I think his thinking was similar to later in Hebrews where he speaks of how, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation." Do you agree?



I think because of the reasons stated in DA 761, 762. Indeed, this is exactly what I think DA 761, 762 is explaining.

Okay.


Yes, as I said, Lucifer was convinced it would be wrong and sinful to continue pursuing his course after God made His last and final appeal. The matter was presented to him in such clear light that he was no longer in doubt as to the true nature and results of pursuing his course further. He saw the end to which it would land him and he was convinced beyond doubt it would be wrong and sinful to go there. He was given the opportunity to confess his convictions and abandon his course. He was very close to doing so, but at last he decided to see it through to the bitter end.

I realize you think this explanation and understanding of the matter is so far afield it is laughable, but it is at least one of many plausible ways of reading it. It is the outgrowth of other established facts and based on rock solid foundations, namely, that 1) no plan existed to save angels should they venture to sin and 2) God has never pardoned a sinner without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. Nothing Ellen wrote elsewhere contradicts these two foundational facts.


You are assuming conclusions based on a theory you have been unable to substantiate. You think that 1) a plan existed to save angels who have sinned, 2) offering them pardon is equivalent to actually granting them pardon, and 3) God would have pardoned them without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. You have no inspired support for assuming these conclusions. Nor do you have any right to state them as matters of fact, or to build new theories upon them.


Again, your logic here is based on the three observations (named above) you assume are matters of fact. But they are not matters of fact for the simple reason no inspired passages exist to back them up. To build a new theory, or to draw any conclusion, based on the assumption they are true is bad logic, bad theology.

You have posted zero quotes to describe or explain what God did to motivate Lucifer to abandon his course. All we know about it is what we read in the SOP. The Bible is silent on the details. We know God pleaded with Lucifer on the basis of logic and reason; we know God held a general assembly to honor Jesus and to clear up any confusion as to His exalted status; and we know God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer on condition of repentance and submission.

But we also know logic and reason and offers of pardon served only to harden Lucifer’s heart, to confirm him in the course he was pursuing. There was nothing God could do to woo and win him back. He had no other recourse. He had played His best and last hand long before Lucifer embarked upon his perilous course. By the time Lucifer began entertaining new and strange thoughts and feelings about God it was too late in the game of life for God to do anything new to save him should he sin.

God’s only recourse was to remind Lucifer of His love for him. He could only point to the facts at hand as proof peace and happiness exist, and has existed from the beginning, because FMAs have willingly and lovingly chosen to live in harmony with the established order of things. There was nothing more God could do to demonstrate His love more fully. Lucifer had for many years lived in the full light of God’s love and majesty. This reality is the only thing God could offer Lucifer as incentive and encouragement to abandon his course. As you say, not even the death of Jesus could have improved upon what Lucifer already knew about God. It would have served no meaningful purpose.

Yes, God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer, but under the circumstances it was meaningless to Lucifer. He needed what God could not offer, namely, further proof that living in harmony with the established order is right, that to pursue any other course is wrong. The fact God could provide no better proof than what had already been provided led Lucifer to question if the established order really was right. Encouraging him to stay the course, to abandon his new course, without offering any new evidence, only served to harden his heart and to confirm him in his new course. What more could God do? He had already played His best hand.

The time came for God to offer the final appeal, and although it stirred a few strings in his heart, Lucifer was determined to brave the consequences. Since God could offer no new evidence to recommend His love and established order, Lucifer felt justified in pursuing his course to the end. He deceived himself into believing a new world order would empower FMAs to be all they can be, to afford them the opportunity to worship him without bringing down the frown of God. To this end he bent all his power and wisdom and influence.


Can we understand what it was like to be a sinless angel in heaven? No, of course not. Therefore, we should not presume to understand what it means to be a sinless angel in heaven wrestling with such new and strange thoughts and feelings toward Jesus. Lucifer was confused. He was alarmed. He had not cast off his allegiance to God. He did not set out to replace God or the established order. He merely felt a few changes to the established order would set things right. His feelings toward Jesus did not become a sin until the moment He rejected God’s final appeal to abandon his course.


