Tom, you seem to believe God was willing to pardon Lucifer, without shedding the blood of Jesus, well after he was convinced he was wrong, well after he began openly rebelling.

I disagree. God would not, could not, pardon Lucifer after he began openly rebelling. He was beyond experiencing genuine repentance. He was guilty of committing the unpardonable sin when he chose to continue rebelling after he was convinced he was wrong. There was no way God could have pardoned him.

You're making a statement without considering the evidence, as far as I can see (you didn't cite anything). I laid out for you what EGW wrote:

1.Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong, and given a chance to confess his sin.
2.Instead of doing this, Lucifer sought to justify himself, and went so far as to misrepresent God, His actions and words.
3.Lucifer was not immediately banished from heaven after being shown to be wrong and given an opportunity to confess his sin, nor even after his misrepresentations against God.
4.Long was he retained in heaven, and offered pardon over and over again on the condition of repentance and submission.

None of these points are inferences or logical deductions. There are all straight from 4SP 319. Do you agree? If you don't, please tell me which point you disagree with and why.

What you stated above, about what I seem to believe, is inaccurate. What I have been saying is just what I laid out, in points 1 through 4. I said nothing about Lucifer being in open rebellion. He was still hiding his actions. EGW makes that point clear, and I've never said anything different.



I agree with this, assuming the "began openly rebelling" is referring to Lucifer's final decision, which is to say, at the point in time here, where he fully committed himself against God:

Aren't the following quotes (taken from your recent posts) referring to the same time period in Lucifer's downward path?

"But he chose to carry his points at all hazards." 4P 319

"But pride forbade him to submit." GC 496

Mike, isn’t this what a sin of ignorance is? What’s the difference between this and a sin of ignorance?

About sins of ignorance, Ellen White says,

“Some will plead that they lived up to the best light that they had, and did not know that they were sinners before God. Therefore they claim that they were guiltless, and have nothing to repent of. But the word of God was plain, and all who had a prayerful anxious desire to understand it might have known what was truth; and for this sin of ignorance God will demand an offering as truly as in the days of Moses,--even the offering of a broken and contrite heart.” {ST, July 22, 1880 par. 12}

And wasn’t the offering of a broken and contrite heart what Lucifer should have offered to God?

However, just because an offering for sin was required in a specific case in the levitical law, this doesn’t necessarily mean that that was a sin for which Christ must have died. For instance, when a woman had a baby, or when a leper was declared clean, an offering for sin was also required.

Now, one thing is sure. Ellen White says,

“He [Satan] and his followers repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin, their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment.” {1SG 18.1}

I understand that if their sin had not been so great (that is, if they hadn’t rebelled), it could have been blotted out.

R: Mike, isn’t this what a sin of ignorance is? What’s the difference between this and a sin of ignorance?

MM: In the beginning, when Lucifer began to think and feel things weren't quite right, I don't think he was sinning. Even now it's not a sin to questions God, to wonder about things that don't seem quite right. The difference is, Lucifer was perfect. He knew God perfectly.

In the beginning, it was a perfect being who began circulating among the angels questions and concerns about God. How a perfect being does this is very much different than how we do it now. There is no comparison. And, it was the first time anyone ever questioned the status quo. It was new and strange. But it was a perfect being who began to entertain such thoughts and feelings. It's not the same as when fallen beings do it. Such thoughts and feelings were new. And strange.

I think God tolerated Lucifer's quest to understand the new and strange thoughts and feelings that were consuming his time and attention because He felt it was healthy and right. True, God knew exactly where it was going and where it would end up, that is, in rebellion, but God didn't discourage Lucifer's initial quest. There was nothing wrong with him exploring questions and concerns. To ignore them, or pretend they didn't exist, would have been worse.

In order to explore his new and strange thoughts and feelings Lucifer played, as it were, the devil's advocate. In other words, he suggested outrageous things simply to consider all angles of the question. We do something similar today. However, the more he did this the more he believed it. When Jesus and certain angels began to plead with him to cease and desist, he dug in his heels and pressed the issues more intensely. During a general assembly, when God confirmed Jesus' high and lofty status, Lucifer felt the thrill of being in harmony with heaven. But he still wasn't finished with trying to understand his new and strange thoughts and feelings.

