Tom, thank you for clarifying your belief. I totally disagree with it, but it is nice to know what you believe.

1. The idea that God can, in cases involving FMAs who are very familiar with His character, simply excuse sinning is unsettling.

2. The idea that the only reason Jesus shed His blood was to win our trust and obedience is unsettling.

3. The idea that God does not require death as payment for sinning is unsettling.

4. The idea that God will not punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire is unsettling.

1.God never excuses sin. He pardons sinners.
2.I don't know why it would be unsettling that the death of Jesus would result in obedience. If God has obedient children, what more does He need?
3.I don't know why it would be unsettling that God is willing to forgive us without requiring a payment of some sort.
4.God will punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire. We don't disagree regarding that this will happen, but how.

MM, a question I'd like to ask you is how you can maintain that Lucifer did not sin before his rebellion when the Spirit of Prophecy says that Lucifer was given the chance to "confess his sin" long before his rebellion?

TE: 1. God never excuses sin. He pardons sinners.

MM: What about sins of ignorance?

TE: MM, a question I'd like to ask you is how you can maintain that Lucifer did not sin before his rebellion when the Spirit of Prophecy says that Lucifer was given the chance to "confess his sin" long before his rebellion?

MM: Here's the quote again: "Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous."

You seem to assume God would have pardoned Lucifer without shedding the blood of Jesus. This interpretation, however, is not biblical. God has never pardoned sin without shedding the blood of Jesus.

There is no biblical reason to assume God would have pardoned Lucifer without shedding the blood of Jesus. Neither did Sister White say it. You are only assuming she does based on what you believe is logical deduction.

God does not excuse sin, if "excuse" means what I think it means when you are using it, or were using it when you were using it before (perhaps you have a different meaning in mind now). If you ask your question in more detail, I'll give a more detailed answer.



You didn't answer my question, right? I asked, "how you can maintain that Lucifer did not sin before his rebellion when the Spirit of Prophecy says that Lucifer was given the chance to 'confess his sin' long before his rebellion?" and you reproduced the quote that said what I said it said, and then talked about something else.

I'll address what you brought up, but I'd still like to know the answer to my question.

You say, "God has never pardoned sin without the shedding of blood" but I just presented a case to you where He did (or was willing to). So your statement is false. There is nothing anywhere in the quote, or anywhere else, for that matter, in the many pages where the Spirit of Prophecy discusses this, that says that Christ would need to die for Lucifer. In fact, she explicitly explains why not:



We know from the Spirit of Prophecy that Lucifer sinned, and that over and over again God offered Him pardon on condition of repentance and submission. We know the Spirit of Prophecy nowhere says that Christ had to die for Lucifer in order for God to offer Him pardon. Indeed, we know for a fact, that Christ did not die for Lucifer, and that God did offer him pardon. I'm not deducing anything here by logic; just pointing out what she wrote.

Also I'm not understand why you bring up "logical deduction." Even if it were true that what I said were true on the basis of logical deduction, that would be just as valid a method for determining truth as any other method. God is a God of reason and logic. He invites us to reason together.

The Spirit of Prophecy often speaks of the importance of having sound arguments to present, and of the importance of having positions that can bear up under close scrutiny.

MM: Here's what I mean by the word "excuse": To make allowance for; overlook: "Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/excuse

Does God make allowance for (i.e. overlook) sins of ignorance? Or, does He require the shed blood of Jesus to pardon and atone for sins of ignorance?


MM: As you know, I do not believe her use of the word "sin", in this context, means Lucifer was guilty of sinning willfully. Instead, I believe it means his behavior was sinful.


MM: The reason she doesn't say Jesus would have shed His blood to make good on God's offer to pardon Lucifer is because Lucifer hadn't sinned yet. Once he was guilty of sinning there was nothing God could do to save him. There was no provision in place to save angels should they venture to transgress God's law.

The moment he was guilty of sinning was the moment he was cast down to earth. God did not, as you assert, offer to pardon him without blood after he was guilty of sinning. No! The instant he was guilty of sinning was the instant God could do nothing to save him. Offering to pardon a person guilty of the unpardonable sin is lunacy.

SR 18
Their high and happy state had been held upon condition of obedience to the law which God had given to govern the high order of intelligences. But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. {SR 18.2}

Acts 17:30 says that in times, God winks. The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that where there is no light, there is no sin. When sin comes, then comes the frown of God. What do you understand these statements to mean?

