This isn't the issue Ellen White raises:



The issue is that they didn't understand what death was (i.e. the second death) until Jesus died. Until Jesus tied, no one had experienced it. Had God allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin -- death (the second death) -- then it would not have been apparent that this was the inevitable result of sin. Because of Jesus' death on the cross, it became apparent that death was the inevitable result of sin. Thus God can allow the wicked angels to die without any seed of doubt arising.



This isn't the point! The issue is not if the angels understood "all," but enough. She says that without the cross, they were "not secure," but with the cross they are. Also, by virtue of the cross, God can allow Satan and his followers to die without a seed of doubt arising.



No, Ellen White did not say the angels were "ignorant." She spoke of the danger of a "seed of doubt" arising. It's in the DA 764 quote.



That's the whole problem!! They weren't supposed to be eager for God to punish and destroy sinners! Had they understood things at this time, like they do now, they would have been eager for God to save, not destroy.



MM, why do you think the angels were "amazed at God's patience and love"? This is significant.



Now it looks like you're not understanding me! Again, almost half the angels *rebelled*! They were not secure! Had they been secure, they would not have rebelled. The fact that they chose to rebel is "proof positive."



Ellen White answers this question by saying:



What do you think this means?



Ok, then you tell me what the words "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan." mean.

Personally I see nothing difficult to understand here. I don't see how these words could be misconstrued.



Sure it does. She says "Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan." This is not what you are saying.

Also, above, I quoted that the angels were amazed by the Plan of Salvation. Here's another quote:



If what you were asserting were true, the angels would not have been amazed, nor would the Plan of Salvation come unexpected.

So the evidence does support what I asserted.



She says "they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God." Were they doing this before Lucifer rebelled?



Once Satan rebelled, the death of Jesus Christ was necessary to secure the angels. This is precisely what Ellen White said!



What do you think this means?



What's the motivation for this question?

We're not told. God would certainly have had some way of dealing with the issues Satan had raised.

I haven't read anything that I can recall which says it was necessary to test and prove FMAs before Lucifer rebelled. But it doesn't make sense to me for God to test and prove non-angels after Lucifer rebelled. Seems to me they would have considered his accusations and then, like the loyal angels, made a decision to side with God. Unless God confined Lucifer's rebellion to heaven and allowed him to test and tempt non-angels after he was cast out of heaven. But this doesn't make sense to me either because they were loyal to God for who knows how many millions of years. So, why all of sudden the need to plant testing-trees or to thus designate existing trees? They already had proven themselves loyal and obedient for however long. They would have passed the test 1) long before Lucifer rebelled, 2) as Lucifer was rebelling, and 3) after Lucifer rebelled. The testing-trees, therefore, must have existed before Lucifer rebelled.

Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Therefore, the angels were familiar “enough” with the consequences of sinning soon after A&E sinned. That’s why they were eager and willing long before AD 31 for God to punish and destroy the evil angels, for them to suffer and die in consequence of sinning. No seed of doubt would have remained to sprout up in rebellion later on.


Being amazed at His patient and love is not same thing as not being familiar “enough” with the consequences of sinning to cause doubt and rebellion had God punished and destroyed the sinners as they had expected. “The angels thought that the time had come to strike the blow of justice, whom, lo, to their wondering vision was unveiled the plan of salvation.” “The exercise of justice was expected. The angels looked for God to punish the inhabitants of the earth.”

These insights prove angels were from the beginning totally cool with capital punishment. Executing sinners as they had expected would not have caused doubt and rebellion as you are suggesting. That’s my point. However, even though they were cool with the concept of capital punishment, they also needed to be cool with the concept of grace and mercy and salvation. Hence, the GC.

Again, the angels were familiar “enough” with the consequences of sinning, namely, capital punishment, long before Jesus suffered and died on the cross in AD 31.


You say this, and yet you also say it is mysterious and unexplainable as to why sinless beings chose to sin and rebel against God in heaven. Which is it? Did they sin and rebel because they were “not secure” against evil? If so, why weren’t they secure against evil? Whom or what is to blame?


