Why? What would have made the universe eternally secure? How would the questions Satan raised have been answered?



My disagreement with you here is that you're taking a statement dealing with one subject, and trying to make it deal with a subject it's not discussing.



The statement says that if Adam and Eve had been faithful, they would have been secure. Sure, why not? Do you think the reverse is possible?

But this is true for every other of the millions of worlds that didn't accede to Satan's temptations. If simply resisting Satan's temptations was all that was necessary to render the universe secure, then this had already happened millions of times.



I think God would have answered the questions that Satan raised in some other way.

So I hear you saying that we need to not take an act but the overall character of the one in question. So if we see someone doing great acts, getting people's attention, we should consider their overall character. But while Jesus did things that may have appeared to be out of character, He did not hurt anyone nor ask anyone to hurt anyone. Would that be one idea of how we can know? But as you pointed out in the Old Testament, God asked people to do things that weren't his ideal will. How can we be sure that someone sounding great and commanding the deaths of "heretics" weren't just getting people's attention and not his ideal will? Or is it that since Christ has come changes things?

How did the other worlds succeeding at their test not make the universe eternally secure? If Adam and Eve succeeded, and a future world was created, would they be tested? If not, why were the ones before the earth? If so, why, if the universe was already eternally secure?

Christ's coming changed things dramatically, and that's the point. Before Christ's coming, we saw through a glass dimly. But Christ was the exact imprint of the Father; a perfect reproduction of His character. This is the theme of the NT, I believe, and all of Scripture, to a degree. Before Christ, everything pointed to Him, but in a vague sort of way, in types and figures. But when Christ came, it was "This is it!!! *This* is what the prophets were speaking of."

But it was a different type of coming than expected. It was one which required spiritual eyes to see.

The big problem then is the same problem as now, which is one of character. The Jews were not seeing that they were morally bankrupt, and needed to have their characters transformed (to be born again). Jesus spoke to them of a spiritual kingdom, which involved spiritual issues, primarily the true character of His Father, and those who would worship Him, and thus enter His kingdom.

They wanted One who would vanquish their physical enemies, not recognizing that the really enemies that needed vanquishing were spiritual one, including the devil and his followers, and the demons in their own heart.

The same problem exists today. There is a superficial view of what being Christ-like in character involves. Many have the idea that Christ could come in a very short amount of time, because of this superficial misconception. They're just waiting for the mark of the beast and Sunday laws, and think they're ready, because they're keeping the Sabbath and know the 28 fundamental beliefs. Just like the Jews, they're waiting for a God of force to vanquish their physical enemies. Quite a number of times EGW said we were "just like the Jews," and she was right.

The final message will be one of God's character of love. The enemy has revealed God as one who is harsh and severe, One utterly unlike Jesus Christ. That there is a disconnect here is obvious, so obvious that MM tries to bring in that Jesus Christ was the one acting in the OT in order to bring in the harsh/violent/forceful behavior which is missing in the life of Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.

It seems like a God like Jesus Christ, truly like Him, would be insufficient to take care of the problems which Satan has caused. I think there's actually two blind spots. This is one, and the other is just how much God is doing, how hard He constantly works, to keep the world, and people, in as good a shape as it (they) is (are) in.

A humble God, like Jesus Christ was, who doesn't use force, who doesn't use the methods of the enemy, can't deal with the problems we have, seems to be the thought. How different the kingdom of God is from the kingdom of this world isn't perceived. So a superficial work is all that is desired, as this is all that's perceived to be necessary.

Where this theme really comes through is in seeing what happened during the 1888 era.

I'm rambling a bit, but wanted to give a framework of how I perceive things. To answer your question, as to how we can know what God's ideal will is, this has been my point, that it's only by looking at the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. We should start there, and use that as our base line, and measure everything else according to that.

Instead what many do is join the OT witness to what Jesus Christ did, and use that as their baseline as to what God is like, but this can only lead to confusion. There's a ton of violence in the OT, and a lot of odd behavior on God's part, if one doesn't look beyond the surface.

For example, we see a number of times where God says He's going to utterly destroy the COI (children of Israel), but Moses and/or Aaron intervene, and God relents. How should we understand this? That Aaron and Moses were more caring and compassionate than God, who just wanted to destroy people who disobeyed Him? God seems very impatient in a number of these episodes, and petty in others.

But if we look at Jesus Christ, we see clearly God's true character fully revealed, which leads us to look beneath the surface and ask, "What's really going on here?" Many, it seems, are unaware that this question even needs to be asked.

