I was really asking why you think A&E's obedience would have disproved Satan's false claims against God's character.

Regarding what you just said, however, you're saying that the unfallen world's obedience really did disprove Satan's accusations, but because they weren't aware of this, God, despite having done so millions of times earlier, had to do so one more time, so they could watch a third party. This seems to be assuming that they had no knowledge of each other, but for some reason were aware of Adam and Eve.

I don't think any of this make sense. Here's what I think makes sense:



This explains that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the system of his government. Yet you think if A&E had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, God could have destroyed Satan and ended the Great Controversy.

It doesn't appear to me that you are dealing with the issues involved. Indeed, the only course of action that makes sense to me it just which Ellen White laid out. Here's why.

The claims of Satan had to do with two protagonists: himself and God. The involved the character and government of the respective parties. Satan claimed that God was harsh, and severe, unjust, selfish, and did not have the best interests of His creatures in mind. Satan offered what he claimed was a better alternative. How could it be seen who was right?

Only by allowing his government to develop, and allow his character to be seen.

Now God knew the truth, but God couldn't just say, "No, Satan is wrong. He's lying." and allow Satan to reap the full result of his sin and die, because it would have appeared that God was killing him, and that Satan's accusations were true. So God had to allow the truth to be seen, and that required time.



I don't see the sense in this. There was peach and happiness in the millions of worlds God had created, and they could see this success there.



I've asked you repeatedly to put forth some sort of explanation as to how A&E would have answered Satan's claims. The only thing I can see going on here is your trying to make a statement which has nothing to do with the topic at hand speak to it when it doesn't.



She wasn't talking about the holy angels' perpetual favor with God, but with Adam and Eve's. She wasn't making an argument that A&E would have made the holy angels secure, but that *they* would have been secure, if they have been obedient, the same as the holy angels would be secure if they were obedient, or the "millions of worlds" would be secure if they were obedient. This is a point EGW made over and over again. This isn't dealing with the subject at hand, though, which has to do with Satan's accusations against God.



No, not at all. The only way Satan's accusations could be disproved was to do what DA 759 explains.

Tom, I don't understand why you feel "perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels" and "placed beyond [Satan's] power, to enjoy perpetual favor with God" does not also apply to the angels. Above you wrote, "the holy angels would be secure if they were obedient." Are you saying the angels would not have been "rendered eternally secure"? If so, does it mean you believe A&E and unfallen beings would have enjoyed perpetual favor with God and eternal security and only angels would have remained at risk of rebellion?

1. Also, why do you think the holy angels chose to side with God and not with Lucifer? Was it blind faith? If not, what exactly did they base their loyalty and faithfulness on? And, was it insufficient to render them eternally secure? If so, why?

2. Do you think they were unsure if God was holy, just, and worthy of eternal worship and adoration? Or, were they convinced beyond doubt He is?

3. Were they unsure if Satan's rule was somehow better than God's? Did they suspect things might be much improved under his rule? Or, were they completely convinced God's rule is superior to Satan's?

4. Did A&E's failure shake their confidence in God's rule and cause them to suspect things might be better under Satan's rule? Or, did it have no affect on them and their confidence and convictions regarding God's rule and Satan's rule?

5. What affect did watching Satan cause death and destruction on earth have on them? Did it cause them to wonder if Satan might not be right about God?

6. What affect did Enoch's and Moses' success have on them? Did it do anything to lessen or strengthen their confidence and convictions concerning God and Satan?

7. Why didn't Jesus' success on Calvary render them eternally secure concerning the great controversy? Is there anything about the unsolved questions that has left them at risk of rebellion?

8. Why didn't the great controversy end favorably for God at Calvary when Jesus proclaimed, It is finished? What will the 144,000 accomplish, as it relates to the unsolved questions, that Jesus did not settle while here in the flesh?

9. What will Jesus and the 144,000 have accomplished to end the great controversy favorably for God that A&E could not have done had they succeeded in Eden?

10. Had A&E succeeded in Eden how do you envision things would have played out? What would have happened to prove God's claims and to disprove Satan's accusations? And, where in the universe would it have unfolded?

She wasn't talking about angels. She was saying that if A&E were faithful, they would have been secure, the same as for any other FMA. To read into this that A&E were rendering secure angels is a prime example of eisegesis. This shouldn't be difficult to see.

The fundamental principles of interpretation include determining the context of a given statement, and narrowing the interpretation of the text to that scope.



No. I just said the same thing she did in regards to A&E, but in regards to angels. Same as for any FMA.



No.



They weighed the evidence, and decided this was the best thing to do. Just like any other FMA. I already answered this.



No. God provided evidence, as He always does. God doesn't ask us to believe without providing evidence.