Hopefully after reading what I wrote above (this post) you can see why I believe no plan existed to save angels should they venture to sin. The reasons are plain and simple to understand. They were at a point in their relationship with God that made it impossible for them to sin and then repent.

They were at the point you believe the redeemed in heaven will be at, a point where they know God so well that their first sin would be unpardonable, a point where should they sin they would be unable to repent. The reason why, as stated before, is the fact there is nothing more God could say or do to recommend His love more fully, nothing He could do that would serve to save them. Not because God wouldn’t save them but because He couldn’t save them. They would be unsaveable, irretrievable, unredeemable – damaged beyond repair.

“But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law.” The fact God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer, in light of this inspired insight, is evidence he had not yet sinned. God does not waste time offering something He cannot deliver. Since it is clear no provision existed to save angels should they venture to sin it is obvious, therefore, that they had not yet sinned because God was offering to save them. And when they did finally commit a sin it is equally obvious God could not save them for the simple reason He stopped offering to save them. They were beyond hope. They had reached the point where they were no longer capable of repenting, a point they had reached long before Lucifer began rebelling.


Yes, that was my initial response, and it was wrong. The correct understanding of this passage is explained in great detail above (this post).

Yes, I believe both passages are describing the same kind of person, the same kind of condition. But I suspect we see it differently. Here are the passages:

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.
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

I believe these passages describe the condition I spelled out in my last post (above in this thread). Here it is again: They were at a point in their relationship with God that made it impossible for them to sin and then repent. They were at the point you believe the redeemed in heaven will be at, a point where they know God so well that their first sin would be unpardonable, a point where should they sin they would be unable to repent. The reason why, as stated before, is the fact there is nothing more God could say or do to recommend His love more fully, nothing He could do that would serve to save them. Not because God wouldn’t save them but because He couldn’t save them. They would be unsaveable, irretrievable, unredeemable – damaged beyond repair.

Oh, by the way, I forgot to address an issue in my last post that I thought you would bring up in response to this description. So, I'll speak to it here. In the past you have explained that the reason redeemed saints in heaven and the new earth will not sin is because they will not choose to sin. You do not believe it's because of the reasons I gave above, namely, that they have reached a point of no return, that there would be nothing God could do to motivate them to repent and obey Him, as in the case of Lucifer.


I was afraid you were going to refer to this passage and then insist it clearly answers my questions. The problem, though, is that it doesn’t address my questions. Here’s the quote:

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}

As anyone can see, Ellen is not addressing my questions. She simply says, “There was no more that God could do to save him.” She doesn’t say what God did to try and dissuade Lucifer from following his course. Nor does she explain why God didn’t bother commissioning Jesus to die. So, as you can see, this quote does not address my questions. Do you know of one that does?

No, MM. He was given the opportunity to confess his "sin." Not "convictions" but "sin." Before this God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again." The SOP, quoting Ezekiel, said that "iniquity" had been found in him before his final decision.



I really don't understand your thinking here. How can there be many plausible ways of reading that before being banished from heaven Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin? Or that God long bore with Lucifer, again and again offering him pardon?



It seems to me that you have a totally arbitrary framework of things which is not based on reason or general principles but on a forced interpretation without regard to context and on a totally irrelevant point.

Here's an approach based on reason and general principles.

1.Rebellion ruins our relationship with God, necessitating a reconciliation.
2.Repentance brings out the reconciliation because the one rebelling stops rebelling, and the One being rebelled against receives the wayward one back, as He was always willing to do.
3.God is always willing to receive a sincerely repentant rebel back to the fold.
4.God does what He can to lead rebels back to repentance.

