Most likely. But it's also obvious that sin, by itself, cannot kill us. Do you agree?


Actually, the DA quote does not say the loyal angels would have blamed God if He had allowed His unveiled glory to unite with sin to exterminate the evil angels immediately. She associates their uncertainties with the law. "The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law."

If Adam and Eve had obeyed God, it would have served to prove to the loyal angels that obeying God's law is what preserves peace and happiness. Such obedience would have removed all doubt concerning the law and then the loyal would have had no problem with God allowing His unveiled glory to assist in the punishment and extermination of the evil angels.



What more did they need to learn that justifies God allowing the great controversy to continue these past 2,000 years? Why didn't Jesus allow His unveiled glory to assist in destroying the evil angels the day He returned to heaven?


Bad, indeed. I don't see how you can believe God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed.

TE: Sin is what causes the wicked not to be able to bear the glory of God.

MM: This implies that sin would not cause a sinner to suffer and die if they were able to avoid the unveiled glory of God. This poses a possible problem. Why didn't Satan die in the presence of Jesus when He granted him an audience after he was cast out of heaven?

From the assumptions you've laid out, it's pretty obvious that it's because Jesus veiled His glory.

Most likely. But it's also obvious that sin, by itself, cannot kill us. Do you agree?

Sin is in our mind. It involves what we think, decisions we make.



This puts it well.

Regarding the destruction of the angels, you used the phrase "evil seed of doubt" (you actually said "rebellion" instead of doubt, but that was just from not quite remember the phrase). This is from DA 764, which says:




The "this" is that the death of the wicked is caused as a result of their own choice, as opposed to something God does to them (see the previous paragraph). Since you quoted from this phrase, and since you spoke of Jesus' death, I assumed you were referring to what Jesus' death did, which was to make clear that sin results in death. This is why I asked you how Adam and Eve would have made clear to the unfallen angels what Christ's death made clear.

If Adam and Eve had obeyed God, it would have served to prove to the loyal angels that obeying God's law is what preserves peace and happiness.

But the angels knew this from their own experience. Plus they have the testimony of millions of other worlds. Why would they need Adam and Eve to know this?

What more did they need to learn that justifies God allowing the great controversy to continue these past 2,000 years? Why didn't Jesus allow His unveiled glory to assist in destroying the evil angels the day He returned to heaven?

The quote explains it:



I'm sure if Christ would have come shortly after His resurrection, the great controversy would not have had to continue for 2,000 years. It's continuing because God is waiting for His character to be perfectly reproduced in His people.

Bad, indeed. I don't see how you can believe God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed.

Because this is what God has revealed through a prophet. She says, "Christ could have fallen. He could have sinned." If God was 100% certain that Christ would succeed, what she wrote could not be true. Also there's the statement that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Actually that's the one that really changed my way of thinking. I was inclined to think more along the lines of how you thought, but when I read that statement it became clear to me that my thinking was wrong. This is a subject I've been thinking about for a long, long time. But that statement got me going more than anything else.

It just blew my mind that God would love me so much that He would risk losing His own Son. Still does.

Tom, I’m sorry, but I’m still not clear on what you believe. Do you think sin, all by itself, causes sinner to die the second death? Or, must it come in contact with the unveiled glory of God before it causes them to die?

Also, why didn’t the great controversy end when Jesus returned to heaven? Why didn’t Jesus cast the evil angels into the lake of fire at that time? What is it that the loyal angels still did not understand?

Finally, it blows my mind that anyone can believe God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. I could not worship a god like that. I could not trust Him. It sounds too reckless.

Tom, I’m sorry, but I’m still not clear on what you believe. Do you think sin, all by itself, causes sinner to die the second death? Or, must it come in contact with the unveiled glory of God before it causes them to die?

Sin results in death. Here is a description of what happens:



We’ve been over this many times. Why are you now confused?

Also, why didn’t the great controversy end when Jesus returned to heaven? Why didn’t Jesus cast the evil angels into the lake of fire at that time? What is it that the loyal angels still did not understand?

The Gospel has not been preached to all the world. Man has not made a decision as to whom he will believe. Also, there are lessons which unfallen angels and worlds can learn. As to what specifically angels do not understand, that would be impossible for me, a human being, to answer, wouldn’t it?

Finally, it blows my mind that anyone can believe God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. I could not worship a god like that. I could not trust Him. It sounds too reckless.