I certainly do not think it means what you seem to be suggesting, namely, that they were not secure against evil, that they sinned and rebelled against God because they had not yet witnessed the cross.


Yes, they most certainly were secure against evil. They knew God well as it is possible to know God. There was nothing more God could reveal about Himself that hadn’t already been revealed. The angels were thoroughly familiar with the loving attributes of God’s character. Jesus didn’t reveal something new about God on the cross, something they weren’t already familiar with. He certainly didn’t reveal something that would have prevented the angels from sinning and rebelling against God in heaven. Listen:

Lucifer [and the other angels] in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. {DA 761.5}


Yes, and it would not have involved Jesus suffering and dying for sin. That’s my point. The angels were familiar enough with the consequences of sinning soon after Lucifer rebelled so as to be cool with God executing capital punishment, with God inflicting punishment in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. The fact God banished evil angels to earth instead of immediately executing them amazed the loyal angels. The same is true of A&E. The fact God implemented the plan of salvation to ransom and redeem mankind instead of immediately executing them amazed the loyal angels. Had God executed the evils angels soon after they openly rebelled, no seed of doubt or rebellion would have remained to bear fruit later on. Listen:

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. 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. {DA 764.3}

They were eager *before* understanding the cross to destroy because they hadn't seen the cross, and didn't understand the Plan of Salvation. The Plan of Salvation was a surprise to them. They were amazed by it. Their previous idea to destroy was *incorrect*. Jesus Christ's idea ("The Son of Man has come not to destroy men's lives, but to save them") was correct, and the angels needed to learn this. Thus they benefited by the cross as well as man.

That Jesus Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world speaks to God's eternal character, not the angel's knowledge of it. It's very clear the angels did not understand this aspect of God's character until the cross (else why would they have been "amazed" by the Plan of Salvation, as opposed to expecting it?)



But capital punishment is not the the consequences of sinning. Death is. Not being killed by God.

Given that Christ suffered the "death which was ours," and that Christ's death is what explained to the angels the death of the wicked (DA 764), do you think that Jesus Christ died because God killed Him?



You're getting off track here. She says that the angels, without the cross, would have been no more secure than they were when Satan began his rebellion. When Satan rebelled, nearly half of the angels were lost. So it is clear they were not secure.

Regarding your questions above, you are trying to pit things against each other which are orthogonal concepts. Your questions are presupposing that the truth is either one of the things or the other, but not both, but these are speaking of different concepts. For example, the angels did not rebel *because* they were not secure. That they rebelled proves they were not secure, but this does not imply that a lack of security is the *cause* of rebellion; it made rebellion possible, but isn't a cause. Also that there is no explanation for sin is a different concept than the fact that without the cross the angels are no less secure than when Satan began his rebellion. At least I see no connection. If you see one, you'll have to flesh it out.



MM, please read more carefully! She didn't say that they rebelled because they had not yet witnessed the cross. She said that they are no more secure without the cross than they were before Satan began his rebellion.

You're confusing cause and effect here. That the angels had not witnessed the cross is not a cause. She points out that without the cross the angels were no more secure than when Satan began his rebellion, but does not suggest that not witnessing the cross *caused* their rebellion. Do you see the difference?

Also, you didn't answer my question. You just said you don't believe it means something which I don't believe either. Please answer the question in a positive way; tell me what you think it means, not what you think it doesn't mean.

More later.

Jesus fully explained the plan of salvation to the angels the moment God the Father approved it. They were not in least ignorant of the details. “At first the angels could not rejoice, for their Commander concealed nothing from them, but opened before them the plan of salvation.” (SR 43) Yes, they were amazed, but their amazement was not the result of ignorance. It was the result of awe and adoration.

