my question has to do with "justice" and "rewards". if the lost will burn according to their deeds then will the acceptors of grace get gradiated goodies, also? justice is justice, after all.

like, does one get a bigger, better mansion? more property?along those lines.

The issue of lucifer is no argument against Sister White supporting penal substitution, because she doesn't deal with penal substitution when dealing with Lucifer.

Establishing a legal precedent: judgements are precedents for a particular point of law only when the reasoning for that judgement was based on that point of law once it is actually argued in court. It's a rule of legal argument in court hearings that conclusions of the judge reached on grounds other than have been presented to the judge are not an authority for those, unargued grounds supporting that conclusion. Unless any lawyer argues a specific issue for the judge to decide the case on, whatever reasoning the judge does use to decide the case other than that specific, unargued issue means the judgement is not a precedent for the issue that wasn't argued.

I'm sure you followed the logic of that rule of legal procedure.

I bring up "precedents" because you're using Lucifer's case as a precedent, a principle, for God's operative justice in all cases: precedents, for anyone who doesn't know ;), are court decisions of higher courts which are binding on lower courts handling the same issue, and of course legal arguments in court generally use both statute and precedents in favour of the said case.

Therefore, Ellen White's emphasis on God's fairness with Lucifer, the issue she was arguing for on God's behalf in Lucifer's case, in heaven, is no argument against penal substitution - it being clearly presented in & for our case down here (when she speaks of man's salvation), since she didn't say anything to that point, in relation to the prelude to heaven's war.

You want evidence for your case, or against it? There's no evidence for your argument, so the matter ends there, I'm afraid, as in thrown out of court in your case against penal substitution.

Nope, we all just get to be with Jesus and our Father.

The parable of the day labourers in the vineyard, with staggered arrivals during the day, throughtout the day, teaches that each is equally qualified for heaven, justified by faith, by Jesus, of course. The parable implicitly states longevity of sanctification gives experience of faith and fellowship - its ups and downs, but length of one's life of faith renders no extra heavenly benefits....apart that is from the eternal life & incorruption everyone gets .

There is, otherwise, only the original Adventist teaching that the final generation of saints, who live to see Christ return, shall have developed Christlike characters with him beforehand to complement their daily justification by faith: Christ won't come before he's happy all his brethern and sisters are thus prepared for the glory of his appearing and eternal, righteous society beyond. That preparation completed is the wedding of the Lamb which is the close of probation. That perfected character cooperation of the saints, relatively & individually, with Christ, experienced by faith, is the only unusual (all before have fallen asleep in Jesus) experience in heaven or on earth that I know of for anyone, for however long or short a time one is reborn in the faith by justification.

The issue of lucifer is no argument against Sister White supporting penal substitution, because she doesn't deal with penal substitution when dealing with Lucifer.

so if theres no extra goodies for the best and longest worker, why is there more or less "imposed" suffering for the lost before their death?

C: The issue of lucifer is no argument against Sister White supporting penal substitution, because she doesn't deal with penal substitution when dealing with Lucifer.
T: That's the point! If penal substitution were correct, she'd have to. There's no difference in logic applied to Lucifer or men. The "just demands of the law" would apply equally.

Ah, OK. I wasn't following this discussion.
I think that, regarding the suffering of the wicked, the comparison is not with the reward of the just, but with the sufferings of Christ. This is what Ellen White says:

Those who might become co-laborers with Christ, and do good service in advancing the interests of his kingdom, but who use their talents and influence to tear down instead of to build up, are like noted rebels; their prominence, the value of the talent they use in the service of Satan, increases their guilt and makes their punishment sure. These will feel the wrath of God. They will experience what Christ suffered in saving men from the penalty of the broken law. The value of man and the measure of his accountability can be known only by the cross of Calvary. He who presents himself to the sinner as the One strong to deliver, will prove himself mighty to execute wrath and judgment upon every unrepenting son of Adam. ... Those who flatter themselves that God is too merciful to punish the sinner, have only to look to Calvary to make assurance doubly sure that vengeance will be visited upon every transgressor of his righteous law. The penalty for breaking the law of God is proportionate to the price paid to redeem its transgressors. What unutterable bliss is prepared for those who will be saved through Christ, and what depths of woe for those who despise and reject his great salvation! {ST, April 3, 1884 par. 5, 6}

There could be no penal substitution for Lucifer, because there was no way to save him.Man was put on probation - he fell - the cross of Christ provided a second probation to him.
Satan was put on probation - he fell - no second probation would avail for him.

Anyway, I was arguing on the basis of logic, not U. S. law. Logic dictates that if God offered Lucifer pardon, then He was capable of granting it.

There could be no penal substitution for Lucifer, because there was no way to save him.
Man was put on probation - he fell - the cross of Christ provided a second probation to him.
Satan was put on probation - he fell - no second probation would avail for him.

clarifying here. before or after he made his final choice?

and for all our info, the angels did have a tree to test their allegience. i would assume they passed that test, but at some point thoughts still occured to lucifer. others may make assumptions that make more sense to them.