They weren't ready. "A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe."



They didn't understand things until the death of Christ. That's why the chapter "It Is Finished" was written, to explain what the death of Christ accomplished. After Christ died, *then* they understood that death is the inevitable result of sin. This is why DA 764 is a part of the chapter, because it is contingent upon the death of Christ.



The quote says without the cross they were no more secure than they were before Satan's rebellion. You agree that the quote says this, don't you? With the cross, they were secure. You agree that the quote says this, don't you? So without the cross, they weren't secure, but with the cross, they were, right?

Let's stop here. Is there anything of the above that you're either not following or disagreeing with?



What is "this"? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me here, or disagreeing. It looks like you must be disagreeing, so you disagree that the angels were as secure as it was possible to be at the time. This is what you disagree with?



Why are you talking about this? I didn't say anything about what you're talking about. I said:



I made the point that the angels were not secure, which is evidenced by the fact that they rebelled. Ellen White wrote that without the cross, they would be no more secure than when Satan rebelled. What do you think she was talking about, if not Satan's rebellion? Clearly the angels were not secured, because they rebelled. If they had been secure, they would not have rebelled. I don't see how it's possible not to understand this from her quote.

Anyway, I didn't say anything about their not being acquainted with God, so I don't know why you're citing those quotes.

Especially I don't understand why you cited this one.



What were you thinking?

If Lucifer had repented and therefore was never in the garden to tempt Eve, do you think Eve would have ate the fruit?

Would the fruit have been there?

How long do you think it was before they were ready for the evil angels to suffer the inevitable results of sin? I agree it wasn’t right away, but I don’t think it took hundreds of years. The angels were ready enough to warn A&E to beware of evil angels. They were ready enough to let A&E die for their sins. And, they were ready enough to let Jesus suffer and die to pay their sin debt of death. I don't get the sense they were afraid of God punishing and destroying sinners before the cross.


The point is they were ready enough around the time A&E sinned for sinners to suffer and die in consequence of their sins. They were often surprised when God waited so long to punish and destroy sinners. On many occasions they eagerly hoped God would command them to destroy sinners. No doubt of God's goodness would have tormented them leading to rebellion. They were way past this problem, and long before the cross.


Here’s what I believe the quote says – “Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.” (ST 12/30/89) That’s what she wrote. She didn’t write what you wrote, namely, “without the cross they weren’t secure”. It's obvious that the angels were secure against evil without the cross by virtue of the fact two-thirds chose not to rebel. And, for 4,000 years before the cross they continued choosing not to rebel. Yeah, they were secure against evil alright.

The principles of God’s kingdom and character, which were revealed at the cross, were already thoroughly known by the angels before rebellion broke out in heaven. This accounts for why they didn't rebel. God wasn’t withholding truths about Himself that made the angels less secure against evil.

Nothing new was revealed at the cross that made the angels more secure against evil than they were before Lucifer rebelled. That one-third of the angels rebelled in an unexplainable mystery; whereas, there is nothing mysterious about the fact two-thirds of the angels did not rebel, that they remained loyal, that they pleaded with the other angels to drop their unfounded accusations against God.


Yes, I am disagreeing with the idea that the angels were only as secure against evil as they could be at the time. This means they could have been more secure against evil than they were, which implies God withheld something that would have prevented them from rebelling.


You insist the angels were not secure against evil before rebellion broke out in heaven. You cite the fact one-third of the angels rebelled as proof. You seem to think the ST quote supports your conclusion. However, it is clear to me the fact two-thirds of the angel chose not to rebel is proof they were secure against evil. The fact one-third chose to rebel cannot be explained.

It certainly cannot be explained by surmising they must not have been secure against evil. To suggest otherwise is to imply they were deficient, which begs the question – Why weren’t they secure against evil? Was there a deficiency in the divine government? Was it due to a manufacturing defect?

The quotes I posted, including the one you’re asking about, make it clear the fact angels rebelled is unexplainable. And yet I get the impression you believe they rebelled because they “weren’t secure” against evil, that the cross was necessary to make them secure, that without the cross they were not secure against evil. I realize this isn’t what you believe, but I don’t see how it can be avoided based on what you’re saying.

Yes, of course. God tested every species of FMAs before granting them unconditional eternal life. The following passage speaks to this issue:

The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, "We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth." Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, "None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." {EW 39.3}

That just says the tree was there. It doesn't say it was there before Lucifer rebelled.

Satan only has access to tempt at the tree, right? So a possible scenario is that God put those trees in every world so Satan would have the opportunity to present his case, to whoever wanted to listen. Do you know of anything which says the trees were in place before Lucifer rebelled?

At the cross. This is why DA 764 is written in the chapter "It Is Finished" and not in some other chapter of the book, or in some other book, like "Patriarchs and Prophets."

The whole point is that what made them ready was the cross. Missing this point is missing the whole thing. She explains that without the cross the angels would have been no more secure than they were before Satan's rebellion.

The cross is the important thing.



It's not a question of time but of truth. They didn't understand the truth of the cross until the cross took place.



Right! This is exactly the point! They didn't understand that death was the inevitable result of sin. They thought it was necessary to destroy the evil angels. The cross opened their eyes to their error.



Had God allowed Satan to have been destroyed before the cross, it's certain they would have misunderstood what was happening. The did not understand that the inevitable result of sin. Also the SOP tells us that without the cross the angels were no more secure than before Satan rebelled. So that means something.



It doesn't look like you're understanding her. Her whole point is that the angels were not secure when Satan rebelled (almost half of them were lost). Would you say they were secure at this point? Of course not! Again, almost half were lost. So, since they were not secure at this point, and they were no more secure until the cross than they were here, it's obvious they weren't secure.