Nevertheless, he wasn't convinced he was wrong. He felt like was simply trying reason out the questions and concerns that were on his mind. Playing the "devil's advocate" seemed right and reasonable. He wasn't rebelling against God. By this time, though, his thoughts and feelings began to include pride and selfishness, which were also new and strange for a perfect being. He wrestled with them, with all of it, in agony and confusion. He was simply trying to understand his new and strange thoughts and feelings. Something didn't feel quite right, and he was determined to get to the bottom of it.

Now, were his tactics, during this stage, wrong? Were they sinful? Was playing the "devil's advocate", trying to explore all the angles related to his questions and concerns, sinful? Remember, Lucifer is perfect and sinless at this stage. We're talking about a sinless being playing the "devil's advocate", asking hard and hurtful questions about someone he loves dearly. Sister White testifies that Lucifer, at this stage, "He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God."

GC 4495
Lucifer himself did not at first see whither he was drifting; he did not understand the real nature of his feelings. But as his dissatisfaction was proved to be without cause, Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong, that the divine claims were just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had forsaken his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. But pride forbade him to submit. He persistently defended his own course, maintained that he had no need of repentance, and fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker. {GC 495.3}

Rosangela, do you agree with Tom, that God would have pardoned Lucifer's "sin", without shedding the blood of Jesus, if he had repented and submitted to His authority? If so, does this also mean, as Tom believes, that God did not shed the blood of Jesus because justice demands death for mankind's sin?

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

No. Here's the first one:



This is speaking of the point in time where Lucifer was shown to be wrong. Several paragraphs later she writes:



Notice she writes "He was not immediately dethroned when he first ventured to indulge the spirit of discontent and insubordination, nor even when he began to present his false claim and lying representations before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in Heaven."

This is not the same time as Lucifer's chance to confess, but is long after. ("long was he retained in heaven."

Here's the GC statement:



You can see that this is the same period of time as the "after" statement from 1SG 319, not from the time he was first given an opportunity to confess his sin.

Here's the reason Satan could not be taken back:



It wasn't an arbitrary decision on the part of God that Satan's sin had been too great, but Satan had ruined himself.



Satan wasn't sorry for what he did, nor recognized what he did was wrong, but didn't like the results of his decision.

His character had not changed. That God correctly judged this is seen by the following:



This is the way it is with sin in general. It ruins those who partake of it. God's grace is greater than any sin. His ability to forgive is not limited. But sin hardens our hearts, and there comes a time when we are no longer willing or able to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin is unpardonable not because God is not will or able to pardon, but because the sinner is no longer willing or able to receive it.

MM, don't you remember our conversations about this? ("our" being you me an Rosangela.) Well, I can't be too hard on you because I forget a lot of these things as well.

At first Rosangela wasn't sure if Lucifer had sinned or not. Then she came across the 1SG 319 statement, and came to the conclusion that Lucifer had sinned, but it wasn't a sin which required the death of Christ (which is necessary conclusion, in order not to agree with my argument).

She doesn't agree with my argument.

Tom, here's how I see it (the relationship between the two different paragraphs in 4SP 319-320):

1. "Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards."

NOTE: When Lucifer was finally convinced of his sin and wrongdoing, which happened just before he was banished from heaven, God offered him one last opportunity to submit to His authority, but Lucifer chose to rebel openly instead.

2. "Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. Such efforts as God alone could make, were made to convince him of his error, and restore him to the path of rectitude."

NOTE: The expression "long was he retained in heaven" is not limited to time after Lucifer was convinced of his sin and wrongdoing. It began with when he "first ventured to indulge the spirit of discontent", that is, before he was convinced ofhis sin and wrongdoing. Also, the context of this paragrpah places the moment Lucifer was finally convinced of his sin and wrongdoing in the future.