I did. (Post #103895)



No, not at all. Satan has deceived by this means from the beginning. He presents God's as having his attributes, and presents himself as having God's. So it is perfectly naturally that he would impersonate Christ.



Satan deceives by misrepresenting God's character. If we take the position that sin is innocuous, that there is nothing inherently dangerous in it, then there are two mistakes we can fall into.

1.God will kill you if you sin.
2.It's OK if you sin. Nothing bad will happen.

Both of these errors stem from the same wrong idea that sin is innocuous.

The truth is that sin is deadly, and God, who loves us, and doesn't want to see us destroyed by it, warns us of what sin will do to us.



Your explanation doesn't fit in with what she actually says. 6 times in the space of a short paragraph she says that the wicked are responsible for their destruction. She specifically points out that it is *not* an act of God which causes their destruction, but, again, says over and over again that it is a choice of the wicked. In GC 543 she says their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. A bit later in the same DA 764 passage we are talking about, she says that when Satan and his followers are "left" to reap the full result of their sin, they perish.

If I took a flamethrower to you to destroy you because of something I had judged you did, I could hardly say I was "leaving" you to reap the consequences of what your did, or that your demise was due to your own choice as opposed to an act of power on my part.



That he didn't use this deception here doesn't mean he doesn't use it.



Satan was right? So God must have been wrong, then, since God said the opposite.



This doesn't make sense. "Nor" implies the continuation of a negation. First you says "Yes, they were amazed" and then "Nor are they amazed." Doesn't make sense.

Your expression that the angels are "cool" with the idea of God's blotting out others is very off-putting. It's very unwelcome slang; it suggests God is cold-hearted in the extreme.

Jesus said:



God said:



The true heart of God is manifest in His desire to save, not destroy.

I guess we’ll have to disagree on this point. It is precisely because they were intimately familiar with God’s character that they were surprised God did not act to punish and destroy sinners just before the incarnation of Jesus. That they would have gladly done it if God had commanded them to is evidence they were cool with God punishing and destroying sinners. That’s my point. It didn’t cause them to fear God or to serve as seeds of rebellion. They were totally cool with God punishing and destroying sinners.


1. The blow of justice. 2. The incarnation of Christ.


The Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans who nailed Him to the cross. The Jews did not nail Jesus to the cross. Obviously, therefore, Paul is saying the Jews were responsible for what the Romans did. Jesus implied the same thing when He told Pilate, “Therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” (John 19:11) In the same sense they are responsible for what Jesus did, namely, ending His own life after He conquered sin and death. This is what Jesus meant when He said, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” (John 10:17, 18)


What is the difference between the two sentences? 1. “Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.” 2. “All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God.”


Why, then, did a minority of angels sin and rebel in heaven? In what sense were angels secure against evil before the cross? And, in what sense are they secure against evil this side of the cross? Finally, when did Jesus become the Lamb of God to the angels – before or after AD 31?

He veiled His presence, and this caused Jesus to suffer in a way He hadn’t suffered before. Yes, He suffered bearing the sins of the world in the wilderness of temptation, but when God veiled His presence from Him on the cross Jesus suffered bearing the sins of the world in way He hadn’t previously experienced.


I take it you agree with me, then, that being more secure against evil on account of the cross does not in the least mean they were not secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled.


I disagree. The majority were secure against evil as evidenced by the fact they chose not to side with Satan.


Again, what you call "lack of security" resulted in the majority of the angels not rebelling. They became more and more secure against evil each passing day. The cross, more than anything else, added to their ever increasing security against evil. Even this side of the cross they are becoming more and more secure against evil, and this kind of growth will continue throughout eternity. But again, becoming more and more secure against evil does not mean they were not secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled. You seem to be saying otherwise.


Considering what she wrote elsewhere it is obvious to me that the majority of the angels were secure enough against evil to not rebel. The fact a minority of angels rebelled is mysterious and unexplainable. Why? Because they were so secure against evil.

“Of course there is a degree of truth to what Satan says, namely, that God is strict about requiring obedience and punishing disobedience.” You didn’t address this point, Tom. Do you agree?


Seems counterproductive to me. He has been working feverishly to make people fear and hate God, why, then, would he turn around and personate Christ? This insight suggests that he will change his strategy, that he will work to make people think they love God whereas in reality he has deceived them. If he can deceive people into thinking they love his version of God then it makes sense for him to personate Christ’s return.


