Old Tom:What difference would it make… Sure it does. It even lists the sins, which I pointed out to you.

MM:It makes a difference to me. Please provide a quote where Sister White referred to Lucifer’s activities, before God offered to restore him, as sins. I realize you don’t think it matters, but if you’re going to base an entire doctrine on it then it would be nice to substantiate it.

Tom: I've substantiated this several time. First of all, she listed the sins. They include misreprenting God's character, lying, being devious and secretive. Surely you know these things are sins.

Secondly she tells us God offered to pardon Satan "again and again." This shows that not only did Satan sin, but he did so knowingly, because he was offered pardon repeatedly. He might have been ignorant the first time, but he wasn't after he was offered it "again", let along "again and again."

Thirdly she tells us that the condition of pardon was submission and "repentance". Repentance and pardon are only necessary in the case of sin.

Old Tom: The quotes cover different things.

MM:Do they? Show me. What is so different about the two quotes?

Tom: If your quote is different than mine, then it is talking about something else. Right? How could that not be the case? If is the same as mine, then it agrees with it, so you have two quotes saying what my quote says. You were the one maintaining your quote was different. If you want to assert they are the same, that's fine. Then we would have two quotes establishing that Satan sinned.

Old Tom: Satan committed the unpardonable sin when he placed himself in open rebellion in the full knowledge of who God was and that he (Satan) was wrong.

MM: I agree. But not before. Lucifer did not sin.

Tom: Sure he did. Just not unpardonably. That he sinned is clear for the reasons I gave above.

MM: But when Lucifer became Satan he was guilty of sinning.

Tom: Unpardonably sinning that should be.

MM: Neither Lucifer nor Eve was guilty of sinning before they committed themselves to open rebellion.

Tom: Eve never did sin unpardonably. That was just Satan. They both sinned, but only one unpardonably. Satan would have been pardoned on the condition of submission and respentance.

MM: Questioning God’s law and authority does not, in and of itself, constitute a sin, at least not until it turns into open rebellion.

Tom: No, this is incorrect. One can sin without placing oneself in open rebellion.

Old Tom:God implores us, “Come now, and let us reason together.”

The Bible is talking about humans. For humans there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood… The Bible doesn't address the question.

MM: Okay, so whatever we read in the SOP is open to private interpretation?

Tom: I see elipses here, which makes me suspicious. Why don't you quote what I wrote without elipses, and then we can discuss it.

MM: That doesn’t sound safe. Are you absolutely sure the Bible doesn’t say anything about whether or not the same principles that apply to us apply to other FMAs? Does God have one standard for us and another one for angels?

Tom: God has the same stand for all FMA's, but the circumstances of FMA's differ. For Satan, who sinned in the full light of knowing God's character, nothing more could be done. For man, who did not know the height and depth and length and breadth of God's love, something could be done. God could make Himself known to man, which is just what He did. It was the circumstances of man which led to God's taking the actions He did, not some arbitrary requirement on God's part.

Old Tom: My argument is that if the reason blood had to be shed was to make it possible for God to pardon man, then why wasn't it necessary for blood to be shed in order to pardon Satan? This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me, and one for which I have not received an answer.

MM: But your question assumes something that I totally disagree with.

Tom: How can you disagree with the assertion that God offered Satan pardon? Here's the statement:

quote:

---

Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. (GC 495)

---

MM: So, I have answered your question - God cannot pardon sin without blood.

Tom: According to EGW He would have pardoned Satan on the condition of repentance and submission. Nothing about blood was mentioned.

MM: Just because you believe this principle truth didn't apply to Lucifer before he committed himself to open rebellion doesn't make it so.

Tom: That's true, but the fact that the Spirit of Prophesy states that God offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance and submission does make it so.

MM: Again, Justice demands that the death penalty be executed. Why? Was it only to demonstrate God's self-sacrificing love? Or, does it mean more? What penalty did Jesus suffer and satisfy?