These principles explain everything that happened to Lucifer and to man. Man did not understand God's goodness and character, so these things needed to be revealed to him, so God gave His Son t do so. Lucifer understood these things, so God did not work with Lucifer in the same way he did for man, but He would have done had such actions had a chance of success, because He loved Lucifer as much as Adam or Eve. That no provision was made for angels should they venture to sin means simply that if the angels should continue in rebellion, there is no way they could be saved. The context makes this clear. She wasn't making an argument that Lucifer hadn't sinned. To use this sentence to argue that Lucifer didn't sin when Ellen White flat out says he did (in addition to describing what he did, such as hating Christ, and in addition to saying that God offered to pardon him, and in addition to referring to "iniquity" being found in him) is not a reasonable argument. It's rejecting clear primary evidence based on direct statements in favor of a forced reading taking out of context.

Regarding the second point, that God never pardoned anyone, this is totally moot, as has been explained to you several times. God offered Lucifer pardon. Had Lucifer accepted the pardon, He would have been pardoned. You've already admitted that the offer of pardon by God meant He would have granted it had it been accepted. So this is a totally moot point. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. All it "proves" is that Lucifer did not accept the offer God extended him, an offer extended without reference to Christ's death.



It's not a theory. It's just quoting what she said.





God offered Lucifer pardon. He gave him the opportunity to confess his sin. Had he done so, Lucifer would have been reinstated to his former position.



Why should I have? You didn't ask me to, did you. I didn't need to do so to establish any points I was making.



This sounds like your seconding Lucifer's arguments; it looks like you view God to be at fault here. You seem to be saying that had God offered further proof, then Lucifer would have been willing to admit he was wrong and return. This whole line of thought is wrong for a number of reasons.

First of all, you're totally ignoring the really important issues. Lucifer hated Christ! This was a fundamental problem, a fundamental sin, that had to be dealt with.

Secondly, Lucifer desired to exalt himself. Everything he was doing was for that purpose.



This is sin, MM. It's not just strange feelings, but it is sin.

Third, the fact of the matter is that the proof God provided was sufficient. Lucifer was convinced he was wrong. But even though he was so convinced, he still chose to continue on the path of rebellion and self-exaltation. This assertion is completely off base:



It flies in the face of the fact that Lucifer was convinced he was wrong.



This is describing the same thing as 4SP 319, where she says Lucifer was giving the opportunity to confess his sin. Lucifer had sinned (obviously, since he was given the opportunity to confess it), but he had not gone to far, as he had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God.



This is not a correct way of looking at things here. Lucifer was convinced he was wrong! There was no need for new evidence; the evidence already given had done the job. Lucifer was convinced.



In our discussions, you seem to put Lucifer's actions in as positive a light as possible and God's in as negative a light as possible. You write, he "merely" felt a few changes to the established order would set things right.

What about his hatred of Christ, his desire for self-exaltation, his endeavor to win homage for himself which belonged only to God?



This is your theory, not mine.

Anyway, your whole idea seems to be that once Lucifer sinned, he could not be pardoned, but this clearly cannot be the case since God offered to pardon him, and restore him to his position if he confessed his "sin."

Ok, let's consider again



You can see that the description here agrees with what I described; a period of persistent resistance. This passage quotes from the Hebrew passage I mentioned, which you agreed was similar in Paul's thinking to the Heb. 6 passage you asked about.



The DA 761,762 passage does address this, at least the second one, about why Christ didn't die for Christ. It says:



By the way, it would be better if you could state things in a neutral way, as opposed to pejorative. For example, you said:



"Didn't bother commissioning" is pejorative. Unless you specifically wish to discuss whether or not God didn't send Jesus Christ for Lucifer because He couldn't be bothered with this, if you stated things neutrally (for example, "Nor does she explain why God didn't commission Jesus to die.") that would avoid the need to point out that the issue was not that God couldn't be bothered with this, but that doing so would not have availed.

At any rate, that it would not have availed is explained in DA 761, 762, where she explains that Lucifer had received a full revelation of God's goodness and character, but man had not, which explains why Christ was given to man but not for Lucifer.

Regarding things that Lucifer did try, the passages which speak of Lucifer's fall deal with this, such as the one in PP and GC, although she basically says that God tried many different things over a long time, but doesn't say specifically what they were.

