, over and over again, for a statement that said that Lucifer sinned, refusing to acknowledge that without a statement clearly stating it, notwithstanding that God offered him "pardon" on the condition of "repentance," and also notwithstanding the descriptions of his activities, that he hated Christ, that he presented false claims to the holy angels, and that iniquity was found in him. I responded:



A little while after, you were presented with the following quote:



Your response?



It seems to me that you have your mind made up. When presented with an alternative point of view, words such as "pardon," "repentance," and "sin" don't have their normal meanings.