In the Old Testament, the sacrifices for sins of ignorance were to be made *after* they were discovered.

Regarding God's requiring blood, *we* are the ones who require it to be set right with God. God so loved us, He *gave* His Son.





You pointed out that the idea that Lucifer sinned in ignorance was Rosangela's idea, that you didn't think Lucifer sinned at all. Now you are saying that Lucifer did not sin willfully. How is this different than Rosangela's position?

EGW wrote, in the portion I quoted:



Also this:



I'm not understanding why you don't think this is willful sin. Is it because you don't think it is sin, or because you don't think it is willful? I'm not understanding how one could not perceive the following to be describing willful sin: "he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator."
Also it seems to me that seeking one's own honor, leading others to devote themselves to oneself instead of to God is describing willful sin as well.



She says that before Lucifer was banished from heaven, he was given opportunity to confess his sin. So clearly he had sinned, since he was given opportunity to confess it. Also, she says that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again, that he was long retained in heaven *after* he was given opportunity to confess his sin.



This makes no sense. God offered Lucifer pardon again and again. If what you said were true, then that would have God offering Lucifer pardon again and again when he didn't need it (not having sinned), yet refusing to offer it as soon as he actually needed it! Wouldn't that be rather cruel?



Please note the account of what happened:



She says that Lucifer was NOT banished from heaven immediately upon sinning, but was given opportunity to confess it. She makes it clear that Lucifer remained in heaven a long time after being given the opportunity to confess his sin, doesn't she? What is it you think she is saying here?



You seem to be equating "guilty of sinning" with "the unpardonable sin." But if you read EGW's account, you will see she describes the process as gradual, not immediate. She does not say "as soon as Lucifer was guilty of sin, he was banished from heaven," but instead that Lucifer was given opportunity to confess his sin, was long retained in heaven, and over and over again was offered pardon. So clearly Lucifer had not committed the unpardonable sin, sin God was offering to pardon it.

MM: God winks at sins of ignorance. He does not hold us accountable or count us guilty. Instead, He holds Jesus accountable. His death pays our sin debt as if He was guilty. No light, no sin means the same thing.


MM: True. But the continual burnt offering covered sins of ignorance before they were discovered. I realize you reject this insight. So, on this point, we disagree.


MM: On this we totally disagree.


MM: My bad. I do not believe her use of the word "sin", in this context, means Lucifer was guilty of sinning. It means his behavior was sinful. But he wasn't guilty of sinning simply because he was trying to sort out his strange thoughts and feelings. She says, "He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God." {PP 39.1} True, his tactics were sinful, but God tolerated them because at the time it wasn't clear to Lucifer they were sinful. God doesn't tolerate it now because they have been shown to be sinful.


MM: Sister White says there was nothing God could to do to save angels once they chose to transgress the law. Thus He banished them from heaven. But you, on the other hand, are saying angels sinned for a "long time" in heaven, and that God tolerated their place in heaven in spite of knowing there was nothing He could do to save them. It doesn't make sense to me.

SR 18
Their high and happy state had been held upon condition of obedience to the law which God had given to govern the high order of intelligences. But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. {SR 18.2}

DA 761
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}

How does holding Jesus accountable mean the same thing as saying where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. If there is no frown of God, why does anyone need to be held accountable? These seem like two diametrically opposed things, rather than the same thing.



I'm not aware of any evidence that what you are suggesting is true.



It seems to me I'm saying the following:





She says Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin, so that means he sinned, doesn't it?



No, not me. Ellen White.

She wrote that Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin. She says that after this Lucifer was long retained in heaven. It's right in the text I quoted to you. I'll present it again:



I just quoting a bit of it to save space, but I included the full quote previously.

MM: The principle "no light, no sin" is referring to sinning ignorantly. Do you agree?

It is the substitutionary death of Jesus that gives God the legal right to withhold condemnation and punishment for sins committed in ignorance. Do you agree?


MM: Sacrifices atone for sinning. The innocent dies in place of the guilty 1) to pay the sin debt of death, and 2) to make reconciliation between God and the guilty. Specific sacrifices cover specific sins. It was not up to the sinner to decide which sacrifice to offer to cover his particular sin. The law regulated his decision, including what to sacrifice once he becomes aware of a sin he had been committing ignorantly. However, the continual burnt offering did not atone for sins committed intentionally. Instead, it was a general sacrifice offered continually to cover sins committed ignorantly.