The evidence at hand.



According to EGW, without the cross, the angles would be no more secure than before Satan's rebellion.



Because of the questions Satan had raised. Think of the parable of the wheat and the tares. The tares had not matured yet.



They were unsure in regards to Satan's accusations.



They weren't secure until the cross, when Satan's character became unmasked. Then they were absolutely sure God was right and Satan was wrong.



No. Why would it?



I think they were curious to see what would happen once they fell.



I would think seeing Satan's government at work would not have helped his cause. But Satan was very clever at shifting the blame. When Christ came, there was no one to shift the blame to, and I think this had to do with there being convinced as to who was right.



I doubt it had a great deal of effect. Just watching God deal with humanity, in general, should have had some effect, but I think what really had an effect on them was the Plan of Salvation, and, in particular, the revelation of Jesus Christ during His earthly mission.



? You mean why did it? EGW explains why it did. "It Is Finished" talks about this.



No.



Because humans still haven't made a decision.



Why do you think are are unsolved questions that Jesus did not settle?



I don't agree with this question. That is, with the way you're lumping the 144,000 with Jesus. Jesus Christ accomplished what needed to be accomplished in regards to ending the great controversy favorably, as far as revealing the truth about God and Satan is concerned.

Also it looks like you're assuming that A&E could not have accomplished what needed to be accomplished. I don't know if that's a valid assumption.



I'm not aware of any statements from inspiration dealing with this.

Some of the problem in Mikes questions are, in my view, based in eisegesis/bad interpretation of Revelation vis the 144000..

The content of this post has been removed while it is being reviewed by the Admin Team.

How could they have enjoyed perpetual favor with the angels if, as you seem to believe, the angels would not have been in perpetual favor with God?


Ellen said A&E would have been “rendered eternally secure” and would have enjoyed "perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels" and "placed beyond [Satan's] power, to enjoy perpetual favor with God". Are you saying you apply this to the angels?


I hear you saying, yes, the evidence God provided was insufficient to render them eternally secure. Do you think the death of Jesus was necessary to render the angels eternally secure? What if A&E had succeeded in Eden, would the death of Jesus still have been necessary to render the angels eternally secure?


But do you think they were unsure if God was holy, just, and worthy of eternal worship and adoration? Or, were they convinced beyond doubt He is?


Were they secure before Lucifer rebelled? Were they secure after they warred with Jesus against Satan and the disloyal angels? Were they secure before A&E failed in Eden? Ellen wrote:


Did the angels think and feel the same way (see detailed description above) about Jesus and Satan during and after they warred with Jesus against the evil angels? Did they think and feel the same way about Jesus and Satan after A&E failed in Eden? If not, why not?


Were they confident God’s rule is better than Satan’s? If so, why do you believe they were at risk of rebelling?


For example, when Elijah prayed and fire came down from above and burned alive the two bands of fifty, do you think Satan tried to make it look as though Jesus was to blame? By the way, do you think Jesus commanded the holy angels to withdraw their protection and permit evil angels to cause fire to come down from above and burn alive the two bands of fifty?


I mean, what did they think about Jesus admitting Enoch and Moses into heaven? Still, little effect?


Ellen made it clear in DA “It Is Finished” the holy angels were not rendered eternally secure as it relates to unsolved questions concerning the great controversy. Here’s what she wrote about it:


Do you believe the holy angels were rendered eternally secure at the cross even though there are aspects of the great controversy they are unclear about?


Because Ellen said so. See passage above.


Ellen made it clear the holy angels were unclear concerning certain aspects regarding the great controversy. The 144,000 will clear up the confusion. Also, do you suspect A&E would have settled the great controversy had they succeeded in Eden? If so, please explain how.


Okay. But how do “you” envision things would have played out?

As I've explained several times, she wasn't discussing angels. As I also explained several times, if the angels remained faithful, they too, like A&E, would remain secure, as is the case for any other free moral agent.

You haven't offered any explanation as to why A&E's remaining faithful would have answered Satan's questions.

Also, I explained that the principles of interpretation are to limit the scope of a comment to the point being made, not to amplify it as wide as possible. I'm curious as to if you understand what I'm saying here. If not, I can explain it further. In point of fact, what you're doing here is a classic example of amplifying scope as opposed to limiting it.



?



Why? I simply stated what EGW said. Is this what you hear her saying? If not, why not? I quoted her faithfully, didn't I?



Isn't this what the EGW quote says?



You mean if there were no fallen beings other than Satan and the angels which followed him? No, I don't think so.



I can't think of anything to reply than what I said before, that they were unsure as to Satan's accusations. Why isn't this a clear answer to your question? I'm not understanding that.