When A&E sinned, God was forced to prevent sinners from accessing the tree of life. Why? Because to eat of it was to perpetuate a life of sinning. Obviously, sin is not what causes sinners to die the first death – not eating the fruit is what causes them to die. Since sin isn’t what causes sinners to die, God must do something to cause them to die after He resurrects them. That something is 1) rain down fire from above, 2) raise up fire from below, and 3) expose them to the fire light of His radiant glory.


“She specifically points out that it is *not* an act of God which causes their destruction . . .” On the contrary, she specifically says, “I will destroy thee, O covering cherub.” {DA 763.4} “The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.” {DA 764.1} “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} It is not an act of arbitrary power when God blots sinners out of existence. God is merely doing what law and justice demands of Him – to execute the death penalty.

“Even you agree it is the unveiled glory of God that causes sinners to suffer and die.” You didn’t comment on this point. Can you have it both ways – 1) sin kills resurrected sinners, and 2) the character of God kills resurrected sinners. Which is it?


If the law states that the penalty for a particular crime is death by flamethrower, then executing the death penalty is leaving criminals to reap what they have sown. However, if a judge intervenes and pardons criminals he is not leaving them to reap what they have sown. Wording it this way makes perfect sense to me.


I agree he didn’t use this particular deception with Eve. God is the one who said, “In day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” This implies the death penalty. Listen:

Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in [of A&E]? -- Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made. Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint (RH April 23, 1901). {1BC 1082.6}


Interesting observation. Would you care to elaborate? Also, do you agree with the reasons I gave as to why God didn’t blot sinners out of existence the moment they sinned?


Thanx for the grammar lesson, Coach. I can always count on you to correct me. Although I must admit it can a bit tedious at times. Oh well.

Yes, God “is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

Nevertheless, God also says, “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Ex 20:5, 6) “The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” (Ex 34:6, 7)

“Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb 10:29-31)


I’ve edited the paragraphs above to reflect your counsel and comments. Do you agree with them?

I agree we see things very differently. As I pointed out, I find the phrase "they were cool with God punishing and destroying sinners" to be very off-putting, offensive even. I think this way of looking at things puts God in a very negative light indeed. It seems to me diametrically opposed to everything Jesus taught and did.



Same comment. This language makes me cringe; it seems to echo Satan's mischaracterizations of God's character.

It seems clear we see God very differently. If God were like you present Him as being, I would want nothing to do with Him. I'm guessing the feeling is reciprocal?

Also your comments seem not to take notice of what EGW actually said. First of all, it was not specifically the incarnation that made the difference, but the cross. Secondly, she brings out that the angels expected God to act in one way (punish and destroy, as you put it) but God actually acted another (Plan of Salvation). So if the angels knew God's character so well, why were they amazed? They should simply have expected the Plan of Salvation, not have been amazed by it.



This #1 you list was in error. They *thought* the time had come to strike the blow of justice, *but* something else happened instead.



Regarding this comment, I presented Acts 2, which says that Christ was killed. Jesus' words are indicating that He gave His life willingly, as Isa. 53 brings out. They don't imply He wasn't killed.

Again, the words of Peter:





Now you've got too things different from what I was quoting.



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



This is the wrong question! That *any* angels rebelled shows they weren't secure.



Read the 5SDABC 1132 quote. The answers to your questions are there.



Jesus Christ isn't the Lamb of God to the angels. He's the Lamb of God to men. The following breathtakingly beautiful passage brings this out:

Do you see this as something God did, or sin? That is, on the cross Christ "became sin" for us (another metaphor!) which means something. From my point of view, this expresses the effect that sin had upon Him, as opposed to something that God did to Him.



I'm not following your reasoning here. You misquoted EGW, I corrected you, and you take this as reason to take it that I agree with you? Please explain your reasoning here.



No, MM. NONE of the angels were secure. Not a single one. Their rebelling, or not rebelling, was not caused by their security or lack of it. Satan made an argument, and some of the chose to buy his argument and stand by his side, and some of the chose not to. The SOP points out that the angels are "not secure" except as they look to the sufferings of Christ. Thus the could not have become secure until they did so.

The whole point of the 5SDABC 1132 passage is that the cross secured the universe. In a nutshell: "That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven....All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God."

I think the points that followed in your post have been dealt with by the above comments.

Where did Satan say this? I only see you saying this from anything in your post.



As I pointed out, from the beginning Satan has attempted two things:

1.Make God such a one as himself.
2.Present himself as being like God.

He presented God as harsh and severe, ready to punish someone for the least infraction, self-centered, and not having the interests of His creatures at heart. On the other hand, he presented himself as being fair and aboveboard, simply interested in the welfare of others.