You left out the context of my statement. I apply this point to men and angels in two different ways. The offer of pardon made to angels did not involve sin or the death of Jesus, whereas the offer made to men involves sin and the death of Jesus. I realize you thoroughly disagree with me on this point, and we’ll just have to leave it at that.


Look again. I’m saying no such thing. God wasn’t holding back. He had long ago, before Lucifer began to rebel, given him all there was to give. There was nothing left to give. Everything was on the table. It was not enough, however, to prevent Lucifer from rebelling, and it was not enough to win him back. The problem, of course, was with him - not with God.

Again, long before he rebelled, Lucifer was "enlightened", he had "tasted of the heavenly gift", he was "made a partaker of the Holy Ghost", he had "tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come". But in the end it failed to impress him. There was nothing more God could do to win him back.

All during his rebellion in heaven God reminded Lucifer of what he already knew. There was nothing new God could say or do. He would have if He could have. But there was nothing more to give. All the while He was offering to pardon Lucifer God, who knows the end from the beginning, knew he would never comply with the conditions.

Why did God bother offering to pardon Lucifer even though He knew he would never accept it? For the same reason Jesus offered Judas a way out even though He knew he would pursue his perilous course unto the bitter end. Why? God is love. Simple as that. He cannot help behaving in a loving way. Men and angels "will be left without excuse. God has given sufficient evidence upon which to base faith if he wish to believe." {3SG 94.3}

The cases of Judas and Lucifer are very similar. In both cases, Jesus knew neither one of them would be saved from ruin, and yet it didn't prevent Him from investing all the energy and effort necessary to save them from ruin. In so doing they were left without excuse. No stone was left unturned to save then from ruin. But they would have none of it. Listen:

Why are you saying "angels" instead of Lucifer? What offer of pardon to angels do you have in mind?



There's no evidence of this. That is, there is no evidence that God knew or expected that Lucifer would not accept the pardon he was offered.



He didn't. This is FOTAP.



FOTAP too. And irrelevant. There's no reason to go into this.

Let's get back on track. Here's what you said:



You here are saying that Lucifer needed further proof that living in harmony with the established order is right. This assertion of yours is false. Lucifer didn't need further proof because he already was convinced he was in the wrong.

What I was objecting to was your assertion here insinuates that Lucifer would have been willing to admit he was wrong if he were given further proof.



There's no evidence of this. If God created Lucifer knowing he would sin, then God is responsible for Lucifer's sin. God could have simply chosen to create a different covering cherubim, like Gabriel. He was under no obligation to create a being He knew would sin.

But this is all a different matter. If you wish to discuss this, please start a new topic, or resurrect one of the one's we already discussed this matter on.



That God left no stone unturned to save them from ruin, but they would have none of it is what I've been saying.

Any, back to the point. The SOP says that God would have restored Lucifer to his position had he confessed his sin. In dozens of pages describing Lucifer's fall, not once did she mention the necessity of death in order to pardon. If it were necessary for someone to die in order for God to obtain the legal right to pardon, this would have been necessary in Lucifer's case, but there is no evidence that this is the case, not even a peep. Therefore your theory as to why Christ had to die for man is in question. It doesn't explain what happened in Lucifer's case.

MM, a question. You've been bringing up your idea of the nature of the future here quite a bit lately (that is, that the future is like a rerun, so God just sees what already happened). I'm curious. Do you see that it is because God sees the future in a certain way that Christ had to die in order for God to obtain the legal right to pardon? If so, then I was wrong to request that you not discuss this here but on a different thread. That is, if your position on this question (that the death of Christ was necessary to give God the legal right to pardon) depends upon your view of the future, then let's discuss that here. If it's not dependent upon that, let's discuss it elsewhere.

Tom, the reason I bring up God's foreknowledge in this context is to explain why He offered to pardon Lucifer even though He knew he would reject it. The exact same identical thing played out in the case of Judas.

First of all, you know I believe this to be false. Second of all, this isn't the thread for this discussion, unless you see some connection which you haven't specified. From your response, it doesn't look like you do either, so please don't bring this up any more in this thread, but, if you wish to discuss this, you can open a thread about it.

Thanks.