What makes you think the angels were “incorrect” when they expected God to punish and destroy sinners? They had witnessed God punish and destroy sinners on many occasions. In fact, God had commanded them on many occasions to inflict punishment and destruction. Sending Jesus as a babe to redeem sinners instead of destroying the world by fire was indeed a surprise move. But the angels were well aware of the prophecies. They knew the time was at hand for Jesus to become a human. Listen:


The fact the angels were ready and willing to destroy the world by fire was not the result of “incorrect” thinking or bad theology. “The heavenly intelligences were prepared for a fearful manifestation of Almighty power.” They were “prepared” for it. The point is – The angels were ready for God to destroy sinners. They were also ready for Him to command them to totally wipe out the world with fire. And all this before Jesus died on the cross. It would not have resulted in seeds of doubt and rebellion sprouting up later on causing them to sin and rebel. That’s the point.


There are many aspects of Jesus’ death on the cross that do not portray what the wicked will experience in the lake of fire. In fact, there are probably more dissimilarities than similarities. For example, Jesus suffered knowing by faith that He would rise again on the third day. And, just before He exercised power and authority to lay down His life He declared, It is finished.

Did Jesus suffer and die like the wicked will suffer and die in the lake of fire? Yes and no. Did God arbitrarily punish and kill Jesus on the cross? Yes and no.


Why do you think the angels were “not secure against evil” in heaven before Lucifer rebelled? How do you explain the fact two-thirds of the angels chose not to rebel with Lucifer? Why were they “secure against evil” and not Lucifer and the other third? Also, why were the rest of the FMAs throughout God’s far flung universe “secure against evil”, that is, why didn’t they rebel like one-third of the angels?

Here’s what I hear you saying: One-third of the angels rebelled because they were not secure against evil. But this doesn’t explain why they rebelled because why they rebelled is an unexplainable mystery.


I understand what the quote is not saying. It’s just that I don’t understand what you’re saying it does say. I hear you saying it means the angels were not secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled. But that’s not what I hear her saying.


“Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.” Again, since two-thirds of the angels, and all the other FMAs, chose not to rebel is proof they were secure against evil before rebellion broke out. They did not rebel for the very reason they were secure enough against evil.

Nevertheless, is it possible to be “more secure against evil”? Of course it is. Throughout eternity as the ceaseless ages of everlasting life roll on, FMAs will become more and more like Jesus, more and more secure in His love, more and more secure against evil. The cross, more than anything else, is what contributes to this fact.

The phrase “no more secure against evil” in the context above to me means continual advancement is necessary, expected, even required. To be no more secure against evil after the passing of 4,000 years is evidence of stagnation. Continual growth is normal. Not to grow and mature is abnormal. Again, the cross, more than anything, makes FMAs more secure against evil than they were before.

This is not to say Jesus had to suffer and die on the cross to make FMAs more secure against evil. Zillions of unfallen FMAs were secure enough against evil to not rebel. This security increased daily as they grew and matured in the love of God. This growth would have continued without the death of Jesus. Again, the death of Jesus was not necessary to make FMAs more secure against evil. Had A&E remained loyal, Jesus would not have had to die.


Okay. Thanx.

Yes it was. They didn't understand the Plan of Salvation.





The angels were surprised by the Plan of Salvation. This was God's answer, not destroying those who rebel against him. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force (as the angels were thinking); force is not a principle of God's government.



You didn't address this. You just wrote, "Did God arbitrarily punish and kill Jesus on the cross? Yes and no." which isn't very satisfactory. What does "yes and no" mean. I would say simply "no," in which case an explanation wouldn't be needed. But the answer "yes and no" certainly needs explanation. And you say my explanations are vague!



Because of this statement:





By looking at the statement, it can be readily seen that this is not the context. She writes, "That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven." This is the context: the restraint of sin.

What restrains sin? The knowledge of the truth. That's the context. What truth? The truth of the cross. Without this truth, the angels would be no more secure than they were when Satan began his rebellion.

MM, her point is that when Satan rebelled the angels were not secure! Not that they were secure, but that they weren't.

She writes:



How is this not clear? It says the angels are "not secure" except by looking at the sufferings of the Son of God. That means before they saw His sufferings (which she explains is the cross) they were "not secure."