Remember that Satan desired the homage of God's creatures from the beginning. What better way of accomplishing this than by impersonating Christ?



This is again looking at things simply from a physical perspective. Your comments imply you think sin is innocuous. It isn't. It causes death. This point is stated by both Scripture and the SOP in many ways. "The soul that sins shall die." "The wages of sin is death." "The sting of death is sin." "And sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." "The inevitable result of sin is death."

Here's an especially fine statement:



The "fatal effects of sin" can only be "removed" by looking to the cross; by doing this, Christ can "heal" the repenting sinner. Here are all the vital elements:

1.Sin causes death ("fatal effects of sin")
2.These effects must be removed.
3.The sinner is healed from these effects by looking to Christ.



You're confusing Ellen White with God here. It was God who said, "I will destroy thee, O covering cherub." Ellen White quoted Ezekiel, who was relaying God's words. EGW also quoted from Malachi. She then explained her understanding of these prophecies by stating that the death of the wicked is not an act of power from God, but the result of their own choice. Over and over she makes this point, 6 times in one paragraph.



We've already discussed this. I gave you an analogy. Say the air we breath is poisoned, so that if we breath we die. Living by receiving the love of God is as natural as breathing. That the love of God should cause anyone to die shows what a deadly thing sin is. Remember, the same thing that gives life to the righteous, the revelation of God's character of love, is what slays the wicked. God doesn't do something arbitrary to the wicked that makes them die. Sin makes them die. He reveals His character to both the righteous and the wicked, and for one group the result is life and for the other it's death.





No, this would be the alternative she says it is not, an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.



Only if you don't read the paragraph, and the following one, in context. If she were making an argument that God was executing the wicked, not capriciously, but for a good reason, your suggestion would make sense. But this isn't her argument. Her argument is that it is not God's act of power that results in their death, but instead it is a result of their own choice. Their choice had so ruined their character that they cannot abide God's presence. This is what she argues.



But this just begs the question of what causes death. Does God cause death, or sin? That's the whole question. If Satan can get us to think that God is responsible for death rather than sin, this wins him all sorts of battles.

1.He is off the hook for being responsible for causing death.
2.Sin is innocuous, not a bad thing of itself, but something which God doesn't like, so He kills those who do it.
3.God is feared rather than loved.
4.God is seen as severe and harsh, one who will kill you if you dare to act contrary to His will.



You said:



You claim Satan said the opposite thing that God said, and that Satan was right. Therefore, according to you, God was wrong. I think God was right and Satan was wrong.



I don't look at this the same way you do. You see sin as not lethal. I do. I see it as having fatal effects that must be removed, and that sinners must be healed of these effects. If God had not implemented the Plan of Salvation, there would have been no healing from these fatal effects.





Actually it's not grammar, but diction.



Rather than complain that my correction of your posts is tedious, have you considered that having to parse confusing statements like this my be tedious to your reader? Perhaps you might consider proof-reading your posts?

Regarding the texts you cited, you cite these as if God did these things. Over and over you cite texts that seem to present God in a negative light. But there are explanations to these texts, that present God in a right light, in harmony with the character which Christ presented. For example, in regards to the Ex. 34:6, 7 text:



This isn't something God does at all! Once more, again, this is an example of what sin does. "This fearful truth should have a solemn power to restrain men from following a course of sin."

God "visits iniquity" by permitting the law of cause and effect outlined by the SOP to play out.



Sorry, I didn't follow this.

Thank you, Tom, for being so patient with me. I realize studying with me requires a lot of love and kindness on your part. It is obvious that all the time you spend hanging out with Jesus is paying off. He is rubbing off on you.

I believe the angels were secure against evil before Lucifer rebelled. I believe they become more and more secure against evil each passing day. The cross, more than anything else, accounts for why affliction shall not arise a second time.

The angels have been comfortable with God commanding them to punish and destroy impenitent sinners since shortly after the fall of A&E. They are also comfortable with God punishing and destroying them Himself. And, they are also comfortable with God permitting evil angels to do it.

I believe sinners will suffer and die in the lake of fire due to three things: 1) fire from above, 2) fire from below, and 3) the fire light of God's glory. Sin alone is not what kills sinners. When sin is exposed to the unveiled glory of God sinners suffer and die.

The Google Bot was actually looking at this thread, which also drew my attention to it and the fact that the thread died after two important questions were asked by Mike, therefore, I thought I would bump this question for a response.

What two questions are you referring to?