This is exactly backwards! Almost half of the angels rebelled, which shows they were *not* secure. If they had been secure, Ellen White's words would have been absurd. "Without the cross, the angles would have been no more secure than there were when Satan rebelled, at which point they were already secure." That doesn't make any sense! It makes a mockery of her words.



Then her words mean nothing.



You're simply asserting the opposite of what she said!



If she had said something like, "Without the cross, the angels were just as secure as they were when Satan rebelled," or "The angels were just as secure without the cross as they were with it," you would have a point. But she said the exact opposite of this.

Please consider the quote more carefully:



Except by looking at the sufferings of the Son of God, what are the angels? "Not secure".

That should be enough to settle the issue.

I wonder if there was a tree-type test for the angels? Or, were the angels ever tested? Did God just grant them immortality from the day He created them? When did testing FMAs become necessary - before or after Lucifer rebelled?

Did God go around planting testing-trees after Lucifer rebelled? I doubt it. Seems to me non-angel FMAs made decisions to side with God during the developmental stages of Lucifer's rebellion in the same way two-thirds of the angels did. Why would God have to go around planting testing-trees afterward? They had already proven themselves worthy of immortality.

If holy angels weren’t ready for evil angels to suffer and die in consequence of their sin and rebellion until after Jesus suffered and died on the cross, how, then, do you explain the fact they were ready and willing for them to suffer and die long before the cross?


At what point in time were holy angels ready for evil angels to suffer and die in consequence of their sin and rebellion? This question assumes they understand the truth, that is, they understand that law and justice require God to punish and destroy sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. I believe they learned early on in the GC that God is vindicated in punishing and destroying impenitent sinners. But even after the cross they didn’t understand all. Listen:

God permits the wicked to prosper and to reveal their enmity against Him, that when they shall have filled up the measure of their iniquity all may see His justice and mercy in their utter destruction. The day of His vengeance hastens, when all who have transgressed His law and oppressed His people will meet the just recompense of their deeds; when every act of cruelty or injustice toward God's faithful ones will be punished as though done to Christ Himself. {GC 48.2}

Before Christ's first advent, the sin of refusing to conform to God's law had become widespread. Apparently Satan's power was growing; his warfare against heaven was becoming more and more determined. A crisis had been reached. With an intense interest God's movements were watched by the heavenly angels. Would He come forth from His place to punish the inhabitants of the world for their iniquity? Would He send fire or flood to destroy them? All heaven waited the bidding of their Commander to pour out the vials of wrath upon a rebellious world. One word from Him, one sign, and the world would have been destroyed. The worlds unfallen would have said, "Amen. Thou art righteous, O God, because Thou hast exterminated rebellion." {RC 58.4}

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. Well, then, might the angels rejoice as they looked upon the Saviour's cross; for though they did not then understand all, they knew that the destruction of sin and Satan was forever made certain, that the redemption of man was assured, and that the universe was made eternally secure. {DA 764.4}

In the final execution of the judgment it will be seen that no cause for sin exists. When the Judge of all the earth shall demand of Satan, "Why hast thou rebelled against Me, and robbed Me of the subjects of My kingdom?" the originator of evil can render no excuse. Every mouth will be stopped, and all the hosts of rebellion will be speechless. . . . The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, will now vindicate His love and establish His honor before the universe. . . . Never will evil again be manifest. Says the Word of God, "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9. . . . A tested and proved creation will never again be turned from allegiance to Him whose character has been fully manifested before them. {FLB 71.3}


Are you saying the angels were ignorant for 4,000 years? If so, why were they so ignorant?


The evidence doesn’t support your assertion. Long before the cross the angels were eager for God to punish and destroy impenitent sinners.


I disagree. They were totally secure in their love and allegiance to God before Lucifer rebelled and before Jesus died on the cross. The fact they chose to side with God is proof positive.


You are implying that the reason nearly half of the angels rebelled is because they were not secure against evil. This begs the question – Why weren’t they secure against evil? Why didn’t God do more to make them secure against evil?


Or, you are misunderstanding her words.


Again, the evidence doesn’t support your accusation.


She is not saying the angels were “not secure” against evil before Lucifer rebelled. To say so would imply rebellion and the death of Jesus was necessary to make them secure against evil. Is that what you believe? Do you believe rebellion and the death of Jesus was necessary to make FMAs secure against evil?

Again, if A&E had successfully resisted Satan at the forbidden tree, if they had remained faithful, loyal, and obedient to God – then what?

What would have happened to evil angels? How would God have justified their death? How would He have explained it to unfallen beings so they didn't fear Him?

Would Jesus have had to die to make FMAs secure against evil? If not, what would have made them more secure against evil than they already were?

Mortality only exists because of sin. Without sin, every being would be immortal.



It's not that it became necessary to test FMAs, but Satan raised questions about God and His government that had not existed before. So God, who so highly respects free will, gave Satan the opportunity to present his case.



We know there were trees there, and we know that the trees were the only place Satan had access to. They purpose of the trees look to have been an opportunity to join the rebellion. This was Satan's opportunity to make his case.

It could be the tree already existed, so God didn't have to "go around planting trees." Before the rebellion, it could be there was no test, no prohibition against eating of the tree. Only after Satan rebelled did eating from the tree become an issue. This is just a suggestion. AFAIK we haven't been told.

It's also possible God did place the trees after Satan rebelled.

At any rate, my point was that before the rebellion, there may not have been any prohibition not to eat of a certain tree. Are you aware of any evidence that there was such a prohibition?