MM, I'd like to comment on your interpretation of the quotes above, as it's quite interesting, but before going to that, you seem to be confused as to what I'm trying to say. In case I haven't been clear, I will try to be so now. What I'm saying is that without the cross the unfallen angels would have been no more secure against evil than the angels were before the fall of Satan. Can we agree on this point?

Here's the context of your quote - "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan."


1. How secure or insecure were the angels before the fall of Satan?

2. "The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin." This goes along with the insights I shared in my last post.

3. "The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy." What empowered them to side with God before Satan was cast out of heaven? What empowered them to resist rebellion before Jesus suffered on the cross?

4. "The gift of God in His beloved Son was the expression of an incomprehensible love. It was the utmost that God could do to preserve the honor of His law, and still save the transgressor." Preserving the honor of His law is what enabled God to pardon and save penitent sinners. Preserving and protecting the law is at the heart of the plan of salvation. It is key and core as to why Jesus had to die.

Before the fall of Satan, there was a chance they might fall.



Let's see. Your last post:



I think you are referring to this. This may be off target. From DA 764 we read:



Notice it says "had Satan been *left* to reap the full result of his sin." The destruction comes as a result of what God *allows* to happen to Satan (hence the use of the word "left"). This interpretation also agrees with the rest of this paragraph, and the previous paragraph as well.

Had God *left* Satan to reap the full result of his sin, the angels could have doubted God, thinking that Satan's death was due to something God was doing to him, as opposed to his reaping the results of his own sin. You see, sin is lethal. The "inevitable result of sin is death," or, as the Bible puts is, "the sting of death is sin."



Their will empowered them. The reason the cross secures the angels is because it revealed the character of the principles in the controversy.



No, preserving His law "enabled" nothing. God *chose* to pardon and save penitent sinners, and in so doing *He* preserved the honor of His law.

The heart of the plan of salvation is the vindication of the character of God. God is greater than the law, and more important.

Who or what is to blame for this chance? Was rebellion inevitable? Was it necessary? If the fall hadn't happened, would the "chance they might fall" exist forever?


There is no evidence to suggest the holy angels would have blamed God for killing Satan if He had allowed sin to kill him right away. You are drawing this conclusion yourself. Sister White doesn't say so herself. Sin does not consume sin. It is the light of the glory of God that consumes sin; sinners are collateral damage. Here's how she saw it:

"To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. Jacob, after his night of wrestling with the Angel, exclaimed, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen. 32: 30. Jacob had been guilty of a great sin in his conduct toward Esau; but he had repented. His transgression had been forgiven, and his sin purged; therefore he could endure the revelation of God's presence. But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}


So, do you agree they were secure in their ability and power to serve God, to love Him, to see the validity of His law, to understand enough not to side with Satan - and that they were able to do all these things 1) before Satan rebelled, and 2) before Jesus died on the cross? If so, what did the cross change?


Please support this view with inspired statements. Thank you. Also, please consider the following insights. She has much to say about God vindicating His downtrodden law. It truly is one of His primary goals in the GC.

"Satan had been so highly honored, and all his acts were so clothed with mystery, that it was difficult to disclose to the angels the true nature of his work. Until fully developed, sin would not appear the evil thing it was. Heretofore it had had no place in the universe of God, and holy beings had no conception of its nature and malignity. They could not discern the terrible consequences that would result from setting aside the divine law. Satan had, at first, concealed his work under a specious profession of loyalty to God. He claimed to be seeking to promote the honor of God, the stability of His government, and the good of all the inhabitants of heaven. While instilling discontent into the minds of the angels under him, he had artfully made it appear that he was seeking to remove dissatisfaction. When he urged that changes be made in the order and laws of God's government, it was under the pretense that these were necessary in order to preserve harmony in heaven. {GC 497.2}

The downtrodden law of God is to be exalted before the people; as soon as they turn with earnestness and reverence to the Holy Scriptures, light from heaven will reveal to them wondrous things out of God's law. . . . Truths which have proved an overmatch for giant intellects are understood by babes in Christ. {FLB 84.5}

To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Eze. 33:11. . . . Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Ex. 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {FLB 338.5}

After God has done all that could be done to save men, if they still show by their lives that they slight offered mercy, death will be their portion; and it will be a dreadful death, for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross. They will then realize what they have lost--eternal life and the immortal inheritance. {FLB 338.6}