Tom: Well, let's consider Satan. He sinned, yet was offered pardon. Yet there was no blood involved. Why? I believe the answer is given here:

quote:

---

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer 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. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God.(DA 761, 762)

---

The difference in circumstances between Satan and man had to do with the light they had regarding God's character. According to the Spirit of Prophesy, the whole purpose of Christ's mission was to reveal God's character in order to set man right with God, so from that I surmise that Christ's death was involved with that:

quote:

---

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90)

---

MM:
“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” {1SM 340.1}

“Jesus suffered the extreme penalty of the law for our transgression, and justice was fully satisfied… Its demands have been met, its authority maintained… Was the penalty remitted because He was the Son of God? Were the vials of wrath withheld from Him who was made sin for us? Without abatement the penalty fell upon our divine-human Substitute.” {HP 15.5}

Tom: Certainly it was necessary for Christ to die. But why? The answer given by Scripture was to bring us to God:

quote:

---

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.(1 Pet. 3:18)

---

Interesting, this is the same reason EGW gives (see the above quote from ST 1/20/90). So I surmise that justice is satisfies when man is brought back to God. In fact, if we consider what "justice" means from a Scriptural perspective, we see that it means just this -- to bring back into harmony that which off kilter. God's way of doing this is by mercy and compassion.

quote:

---

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.(Zech 7:9)

---

quote:

---

And therefore the Lord [earnestly] waits [expecting, looking, and longing] to be gracious to you; and therefore He lifts Himself up, that He may have mercy on you and show loving-kindness to you. For the Lord is a God of justice. (Isa. 30:18)

---

The justice which needed to be satisfied was not an arbitrary required which God needed, or else God could not have offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance without death. But God was able to do that, because Satan already knew God's character. Man did not, so God revealed it to man, so that he could be set right with Him. Simple and elegant.

Old Tom: 1) I've substantiated this several time.

2) One can sin without placing oneself in open rebellion.

3) The justice which needed to be satisfied was not an arbitrary required which God needed, or else God could not have offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance without death.

MM: I am not at all convinced.

Tom: That's not surprising.

MM: You have yet to post a quote where she herself said, without any interpretive help from you, that Lucifer was guilty of sinning before he became Satan, that is, before he committed himself to open rebellion.

Tom: She said, without any interpretive help from me, that "again and again" God offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentence and submission. She also listed, without any help from me, what Satan's sins were, which included lying in order to exalt himself. Plus the fact that God offered this pardon "again and again" indicates that Satan knew he was doing wrong.

MM: Nor have you quoted anything that says his sin could have been forgiven or pardoned without blood.

Tom: All that was mentioned was "repentance and submission." No blood was mentioned. Blood would not have availed for Satan, because he already knew God's character.

MM: Also, why don’t you think Eve sinned when she doubted God’s word before she ate the fruit? She even misrepresented God’s character by adding to His word. Lucifer was in the same position before he committed himself to open rebellion.

Tom: This is a rediculous comparison. Eve did not intentionally add a word to God's statement for the purpose of mispresenting God's character. Satan was wilfully misrepresenting God's character for the express purpose of exalting himself. Eve wasn't doing anything remotely like that.

As to why Eve didn't sin before eating of the fruit, the command was to not eat of the fruit. Eve was on the road to sinning when she starting thinking about it, but there wasn't an actual sin committed until she made the decision to eat.

MM: I agree with you that after Eve and Satan were guilty of sinning, that one was offered probation and the other was not, and for the same reasons you named.

Tom: Satan was offered pardon, on the condition of repentance and submission.

You have a funny way of saying you agree with things which do not represent what other people are saying. That's not pleasant for the people reading what you've written.

Old Tom: She also listed, without any help from me, what Satan's sins were, which included lying in order to exalt himself.

MM: She never once referred to them as sins.

Tom: Do you think lying is a sin? Do you think intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation is a sin?

Old Tom: This is a rediculous comparison.