MM: It is true that Satan attempts to lead people to believe God "delights in their destruction". As a result some people have "perverted" the meaning of the sacrifices God required. The truth, of course, is quite the opposite. Your quote, however, does not teach God did not require the death of Jesus as a substitute to pay our sin debt of death.

The SOP is clear on this point. She wrote, "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed." She also wrote, "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin."

AG 139
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. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

Jesus died in our place because Justice (God) demanded it. His death also serves to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of God, which can motivate us to love and obey Him. "Death must come in consequence of man's sin." "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed." That's the way of it.


MM: It doesn't mean he sinned in the sense He was guilty of sinning. It means his tactics, the way he was going around talking about God, were sinful. "He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God." He thought what he was doing was right and good, that it would result in improving heaven for everyone. It did not occur to him, at that time, that what he was doing was sinful. He was not going around trying to undermine God, or to unseat Him, or to lead rebellion. He was simply doing what he thought was necessary to improve heaven. He was not guilty of sinning.


MM: Of course that's what she wrote. I'm not disputing it. What I am objecting to is your interpretation, your application of what you think it means. You think it means the angels ventured to transgress the law long before they were cast out, and that God tolerated their place in heaven, until they openly rebelled, in spite of knowing there was nothing He could do to save them. I totally disagree with this interpretation.

1. What is the difference between transgressing the law and rebelling openly?

2. Why does the one necessitate banishment from heaven, whereas the other can be tolerated in heaven?

3. Why can't the one be pardoned without the shed blood of Jesus, whereas the other can?

Of course.



I don't see how even you could think this was true, as you perceive Lucifer's sin to be a sin of ignorance, don't you? (I'm talking about where EGW says that Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin, before being banished from heaven.)

I don't see how your comment about sacrifices atoning for sinning supplies any evidence that the sacrifices held each morning and evening were for sins of ignorance.

Regarding Ellen White's quote, she is contrasting the perception with the reality. The reality is that God, from His own love, provided the sacrifice that reconciles us to Himself. This is as opposed to the wrath of an offended God needing to be propitiated.

This sentiment agrees with what Waggoner wrote:





If He was given the opportunity to confess his sin, it means he must have committed sin. Anyone can see that.



MM, I'm not seeing how you can assert these things given what she actually wrote. She wrote:



Please notice that Lucifer was "shown to be wrong" and that it was *after* this that he was "long retained in heaven." He offered excuses, blamed God, misrepresented God's statements, and so forth. And *still* he was not banished from heaven. All of this is right there in the quote I provided. It's 4SP 319.

So Lucifer was not acting innocently, trying to improve heaven for everyone. He was trying to excuse his own actions, and by misrepresentations convince people to believe him instead of God.




Have you read 4SP 319? I'm not understanding how you're getting the conclusions you are.



1.Instead of changing their wrong course, they manifest great indignation against the reprover, as if he were the sole cause of difficulty. (She has Satan's actions specifically in mind here; see the paragraph previous to the one this comes from.)

2.Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin.

3.Satan chose to carry his points at all hazards. To sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator.

4.Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission.

Satan was clearly shown to be wrong, but rather than admit his error, he resorted to misrepresentation of God. Even after this, he was long retained in heaven.



This is your interpretation of what I've said. These are your words, not mine.

What I have said is what Sister White said. She said that Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong. She said that he was given an opportunity to confess his sin. She said that instead of doing this, he sought to justify his actions by misrepresenting God. She said that Lucifer, even after this, was long retained in heaven, and over and over again offered pardon.

These are all her words. I haven't offered the interpretation you've suggested. I've been repeating these words of hers.



You mean in general, or in Lucifer's case?



I think I can best answer this with a quote:



Lucifer was long retained in heaven, and again and again offered pardon. There came a point when there was nothing more God could do to help him.



It's not a question of God's not being able to pardon. God is always willing to forgive. The problem is the sinner so hardens His heart that He no longer is willing or able to respond to the Holy Spirit.

What requires the shed blood of Christ is the revelation of God's love and character:



God would have given Christ as a sacrifice for Lucifer as readily as for man if it would have done any good.