The law of ten commandments is not to be looked upon as much from the prohibitory side as from the mercy side. Its prohibitions are the sure guarantee of happiness in obedience. . . . {FLB 84.6}

We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {FLB 84.7}

By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {GC 627.2}

For six thousand years the great controversy has been in progress; the Son of God and His heavenly messengers have been in conflict with the power of the evil one, to warn, enlighten, and save the children of men. Now all have made their decisions; the wicked have fully united with Satan in his warfare against God. The time has come for God to vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. Now the controversy is not alone with Satan, but with men. "The Lord hath a controversy with the nations;" "He will give them that are wicked to the sword." {GC 656.1}

Those who chose to rebel were responsible.



No.



I quoted what she said, right in DA 764:



It's right here, MM. "A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe." These are her words, verbatim. Admittedly I didn't use the exact words, but I said the same thing. But these words I'll fine. We'll go with these, as you can't object that she didn't say this.



Why do you feel this point is worth making?



This is a possible way of looking at things, especially if "light" and "glory" are understood.



The cross made them secure. It's in the quote. I explained why (right above, where it says "TE").

No, preserving His law "enabled" nothing. God *chose* to pardon and save penitent sinners, and in so doing *He* preserved the honor of His law.



This is too long to quote the whole thing, but Maranatha (1976) has a chapter entitled, "God's Character Vindicated."

You don't need an inspired quote to know that God is greater than anything else, do you?

Did you know the law is a transcript of God's character? Here is an inspired quote:



Therefore the vindication of the law of God is a vindication of His character.

Why?


This doesn't say what you are saying, Tom.


My question is - Were they insecure before the cross? If so, why did they side with God when Lucifer rebelled?


Amen. That's why one of God's primary goals is to vindicate the law. He cannot vindicate His character by vindicating His character.

You know, don't you?



What am I saying? (specifically that's different)



If they were secure, then the cross could not have made them secure, right?



That's what they chose to do. They were free to follow whom they wanted, just like those who decided to follow Satan. They heard the arguments of both principles, and made their decision.



This is a goal because this is one of the attacks Satan has made against God's character.



?? The only way God could vindicate His character was by making it known. There is no other way. That vindicates it.

It has been alleged that God is selfish, arbitrary, harsh, sever, impatient, uses force to get His way, cruel, and many other negative things. In short, that He is not worthy of love, faith, and trust. God had to demonstrate His true character as well as make His adversary's character known, which was a tricky thing to do because His adversary is very intelligent and lies. In Christ, God vindicated His character.

Isn't it a mystery that sinless beings chose to sin? That Lucifer rebelled is an unexplainable mystery. Why do you say there was a "chance" that unfallen beings might fall? Was it because of a design flaw?


That the unfallen angels would have assumed God, instead of sin, killed the evil angels.


Not necessarily. Which is why I'm not ready to buy the idea that they were insecure before the cross. They were secure before Lucifer's rebellion. They were secure when they chose to side with God. They were secure when God chose to destroy the earth with a Flood. They were secure when God rained down fire upon Sodom. They were secure before the cross. The cross confirmed their faith - it didn't establish it.


Were they insecure when they chose to side with God?


I agree.


Did the unfallen angels believe Satan's lying accusations about God?

You answered the question, so you did know. You know the answer to this last question too, don't you? "Was it because of a design flaw?"



What alternative is there, given what she said?



According to the SOP, the cross secured them, and without it they would have been no more secure than they were before Satan began his dastardly work. That seems pretty clearly not to agree with what you're saying, doesn't it? It follows very easily from what she wrote that:

a.After the cross, the angels (who had not rebelled) were secure.
b.Before the cross, they weren't.

Otherwise she could not have said they were no less secure without the cross than they were before Satan began his rebellion.



It looks like many of the angels were confused by Satan's sophistry. Some chose to rebel, and some chose to remain loyal.

How can you say there was a "chance" holy angels might have rebelled? What accounts for this chance? Obviously it wasn't on account of a design flaw.

Since she didn't specifically say holy angels would have blamed God for the death of evil angels, had they died immediately, then we cannot say she said it.

She never said the holy angels were insecure before the cross.

Did the unfallen angels believe Satan's lying accusations about God? What do you mean by some of them were "confused"?