What passage in particular makes that seem obvious? I agree with the thought that Christ's death wouldn't have been necessary, but don't know why you would think this is obvious. Christ's death secured the universe, making clear Satan's true character. The questions Satan asked would have had to have been answered somehow.



It couldn't have been settled in the beginning. I don't know what you're thinking. Again, somehow the questions which Satan raised would have had to have been dealt with. DA 764 explains that if God, in the beginning, as you put it, had left Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished, but it would not have been clear what was happening. The cross made clear that the death that sin is the wages of looks like.



No! Jesus doesn't end the Great Controversy. Unfortunately, the EGW website appears to be down, so I can't copy/paste from it right now, but I'll refer to a passage you should be aware of. In the final chapter of the Great Controversy, the scene is described where every knee bows and every tongue confesses; that is, all recognize the righteousness of God's cause. All see that God has been just, righteous, merciful, etc., and has acted with the best interests of His creatures in mind. All see that Satan's charges were without merit.

If Jesus could end the GC, presumably with violence, as this seems to be the way you think, He could have done so at "the beginning," as you suggest, even before Adam and Eve. He could have just wiped out Satan, but, as the DA chapter "It Is Finished" explains, this would have caused more problems than it would have solved, in addition to being totally out of harmony with God's character, and the principles of His government.

If Jesus could end the Great Controversy, He would have done so long ago. This is not something which God can unilaterally do. It's not something which can be done by force, but only by love. Also force is not a principle of God's government, so this whole concept of Jesus ending the Great Controversy is a non-starter for a number of reasons.

We need to understand what the Great Controversy is about and how it started and how it's resolved. In brief:

1.It started when Lucifer raised questions about God's character and government. Lucifer accused God of being unjust, of being severe and harsh, and not having the best interests of His creatures at mind. In short, of being selfish.

2.Lucifer deceived men and angels by misrepresenting God's character.

3.To win the Great Controversy, God must put the lie to Satan's accusations.

4.Christ did so, and won the GC, as far as angels and the unfallen worlds are concerned. Satan was "cast down," as DA 761 or so explains.

5.The GC will be won as far as man is concerned, by the mission of the 144,000, who proclaim the last message of God's character of love (COL 415).

6.The final judgment will reveal that God has been working, from the beginning, to bring sin to an end as quickly as possible. The reason it has taken so long is that it requires the cooperation of His creatures, in particular man, to do so.



How so? You really need to flesh this out. How would the questions regarding God's character and government have been answered? How could God have allowed Satan to reap the full result of his sin without that being misunderstood? What would have caused the statements in DA 764 to have changed?



This is just speaking of Adam and Eve. This isn't addressing the Great Controversy. Of course Adam and Eve would have enjoyed perpetual favor with God if they had been faithful. But how would the issues of the GC have been resolved?



No! Of course not! As DA 764 explains, if God had left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but this would have resulted in an evil seed of doubt emerging. No can do.



The same purpose as when Adam and Eve sinned. As EGW explains in the DA chapter "It Is Finished," time had to be given for Satan to develop the principles of his government. This still would have been the case had Adam and Eve been faithful.



Well, God's not "cool" with that. God doesn't was us to believe things because "He said it," but on the basis of evidence and reason. SC around page 100 (maybe 108) speaks of this; God always gives evidence for our faith. He doesn't was us to believe what He said simply because "He said it," or else there would be no need to provide evidence. But this sort of response would not lead to love, but a robotic type of behavior. God wants love, not robots.



I'm a bit confused as to why you think sin would arise again. Perhaps you could explain this.

After the Great Controversy is settled, every question will have been answered. All of Satan's accusations will have been proven false. God's character and government will have been fully vindicated. The faithful will have made their choice, and that choice will have been vindicated. So why, after all that, would you think sin would arise again? What's the difficulty here? Why do you have a question about this?



Thank you for the kind comments. I don't think sin will will arise again because the Great Controversy will have been settled.



Yes, that's fine. We don't need to discuss it twice.