I think rather than rejecting a depiction of God’s character which doesn’t conform with your perceptions of God, you should consider modifying your view of God’s character to harmonize with the evidence. You seem very unwilling to modify any viewpoint you have. For example you resort to redefining common words like “sin,” “repent,” “pardon,” and risk when necessary. I think that’s too bad.

What Ellen White wrote is very clear.
a)God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
b)All heaven was imperiled for our redemption
c)Christ could have fallen. He could have sinned.

I’m sorry you see these things as negative. I see that this says something wonderful about God, that He would be willing to take such a risk. When one considers that for just one, just Mike or Tom, God would have sent His Son for us, it boggles the mind.

Ellen White shared this awe, as one can see in her comments. For example:



Notice how she ends this: "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!” This is just how I react. Not “I cannot worship a god like this” but "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!”

The reason I am confused as to what you believe (I know what I believe) is because you write, "Sin results in death", and yet the quote you posted to support your view says, "... His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

Sister White says it is the presence of God’s glory that causes sinners to suffer the second death, whereas it is the results of sinning that cause sinners and saint alike to suffer the first death. Sinners ultimately die the first death because God will not allow them to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Otherwise, they would “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.”

It is these things that lead me to ask again: Do you think sin, all by itself, causes sinners to die the second death? Or, must sin come in contact with the unveiled glory of God before it causes sinners to die?


Actually, the DA 761 quote provides insights. Here is what she wrote about it:

DA 761
Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

First, please notice that she does not say anything about the gospel being preached to all the world. That is not a reason given as to why Jesus did not cast the evil angels into the lake of fire when He returned to heaven.

The reason given is clear: “The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed.” The principles at stake have been clearly described in the SOP. They do not depend on human insights or intelligence. We know exactly which principles are stake. It is not a mystery.

“Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve.” She says the angels “must see”, not that it would be nice but not necessary. The contrast that existed between Christ and Satan at the time Jesus returned to heaven was not enough for God to win the great controversy. The angels “must see” the contrast “more fully” before God can win the great controversy.

So, again, how will God reveal “more fully” the principles at stake, the contrast between Jesus and Satan? If, for whatever reason, He fails to do so, what would be the results? How would it impact the unfallen FMAs throughout God’s far flung universe, including the humans already in heaven?


Tom, I also think it is beautiful how she describes the wondrous love of God, but for very different reasons, apparently, than you. You take it to mean that in spite of the fact God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed God sent Jesus anyhow. Thus, God risked not only losing Jesus forever, but also the entire human race, including those already in heaven. It is also likely that He would have had to destroy the rest of His unfallen FMAs. Why? Because there would have been no way God could have disproven Satan’s accusations. The evil seed of doubt would have remained to infect them beyond repair.

I cannot imagine worshiping a god who lacks the power or ability to know the future with absolute certainty. I could not trust what such a god would say about the future. Nahum 1:9 would be meaningless. It would provide no comfort whatsoever. “What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.” But because God does indeed know the future like He knows the past, I have nothing to fear. I can trust Him implicitly.

By the way, if God truly did not know the future outcome of His decision to allow Jesus to come here, if He truly risked losing everyone named above, then I could not respect Him for making such a foolish choice. I could see it if all He stood to lose was Jesus, but not since it meant losing everyone. The risk of not knowing the outcome was too great. Only an idiot would allow such a thing. And God is no idiot.

MM: Tom, I’m sorry, but I’m still not clear on what you believe. Do you think sin, all by itself, causes sinner to die the second death? Or, must it come in contact with the unveiled glory of God before it causes them to die?

Sin results in death. Here is a description of what happens:
Quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 758)


We’ve been over this many times. Why are you now confused?

The reason I am confused as to what you believe (I know what I believe) is because you write, "Sin results in death", and yet the quote you posted to support your view says, "... His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

Sister White says it is the presence of God’s glory that causes sinners to suffer the second death, whereas it is the results of sinning that cause sinners and saint alike to suffer the first death. Sinners ultimately die the first death because God will not allow them to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Otherwise, they would “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.”

It is these things that lead me to ask again: Do you think sin, all by itself, causes sinners to die the second death? Or, must sin come in contact with the unveiled glory of God before it causes sinners to die?
Quote:
Also, why didn’t the great controversy end when Jesus returned to heaven? Why didn’t Jesus cast the evil angels into the lake of fire at that time? What is it that the loyal angels still did not understand?