I've already commented on this. What does the EGW quote say?

[qutoe]Were they secure after they warred with Jesus against Satan and the disloyal angels? Were they secure before A&E failed in Eden? Ellen wrote: ...

Did the angels think and feel the same way (see detailed description above) about Jesus and Satan during and after they warred with Jesus against the evil angels? Did they think and feel the same way about Jesus and Satan after A&E failed in Eden? If not, why not?
[/quote]

You're asking if A&E's failure changed the way the faithful angels thought about God? If so, no, I don't think it made a difference. I think they were interested to see how things would play out, however.



What are you referring to here? The EGW quote? Or something I said? If it's something I said, please quote it.



Yes, no doubt.



I think the principles of GC 35-37 apply. There's different ways that could have happened. I think God did not send from heaven with the intent of killing Elijah's enemies. They could have put themselves in harm's way.



Why do you think it would have had much effect? I think what had a great effect is what is explained in "It Is Finished."



That can't be, because she wrote in the quote I supplied that there were rendered secure. Viz:



I'm not understanding here what you're thinking. Isn't it clear from this quote that she's saying that the angels were rendered secure by the cross? Why are you saying they weren't?



Sure. The quote I cited is clear about this. It says, "It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan." This seems very clear to me that it is the cross which renders them secure, as opposed to something else.



I think you're misunderstanding the passage. What's an example of an unsettled question that Satan raised in regards to God's character which Jesus Christ did not answer? I'm sure you can't think of anything.



She doesn't say that they have any doubt regarding God's character, or the accusations which Satan raised regarding God's character or government. There are some things they don't understand, but this is in relation to how things will be done, not in regards to God's character or Satan's accusations. She doesn't say this in the quote you cited, but she does say in the quotes I have cited that Satan's accusations were answered.



That the great controversy would have been settled by A&E was your idea. I've been asking you for quite some time now how this would have happened, but you've declined to address the question. Why are you asking me? Why not answer my question?



Somehow God would have devised a way to answer Satan's accusations. I don't know what God would have done.

I'd like to point out that you've been asking question after question here, and I've been answering them, one after another, but you've neglected to answer a single question I've asked repeatedly over a couple of weeks now on another thread. Namely, I've been asking you if the future is, in reality, single-threaded or multi-threaded.

1. “Rendered eternally secure.”
2. “Perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels.”
3. “Placed beyond Satan's power.”

Ellen includes God, heavenly angels, Adam and Eve, and Satan in her comments. Involving holy angels in my comments does not violate any rules. The words “eternal” and “perpetual” are unconditional. In other words, Ellen is saying if A&E had succeeded in their first encounter with Satan they would have been placed beyond Satan’s power forever and would have enjoyed unconditional favor and security with God and holy angels forever, eternally, perpetually. To use your words, the future would not have included the possibility of men or angles sinning or rebelling.


You said “secure” whereas Ellen said “eternally secure”. I think it means one act of obedience (resisting Satan’s initial attempt to ensnare and enslave them) would have rendered A&E unconditionally, perpetually, eternally secure and in favor with God and the holy angels (which necessarily implies the holy angels would have enjoyed the same status). You, on the other hand, seem to think their security was conditional, contingent, dependent, subject to ongoing, continuous, repetitious obedience. Do you see any difference?


I’m talking about the evidence provided before A&E failed in Eden. You and I both agree the death of Jesus would have been unnecessary if A&E had succeeded in Eden. Do you believe the evidence God provided before A&E failed would have been sufficient to render the angels unconditionally, perpetually, eternally secure (no chance of them rebelling in the future) if A&E had succeeded in Eden?


Yes. But she wasn’t talking about if A&E had succeeded in Eden. Just to be sure you understand my question I’ll reiterate it: Do you believe the evidence God provided before A&E failed would have been sufficient to render the angels unconditionally, perpetually, eternally secure (no chance of them rebelling in the future) if A&E had succeeded in Eden?


I suspect your answer does not include your thoughts on whether or not A&E’s success in Eden (meaning there would have been no other fallen beings other than Satan and the evil angels who rebelled with him) would have (in addition to making Jesus’ death unnecessary) rendered the holy angels unconditionally, perpetually, eternally secure (no chance of them rebelling in the future).


I’m asking about God. You’re answering about Satan. I’ll ask it another way: Before the A&E failed, do you think the holy angels were 100% certain God is holy, just, and good, worthy of eternal worship and adoration?


Please articulate what the holy angels believed about God’s claims and Satan’s accusations. And then state whether or not you think they continued to believe that way before, during, and after the war in heaven. If their beliefs remained unchanged, what, then, is the basis of your belief they were at risk of rebelling until Jesus died on the cross?