I don't think this sort of response is helpful. I'm not the one who has suggested that words like "pardon" and "sin" must be redefined in order to maintain a viewpoint that I hold, once contrary statements are found to the contrary. Well might I make this point to you.



Again, this sort of response is uncalled for, IMO. It's obviously sarcastic, and I said nothing of "much finesse." If you wish to take offense at "much finesse," you should address kland, not me.



Same comment. I think the whole tenor of this post was unfortunate (lacking in finesse! )

I guess I was approaching it from a different way but agree with what you said. But what if we should see someone that seems to be God, calling down fire from heaven and burning people alive, how do we know He is not just getting people's attention or meeting them where they are as they are willing to allow Him?

You have several times not taken God at His word. Sometimes you do, other times you don't. Employed for various reasons I cannot understand. A "general principle" comment comes recently to mind. Ellen White's comment has nothing to do with "finesse".

I have thought of more examples but I think one conveys the idea quite clearly. Consider the Inquisition. I would say that most Catholics (and most likely some protestants would be included in these comparisons) would think it was a mistake and whether protestant, Catholics, other religions, or atheists, they all use and have used religion as a tool to manipulate people and get their way. But there most likely are some which think the Inquisition was a "truth", a necessary act, to further the past goals of the church, but would not be needed any more. And then, there are likely a few who see the Inquisition as a "truth" which was quite necessary, nothing was wrong with it, and was quite effective. Those last two groups would find it necessary to use "finesse" to cover it up, the former for what was needed in the past, and the latter to cover up any future needs.

Take truths for what they are. Obviously Tom took offense at you suggesting he did otherwise. They don't need finesse to cover them up or whitewash them. Merely suggesting "finesse" indicates you see a problem with what was done, but rather than sorting it out, you just claim nothing God does is wrong, so therefore what you see as wrong must be right. Those are times (if there are any) when you shouldn't blindly take God at His word, but dig diligently, comparing scripture with scripture to understand what He is saying and why He is saying it.

The failure of A&E made the death of Jesus necessary. Without it, unfallen beings would have eventually rebelled. However, Satan’s accusations would have been debunked had A&E succeeded in Eden. As such, unfallen beings, like A&E, would have been “rendered eternally secure” and would have enjoyed “perpetual favor with God”. Ellen wrote – “When Adam and Eve were placed in the beautiful garden they had everything for their happiness which they could desire. But God chose, in His all-wise arrangements, to test their loyalty before they could be rendered eternally secure. They were to have His favor, and He was to converse with them and they with Him. Yet He did not place evil out of their reach. Satan was permitted to tempt them. If they endured the trial they were to be in perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels.” {LHU 20.3}


I believe unfallen beings, like A&E, would have been “rendered eternally secure” and would have enjoyed the “perpetual favor with God” had A&E succeeded in Eden.


Again, none of these last 6000 years of GC would have been necessary had A&E succeeded in Eden. But because they failed, these last 6000 years have been necessary.


A&E’s obedience and faithfulness in Eden would have disproved Satan’s accusations. It would have allowed to end the GC without jeopardizing the security of the universe. As it is, at the end of the GC, it will be the obedience and faithfulness of the 144,000 that ultimately disproves Satan’s accusations and proves the claims of God. “Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve.“ {DA 761.3}


Unless, of course, A&E’s success in Eden disproved Satan’s accusations.


Maybe so. But the entire universe would have been placed beyond Satan’s power to tempt and deceive. “They were also to be exposed to the temptations of Satan; but if they endured the trial, they would finally be placed beyond his power, to enjoy perpetual favor with God.” {CC 13.2}


Your answer above resembles - "God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me."


I totally believe God’s promise, prophecy in Nahum 1:9. I do not doubt it for a moment. God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously, therefore, He knows no one will ever sin again.


Your answer places a lot of faith in FMAs.