MM: Do you speak like that to Jesus? “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Mat 25:40) Are you getting tired of me asking you to watch your words? Well, consider these words. "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." (Col 4:6) "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mat 12:37)

Tom: Here's what you wrote:

quote:

---

MM: Also, why don’t you think Eve sinned when she doubted God’s word before she ate the fruit? She even misrepresented God’s character by adding to His word. Lucifer was in the same position before he committed himself to open rebellion.

---

You don't like "absurd" and "rediculous" is bad. How about "silly"? Perhaps "illogical"? "unreasonable". Let's go with that. I apologize for the "rediculous" comment. I will replace it with "this is an unreasonable comparison". I should have used a less pejorative word. Please accept my apology. If you like one of the other words better, please let me know. Also let me know if you object to "unreasonable." It is not my intention to upset you, but merely to call attention to the nature of the comparison, which is like comparing a mountain to a molehill.

I will not tire of you calling my attention to words that are too sharp. That's a very reasonable thing for you to do, and I'll keep trying to strike the right balance.

Old Tom: Satan was offered pardon, on the condition of repentance and submission.

MM: God didn’t offer Satan pardon, instead He offered Lucifer pardon.

Tom: He offered the being formally known as Lucifer pardon. He offered the pardon to the same being. The being had sinned repeatedly, and so was offered pardon repeatedly ("again and again").

Old Tom: No blood was mentioned. Blood would not have availed for Satan, because he already knew God's character.

MM: You seem to be taking a lot of liberties here. Where does it say in the Bible or the SOP that God offered to pardon Lucifer’s sin, if he repented, without blood? I’m not asking for your logical deductions, I’m asking for an inspired statement that doesn’t require human reasoning.

Tom: I quoted the statement. Satan was offered pardon "again and again" under the condition of "repentance and submission". It is you who would be taken liberties if you were to add the idea the blood was required, since the stated condition was "repentance and submission." I don't need to supply a quote for something which isn't mentioned. That's an unreasonable request.

Hello folks, I have been away for some time.

I think it would be meaningful if MM would clarify what defines “sin” in his mind.

At what point does “wrong” become “sin”?
What is required before “bearing false witness” would be “sin”?
Why?

John, welcome back. I’m going to repost something I posted earlier, only this time I’m quite sure you will not labeled it “ridiculous” and “unreasonable” as it was termed earlier.

quote:

---

Also, why don’t you think Eve sinned when she doubted God’s word before she ate the fruit? She even misrepresented God’s character by adding to His word. Lucifer was in the same position before he committed himself to open rebellion.

---

Eve believed, before she actually ate the forbidden fruit, before she actually sinned, that God was unjust. That is exactly what Lucifer believed before he sinned. Neither Eve nor Lucifer was guilty of sinning when they believed God was unjust. It was not until they actually sinned that they became guilty of sinning. Eve was also guilty of coveting or looking "with longing desire" for something that was forbidden, an obvious violation of the tenth commandment.

quote:

---

And the serpent answered Eve that the command of God, forbidding them to eat of the tree of knowledge, was given to keep them in such a state of subordination that they should not obtain knowledge, which was power. He assured her that the fruit of this tree was desirable above every other tree in the garden to make them wise, and to exalt them equal with God. He has, said the serpent, refused you the fruit of that tree which, of all the trees, is the most desirable for its delicious flavor and exhilarating influence. {Con 13.3}

Eve thought that the serpent's discourse was very wise, and that the prohibition of God was unjust. She looked with longing desire upon the tree laden with fruit which appeared very delicious. The serpent was eating it with apparent delight. She longed for this fruit above every other variety which God had given her a perfect right to use. {Con 14.1}

Eve had overstated the words of God's command. He had said to Adam and Eve, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." In Eve's controversy with the serpent, she added "Neither shall ye touch it." {Con 14.2}

---

What is sin? Apparently sinless beings can view God as "unjust" and covet something unlawful and not be guilty of sinning. Of course, the same thing cannot be said of sinful beings.