And I think the quotes I posted *imply* the entire universe was "rendered eternally secure" when A&E succeeded in Eden. At any rate, do you think only A&E would have enjoyed "perpetual favor with God" while everyone else would have been unarmed and at risk of rebelling? Also, what was the basis of their loyalty when they chose not to side with Satan - blind faith?

You keep repeating this, and keep ignoring the question I've asked, although I've asked you many times now. How would A&E have answered the questions which Satan raised regarding God's character?



As I explained, she wasn't addressing this issue. Also, as I pointed out, and kland too, if simply resisting Satan's temptations were all that was needed to render the universe secure, this had already been done many, many times.



The faithful in unfallen worlds? They weighed the evidence, and made a decision based on that, just as we do.

Then would you be saying that some of what Ellen White wrote may not be as clear as previously implied?

I haven't ignored your question; instead, you have rejected my answer as untrue. Had A&E succeeded in Eden it would have disproved everything Satan said about the law and character of God. Satan said it is impossible to obey the law perfectly (referring to unfallen beings, including A&E) and experience peace and happiness.


So, yes, you do believe only A&E would have have enjoyed "perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels" while the rest of the unfallen universe would have been unarmed and at risk of rebelling. In other words, only mankind and holy angels would have been immune. I disagree.


By "everyone else" I included the holy angels. Why did evil angels choose to rebel whereas holy angels (and everyone else throughout the universe) chose not to rebel? What did they base their decision on? And, why do you believe this decision was insufficient to render them eternally secure?

No, not at all. Indeed, I explicitly did the reverse. Explicitly, as in, I exactly said I was not doing this. Are you reading what I write?

What I've been asking you to do is to explain how your idea answers the question.



But, as has been explained many times now, this had already been done by the "millions of worlds" where Satan had made the same temptations. So why would what A&E have done achieved what you're claiming, as compared to the other "millions of worlds" that had done the same thing?

Why are you not addressing this question? You say you are not ignoring it, but you certainly aren't answering it.



No, MM. This wasn't said. You seem intent on just reading whatever you want into what other people write, as opposed to reading for understanding. That's not going to lead to a productive discussion.



Ok, you disagree with your own fabrication. You're having a conversation with yourself. I hope you'll engage in a conversation with me sometime soon.



The same answer applies. They thought about it, and did what they thought was best.



Why do some people accept Christ while others reject Him? How would you expect a question like this to be answerable? It's like asking why some people are faithful to their spouses while others are not. Or why two different children, raised by the same parents, turn out differently. Could even be identical twins that this happens to.



To answer the last question, because that's what God revealed, above all. The chapter "It Is Finished," among other places, explains this. So do the quotes which have been presented which say that without the cross of Christ, the holy angels would have been no more secure than the unfaithful angels were when they rebelled. So we have:

1.The evil angels were not secure.
2.The holy angels would not have been any more secure than the evil angels in 1) without the cross.
3.After the cross they were secure.

This is what the statement says, isn't it? So, assuming you accept the statement (that this is what it says; I can requote it for you if desired), then we know that the evil angels were not secure at the time they rebelled, but the holy angels are after the sacrifice of Christ, right?

Let's make sure we're agreeing about this first, and, if so, perhaps you can explain what your question is a little more, because I'm sorry but I'm not following you.

Tom, yes, the loyal FMAs chose not to side with Satan and the disloyal angels. You are asking, Why didn't their obedience and faithfulness disprove Satan's accusations? I suspect it's because they weren't sure why their decision disproved his accusations. Perhaps this is why God created A&E so soon afterward. Watching a "third party", as it were, deal with Satan's accusations would allow them to be objective about it. A&E's success in Eden would validated their success in heaven. Also, the miserable existence of Satan and the fallen angels would have stood in contrast to the peace and happiness A&E would have been enjoying in Eden.

But nothing is more convincing to me than the fact had A&E succeeded in Eden it would have "rendered eternally secure" the entire universe. I'm basing this conclusion on the fact it would have placed A&E in "perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels". The fact Ellen includes "the heavenly angels" clearly means they would have enjoyed perpetual favor with God the same as A&E. Enjoying "perpetual favor with God" necessarily means they would have been "rendered eternally secure" and would have been "placed beyond [Satan's] power, to enjoy perpetual favor with God". In other words, Satan's accusations would have had no affect on them. They would have been rendered bogus and untrue.