This is a good question! I know of people with what I consider a very positive view of God overall who believe that God did things like this as an emergency measure. I think the answer to your question come back to Jesus Christ as the revelation of God. What did Jesus Christ reveal? I think we come closes to the truth, closes to deciphering these things, by considering Christ's life and teachings above all, as the baseline.

Here's the statement I'm aware of which speaks to this:



I don't read this as saying that it was certain that unfallen beings would have rebelled had Christ not died, but that they might have. The universe was secured by removing this possibility.



God created millions of worlds. Why couldn't they have been debunked in one of those? Also, had one of those fallen, Christ would have gone to that world instead of ours.

How do you see that humanity's success would have put the lie to Satan's claims? Please flesh this out.



This doesn't speak to my questions.



Why?



They wouldn't have been necessary for the redemption of humanity, but Satan's claims would still have remained to be answered.



There still would have been the questions Satan raised to be dealt with.



Actually, it's diametrically opposed. "God always gives evidence for our faith" is a completely different principle than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me." You don't see this?



You didn't respond to my questions. Perhaps you didn't understand them. Should I try again?



An interesting response. FMAs have to decide the contest, so I think there's merit in the idea that God must place faith in FMAs. The GC is not something God can unilaterally settle.

“A doubt of God’s goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.” I take this at face value. I do not assume she assumed her readers would interpret what she wrote to mean the evil seed of doubt might have ended in sin and woe. She plainly said it “would have” produced deadly fruit.


No doubt Satan rebelled after they were created. In the case of A&E, they were created after he rebelled. Rejecting and resisting his temptation would have disproved everything he was saying about God’s kingdom and character. The same thing will happen when the 144,000 reject and resist his temptation during Jacob’s time of trouble. Since it will work for the 144,000 it stands to reason to believe it would have worked for A&E. Obedience and faithfulness disproves Satan’s accusations and proves God’s claims.


You omitted your questions here. Are you referring to this post: “I agree with the thought that Christ's death wouldn't have been necessary, but don't know why you would think this is obvious. Christ's death secured the universe, making clear Satan's true character. The questions Satan asked would have had to have been answered somehow.” If so, then, as a baseline, we know A&E’s success in Eden would have “rendered eternally secure” the entire universe. This, obviously, implies Satan’s accusations would have been rendered groundless and absurd. Otherwise, how can they be “rendered eternally secure” and enjoy “perpetual favor with God”?


See responses above.


But A&E’s success in Eden would have “rendered eternally secure” the entire universe and they would have enjoyed “perpetual favor with God”. So, how do you explain this if, as you seem to think, Satan’s accusations would have remained unanswered? That is, how could unfallen beings be “rendered eternally secure” and enjoy “perpetual favor with God” if, in reality, they are still unsure why Satan’s accusations are groundless and absurd? Would not the evil seed of doubt remain to produce the deadly fruit of sin and woe?


See response above.


Again, you omitted the post I was referring to, hence, your confusion. Here’s what you wrote – “We're told that sin won't arise again. That must mean that there aren't any possibilities that include FMAs sinning, right?” I, on the other hand, believe Nahum 1:9 is true because God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously and can say so based on the fact eternity has already played out without a repetition of rebellion. Of course, one of the many reasons why (we don’t know all the reasons why yet) FMAs did not choose to rebel is because Satan’s accusations were disproven and God’s claims were proven.

But I still find it hard to understand why Lucifer chose to rebel in the first place. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He never changes. Lucifer was thoroughly familiar with the kingdom and character of God. He was convinced God was right and he was wrong before he decided to rebel openly against God. And yet it didn’t deter him. Why? And, how and why will the same insights serve to deter a repetition of rebellion in the future? It didn’t deter it in the first place, how can we be so sure it will deter it in the future?


Yes, please.


And yet you seem to think had A&E rejected and resisted Satan’s temptation in Eden it would not have disproved Satan’s accusations and proved God’s claims about His kingdom and character. Why?

No, no, MM. You're reading into this.

She said, "A doubt of God’s goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe."