This post is finishing up the "More later"



You don't know this. You can't. There's no way you could know that God may not have had some other way of solving the problems Satan raised had man not sinned. At least, if you dispute this, I'd like to see your evidence.



Which is not God's character. They hadn't yet seen the Plan of Salvation. They didn't understand the cross. They were "cool" with something they should have abhorred.



This is referring to the cross, not Adam and Eve. You should know this by now! (Remember, this is from the chapter "It Is Finished" which is dealing with the cross)

This quote deals with time just before the incarnation of Christ. By this time, the angels had witnessed God punish and destroy sinners on many occasions, in fact, they had participated in punishing and destroying sinners on many occasions. Also, they weren't surprised at the plan of salvation, they had known about it for 4,000 years. They knew the prophecies perfectly well, they knew all about every minute detail, they knew the time was at hand for Jesus' incarnation. It's just that they were amazed and surprised God did not also punish and destroy many of the sin hardened people.


Yes and no. Yes, because the Father did things that contributed to the intense suffering Jesus experienced between Gethsemane and the cross. No, because Jesus laid down His own life. He was not killed by anything or anyone.


She doesn't simply say "not secure", she specifically says "not secure against evil". Being more secure against evil on accouint of the cross does not in the least mean they were not secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled. If, as you say, they were not secure against evil then all of the angels would have rebelled and not just one-third of them. The fact the majority of them did not rebel is convincing evidence they were secure against evil. Yes, they are now even more secure against evil this side of the cross, but being more secure doesn't mean they were not previously secure against evil.

If man had not sinned, then Jesus' suffering and death would have served no purpose as the evil angels were beyond redemption. I agree God would have done something else to win the GC, but it's clear to me it would not have involved Jesus suffering and dying. Thus, the idea that FMAs required the suffering and death of Jesus to be secure against evil is not true since God could have done something to make them more secure against evil without Jesus having to suffer and die.


I'm surprised you are as comfortable as you are making this claim. The angels were totally familiar with the plan of salvation. Jesus explained it to them in great detail. Also, the angels will clamor for the double death and punishment of sinners during the 7 last plagues, which is well after the cross. Justice is as much a part of God's character as is mercy. Law and justice require God to punish and destroy sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. The angels have been cool with this aspect of God's character from the very beginning of the GC. And, it was not the result of incorrect thinking or bad theology.


It's talking about the GC. At the end of the GC the angels will not doubt the goodness of God when He punishes and destroys sinners in the lake of fire. My point is they were at this point from the moment Jesus explained to them in great detail the plan of salvation. To the angels Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. To the angels Jesus won the GC from the foundation of the world. Also, if man had not sinned, the angels would have been cool with God punishing and destroying the evil angels soon thereafter. They ready early on for God to punish and destroy the evil angels.

Right. They were amazed and surprised. That was my point. I guess you're disputing that the Plan of Salvation amazed them? That is was the fact that God didn't kill people?



This is clear, MM; this has in view the unveiled Plan of Salvation, not simply God's not killing people.



What did He do?



Peter said:



Christ was put to death by being nailed to a cross. When Christ said He was laying down His life, He meant that He went to His fate voluntarily, not that He was not killed.




I quoted what she said. She said





You are the one misquoting her! She didn't say "not more secure" she said "not secure."



Not at all, MM. The angels, as a class were not secure at the time Satan began his rebellion. They didn't become any more secure than this until the cross. The status of a class is not dependent upon the actions of specific individuals of that class. It's the fact that *any* of the angels rebelled that shows that the angels, as a class, were not secure.



Not at all. The fact that *any* of them rebelled is 100% proof that they were not secure.



She is not arguing that the angels were really secure when Satan rebelled, and even more secure after the cross, but that the angels were not secure when Satan rebelled, and no more secure than that without the cross.

She doesn't say that the cross provided more security, but security. The issue she addresses is not security vs. more security but a lack of security vs. security.



Apart from looking to the sufferings of the Son of God, what are the angels? Quoting from above: "not secure." She doesn't say, "not more secure," but "not secure."