Old Tom:If you like one of the other words better, please let me know.

MM: How about just sticking with the topic without any negative comments? They do not add to the discussion in the least, and at worst they make it unpleasant. Try sticking to the topic and see what you think. It you discover you cannot make your point without making those types of comments then we can discuss our options at that time. Deal?

Tom: If you make a falacious argument I should be able to point that out. However, I should do so in a way that does not offend you, if possible. I do not with to personally offend you, only point out the unreasonbleness of the argument. One can make a foolish argument without being foolish, for example. The comment is attached to the argument, not to you personally.

Old Tom: Do you think lying is a sin? Do you think intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation is a sin?

MM: Yes. But if you are asking if I think Lucifer sinned before God offered to restore him, then, no, I do not believe that at all. Nowhere does Sister White say so.

Tom: You're contradicting yourself here because Sister White does say that Lucifer/Satan was intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation, which you agree is sin.

Old Tom: He offered the pardon to the same being.

MM: According to this quote Lucifer and Satan were essentially two different beings. God created Lucifer, but Lucifer created Satan.

"He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. {PP 39.1}

"He persistently defended his own course, and fully committed himself to the great controversy against his Maker. Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}

Tom: I agree with this, but Lucifer did not become Satan because of a single act. It was a long drawn out process that brought him to the point of committing the unpardonable sin. It was not a misstep or single act of rebellion that led to Lucifer's being lost, but willful, persistent, prolonged rebellion over a long period of time.

Old Tom: It is you who would be taken liberties if you were to add the idea the blood was required, since the stated condition was "repentance and submission."

MM: Actually, I agree with you that blood was not required, but for different reasons. You believe it was because God did not require blood to atone for Satan’s sin since he sinned with full knowledge of God’s love and character.

Tom: No, this isn't quite it. What Sister White said is that because Satan persisted in his course with the full knowledge of God's character, there was nothing more which could be done for him. The issue was not one of God not requiring blood for some reason, but of blood not availing. God doesn't require blood; we do. God is already right. We are the ones who need to be set right.

MM: I believe blood was not required because Lucifer wasn’t guilty of sinning.

Tom: But he misrepresented God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation, which you agree is sin. So he was guilty of sinning. Plus he was offered pardon "again and again," so he was no only guilty of sinning, but of repeatedly sinning, and not just repeatedly but knowingly.

MM: The Bible says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:22) But Tom says, “This is true for humans but not for Satan in heaven.” Do you really expect anyone to take your word above the word of God?

Tom: The Bible was addressing humans. MM, do you ever think of asking why questions? Like why is there no remission of sin without the shedding of blodd? There's not a verse in all of Scripture which states it is to satisfy some requirement of God's, or to appease His wrath, or to enable Him to forgive us. The reasons which are given deal with our being reconciled to God.

Yes, the shedding of blood was a terrible necessity, because this was the only way we could be brought to God.

That is wasn't required for angels is evident from
Sister White wrote. God would have pardoned Lucifer/Satan had he repented. There was no blood involved, so that blood is required for the remission of sin is not an arbitrary requirement.

MM: Matthew
26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark
1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke
24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Romans
3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

7BC 932
Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. To many it has been a mystery why so many sacrificial offerings were required in the old dispensation, why so many bleeding victims were led to the altar. But the great truth that was to be kept before men, and imprinted upon mind and heart, was this, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." In every bleeding sacrifice was typified "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." {7BC 932.8}

Tom: The word translated "remission" here is "a[fesiß" which means forgivenss or pardon. Now pardong and justification are one in the same (FW 103)

Given that "remssion" means "pardon" which is the same thing as justification, we can see that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin because without the shedding of blood there is no justification.

quote:

---

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8.(DA 175, 176)

---

How are we saved? By beholding the Lamb of God, who love, shining from the cross, leads us to reprentance.