It's ironic that you write that you take this at face value, when what you're really doing is adding to what she said. It's like hatching a deadly snake. Does the snake exist, ready to do damage? Yes. (this is like the doubt, ready to product deadly fruit). Will it cause damage? It might or might not.

But all of this is sort of side-stepping the main point, which is that Satan raised certain questions, questions which had to be dealt with, and were dealt with by Christ's ministry, culminating in His death. Had God dealt with the questions by allowing Satan to die, that would not have ended the doubts raised by Satan. The only way to defeat Satan was to allow the principles of his government, and his character, to develop, and be contrasted to those of God.

The parable of the tares is an illustration of this. Rather than taring up the tares before they could be properly identified, they are allowed to mature, so their contrast to non-tares is clearly seen.



This doesn't make sense. It would make more sense if one of the worlds created *before* Lucifer's fall resisted him, because they would know more of what was going on. Knowing *more* and resisting would have done more to disprove Satan's claims than knowing less would.



This isn't the same thing at all. Human nature was impacted by the fall. The 144,000 overcome in fallen flesh. That's crucial to what the 144,000 does. They demonstrate that fallen humanity can overcome. This wouldn't have been an issue had A & E not fallen.



But these are different questions, MM! The 144,000 answer the question as to whether fallen humanity is "safe to save." They also demonstrate God's character to a fallen world, as a last chance, before Christ comes again. But how to they answer Satan's questions before the fall? And why couldn't some other race have done so?



But all the other worlds were already doing this! They were already obedient and faithful, and had overcome Satan's temptations.



Why do you think this? EGW just said it would render A & E secure, right?



Satan raised questions about God before the entire universe; especially among the holy angels. A & E had a test to pass. Had they passed their test, they would have been secure, as the other worlds were. But this doesn't discuss Satan's accusations. How would these have been answered?



Why do you think this? How would it have done so?



I didn't say anything one way or the other. *You* claimed what A & E did would render secure the universe. I'm asking you to explain how; to back your claim.



This isn't the context of her statement. She's just talking about their not falling for Satan's temptation at the forbidden tree. She's saying they would have been safe had they done so. But they wouldn't have been any more safe than the other worlds who had already done so. Yet the questions still remained. That she says they would have been safe doesn't mean the questions were answered, any more than that the other worlds didn't fall for Satan's temptations meant they were answered.

If you're going to answer the question, you need to consider what Satan's accusations were, and how Adam and Eve's behavior could have shed light in regards to those accusations.



No, I didn't omit it; I quoted from it! I wrote it! I know what I was arguing. What I quoted was the essence of my point, a point I repeated several times, and developed. If you missed this, you missed the whole point of what I was getting across.



This is simple logic, right? I brought this out for your benefit, because you were asking some questions that seemed rather odd. However, this was just a passing comment. If you take a look at what I wrote, you'll see that the point was what I quoted; that was the essence.



*This* sounds like "God says it, I believe it," etc., a phrase which you've uttered many times. You're not giving a reason for why sin should not arise again. I have given such a reason, in a couple of different ways.



Good! A reason.



At the time the Lucifer rebelled, the Great Controversy had not occurred. Now it has, so the situation is not the same. Now the questions have been answered. Then they hadn't been.

Tom, I believe the quotes I posted imply the entire universe would have been "rendered eternally secure" had A&E succeeded in Eden. I cannot imagine A&E enjoying "perpetual favor with God" while the rest of the universe is in doubt and peril. I understand you disagree. You believe they (the quotes I posted) mean only A&E would have been "rendered eternally secure", only A&E would have enjoyed "perpetual favor with God", Satan's accusations would have remained unanswered, and the rest of the universe would have been unarmed against the evil seed of doubt and at risk of sinning and rebelling. Or, have I misunderstood you? If not,

PS - You wrote - "I agree with the thought that Christ's death wouldn't have been necessary, but don't know why you would think this is obvious." Why do you believe the death of Jesus would have been unnecessary if A&E had succeeded in Eden?