The Gospel has not been preached to all the world. Man has not made a decision as to whom he will believe. Also, there are lessons which unfallen angels and worlds can learn. As to what specifically angels do not understand, that would be impossible for me, a human being, to answer, wouldn’t it?

Actually, the DA 761 quote provides insights. Here is what she wrote about it:

DA 761
Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}

First, please notice that she does not say anything about the gospel being preached to all the world.

Jesus mentioned this, at the end of Matthew.

That is not a reason given as to why Jesus did not cast the evil angels into the lake of fire when He returned to heaven.

The judgment doesn’t come until after Christ’s Second Coming. That doesn’t happen until the Gospel has been given to all the world. Ellen White does say this, many times. To mention just one, look at Christ’s Object Lessons, the last chapter.

The reason given is clear: “The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed.” The principles at stake have been clearly described in the SOP.

And Scripture even.

They do not depend on human insights or intelligence. We know exactly which principles are stake. It is not a mystery.

“Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve.” She says the angels “must see”, not that it would be nice but not necessary. The contrast that existed between Christ and Satan at the time Jesus returned to heaven was not enough for God to win the great controversy. The angels “must see” the contrast “more fully” before God can win the great controversy.

As far as the angels are concerned, God has already won. The cross secured their eternal salvation. 8T brings this out, for example. Even Satan knew he was defeated.



So, again, how will God reveal “more fully” the principles at stake, the contrast between Jesus and Satan? If, for whatever reason, He fails to do so, what would be the results? How would it impact the unfallen FMAs throughout God’s far flung universe, including the humans already in heaven?
[color:blue]It’s the humans not in heaven that need to know the truth.

Quote:
MM: Finally, it blows my mind that anyone can believe God did not know ahead of time if Jesus would fail or succeed on the cross. I could not worship a god like that. I could not trust Him. It sounds too reckless.

I think rather than rejecting a depiction of God’s character which doesn’t conform with your perceptions of God, you should consider modifying your view of God’s character to harmonize with the evidence. You seem very unwilling to modify any viewpoint you have. For example you resort to redefining common words like “sin,” “repent,” “pardon,” and risk when necessary. I think that’s too bad.

What Ellen White wrote is very clear.
a)God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
b)All heaven was imperiled for our redemption
c)Christ could have fallen. He could have sinned.

I’m sorry you see these things as negative. I see that this says something wonderful about God, that He would be willing to take such a risk. When one considers that for just one, just Mike or Tom, God would have sent His Son for us, it boggles the mind.

Ellen White shared this awe, as one can see in her comments. For example:
Quote:
The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)


Notice how she ends this: "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!” This is just how I react. Not “I cannot worship a god like this” but "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!”

Tom, I also think it is beautiful how she describes the wondrous love of God, but for very different reasons, apparently, than you. You take it to mean that in spite of the fact God did not know if Jesus would fail or succeed God sent Jesus anyhow. Thus, God risked not only losing Jesus forever, but also the entire human race, including those already in heaven. It is also likely that He would have had to destroy the rest of His unfallen FMAs. Why? Because there would have been no way God could have disproven Satan’s accusations. The evil seed of doubt would have remained to infect them beyond repair.

I cannot imagine worshiping a god who lacks the power or ability to know the future with absolute certainty. I could not trust what such a god would say about the future. Nahum 1:9 would be meaningless. It would provide no comfort whatsoever. “What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.” But because God does indeed know the future like He knows the past, I have nothing to fear. I can trust Him implicitly.

By the way, if God truly did not know the future outcome of His decision to allow Jesus to come here, if He truly risked losing everyone named above, then I could not respect Him for making such a foolish choice.

I think this is the real heart of the matter. A God who would risk is not a God you would respect. Therefore you reject Him (this God who risks), and any testimony that suggests this.

I could see it if all He stood to lose was Jesus, but not since it meant losing everyone. The risk of not knowing the outcome was too great. Only an idiot would allow such a thing.

Careful buddy! Only an idiot would risk needlessly declaring blasphemous statements about God. Maybe you’re wrong. Have you considered that possibility? Maybe God really did send His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Maybe you're wrong and God is not an idiot both.

And God is no idiot.

After all this God must now know how to allow sin to act. Whew!

Tom, you did not address all of the points I raise in my last post. Please take the time to do so. Thank you.

Darius, your participation is unwelcome here.

Participation? Who said I was participating? I am observing.