Before and after A&E failed, were the holy angels 100% certain God’s rule is better than Satan’s?

You mean like the Quaker who warned the thief robbing his house, “Sir, I mean thee no harm, but I am about to shoot where thou standest”? Did God send the fire from heaven? Or, did God permit Satan to do it? Did Elijah attempt to save the two bands of fifty by warning them not to stand in the wrong spot?


But, again, she was talking about what happened on the cross years later. I’m asking you about something that happened years before Jesus died on the cross. Were the holy angels totally cool with Enoch and Moses being in heaven? If, as you seem to believe, the holy angels were at risk of rebelling it stands to reason they would have questioned the right and wisdom of God granting Enoch and Moses unconditional eternal life.


In the quote you posted above it says the “plan of salvation” will provide “an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds.” As you know, the plan of salvation encompasses more than what Jesus accomplished while here in the flesh. It also includes what Jesus will accomplish in and through the 144,000. Not until all questions relating to the great controversy are answered will the universe be rendered eternally secure. If, as you seem to believe, the unfallen worlds were rendered eternally secure at the cross, why, then, do you think Ellen said unanswered questions relating to the great controversy remained after the cross?


The quote you omitted spelled it out. Ellen spoke out Satan’s accusations regarding the law. Jesus’ example and experience did not address this aspect of the great controversy. Please refer to the passage I posted.


Do you think the great controversy could have ended at the cross so far as the angels were concerned? If not, what exactly do you think it was the angels did not understand about it? Please cite inspired quotes to support your answer. Thank you. Also, you and I both agree Jesus’ death would not have been necessary had A&E succeeded in Eden. I realize, though, that you firmly believe A&E’s success wouldn’t have settled the great controversy so far as the angels were concerned. Your devotion to this idea, without knowing what else God could have done, is baffling. It’s unlike you to be so adamant about an idea without being able to logically explain why.


What about the loyal FMAs in the meantime? Would they, including A&E, have been in peril and at risk of rebelling until God succeeded at proving His claims about Himself and disproving Satan’s accusations about Him?

Regarding the Elijah questions, Elijah was not sent to reveal God's character: Christ was. If we wish to see what God is like, we should look at Jesus Christ while hear in the flesh. That's why He came.



Let's settle something first. I simply quoted from Ellen White. She said:



You're asking me questions as if I had penned this. Do you think I'm interpreting something wrong here? As far as I know, I've simply quoted this. And you're asking asking me questions about what I quoted as if the ideas originated from me. I can understand you're asking for clarification if I'm interpreting something she wrote differently than you think it should be interpreted, but I think, up to this point, I've simply quoted what she said. Is that not correct?

If it's not correct, what am I interpreting in a way that you think is incorrect?

Regarding Moses and Elijah being in heaven, and how the angels would receive them, I would think that would depend upon their (M&E) character. As long as they acted like citizens of heaven, I don't see why the angels would have a problem with them being there.



As I seem to believe? Here's the quote:



I'm not understand what's not clear here. Again:



I'm not following the difficulty here. What do you think this is saying?



This is the passage, right?



If so, I don't see in this passage the things you're suggesting. This says the angels did not then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. It doesn't say they still had questions that only the 144,000 could resolve. I don't understand why you think this idea makes sense. The GC has to do with Satan's accusations against God, regarding His character. What could the 144,000 do to resolve angels' questions in this regards that Christ couldn't?



If what you're asking is if the angels at this point in time were completely convinced that God was right and Satan was wrong, and were the eternally secure against rebellion at this time, then yes.



No, I didn't say this. In fact, I very clearly said, at least twice, that this idea of yours (i.e. your idea that this is my idea) is incorrect.



It's baffling to me why you ignore what I say. Again, I said clearly, on at least two different occasions, that I was not saying that had A&E been successful that this would not have ended the Great Controversy. I have said nothing one way or the other. *You* made the claim, and I have been asking you to back up your claim. You still haven't answered my questions, though. Instead, you are "baffled" by positions I haven't taken, despite my making this clear repeatedly.



I think they were waiting for a resolution. Satan had made claims, and the angels were forced to take sides. The onlooking worlds resisted Satan's temptations, and were watching from the sidelines. When man joined Satan, man became involved in the battle, earth became home ground for the controversy, and that's where the focus of attention has been. Had man also resisted, and there was no one on Satan's side besides the angels that joined him, I don't know how God would have proven His case, although it seems from the DA quote from "It Is Finished," the wheat and tares idea would have had to develop. That is, Satan needed to have time to develop the principles of his kingdom so they could be seen by all. Without man's involvement on his side, this would have had to have progressed in some other manner.