Mike, it's too late here, but tomorrow morning I plan to reply to your post.

She says that Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong, and given the opportunity to confess his sin. *After* that, Lucifer resorted to the misrepresentations. *After* resorting to misrepresentations, she says that Lucifer made his final decision.



The "misrepresentations" are the intentional misrepresentations Lucifer resorted to after being clearly shown to be wrong.

Also, note that she writes, "Again and again was he offered pardon." She doesn't just say that Lucifer had one chance to confess his sin, but "again and again" he was given this opportunity.

She also says that he was long retained in heaven, not only after he first began to indulge the spirit of discontent and insubordination, but "nor even" when he began his misrepresentations.

Here she uses the word "misrepresentation" in regards to what Lucifer was doing:



This is *after* he was shown to be wrong, but before being banished from heaven. (see the "nor even" statement).

He was sentenced to being banished from heaven after he had fallen, of course. And he fell after his final refusal to confess his sin and submit to God's authority. Then he began to resort to open lies - to misrepresentation of even the words and acts of the Creator. Before his fall, he had been offered the opportunity to repent several times.


Here she is recapitulating the story, and goes back in time.

R: The fact that Satan said God was dealing unjustly with him, that God was unjust, and that the law was restrictive of liberty, were, all of them, false claims and lying representations. This, however, does not necessarily mean that these were intentional lies – it was the way how he saw things at that time. However, after he saw he was wrong and fell, he began to lie intentionally.

Tom, I agree with Rosangela's understanding of these paragraphs. God labored long with Lucifer to help him understand his new and strange thoughts and feelings. He was not guilty of "intentional lies". They were simply new and strange thoughts and feelings he was wrestling with to understand. He was not convinced they were right and true.

However, I also happen to believe he was not guilty of sinning ignorantly. He wasn't ignorant of what he was doing. He was fully aware of the fact that he was wrestling with thoughts and feelings that would lead to unrest and rebellion if determined to be right and true. But it wasn't a sin to try and "reason" them out.

Thus, he wasn't guilty of sinning until the moment he was convinced his conclusions were wrong and he chose to pursue them anyhow "at all hazards" because "pride forbade him to submit" to God's authority. He was allowed to remain in heaven for a short time after he reached this point of no return.

The explanation doesn't work, because it assumes that Lucifer was given to confess his sin was his only opportunity. She writes that

1.Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin.
2.THEN he resorted to misrepresentations, false claims, and so forth, to justify his actions.
3.THEN, eventually, he was banished from heaven.

She makes this as clear as can be made by saying



She wrote "NOR EVEN' when he began to present his false claim and lying misrepresentations, which was AFTER he was given an opportunity to confess.



Here was see Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin, and then resorted to misrepresentation, which misrepresentation did not immediately lead to his being banished from heaven. (from the "nor even" statement above).

However, this is even more clearly seen by noting that she wrote that "again and again" Lucifer was offered pardon. Lucifer was not just given one chance to confess his sin, but was given this opportunity "again and again."

So Lucifer was given many opportunities to confess his sin. Do you agree with this? (not the whole thing I've laid out here, but just this one point that Lucifer was given many opportunities to confess his sin).



This doesn't make sense because God gave Lucifer the opportunity to confess his sin. If Lucifer was not guilty of having committed any sin, then he would not have been given the opportunity to confess his sin, nor offered pardon "again and again."

I don't understand how you can read what she wrote and not see that Lucifer sinned. I don't understand how she could have put it any more clearly than writing that he was given an opportunity to confess his sin and offered pardon. How could he confess sin if he had not sinned? How could he be pardoned if he had not sinned?

This is continuing from the paragraph where it says Lucifer was offered pardon again and again (from 4SP 319). Notice it says "he stubbornly justified his course, and maintained he had no need of repentance," and that this is *before* he was banished from heaven.

How did Lucifer stubbornly justify his course?



So, once again, the timing of events is seen to be:

a)Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong.
b)Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin.
c)Lucifer stubbornly justified his course, by misrepresentation.
d)Lucifer was eventually banished from heaven.

One other point to mention is in regards to this sentence:



The "lying representations" here could not have been in ignorance, because lying necessitates the intent to deceive. There is no such thing as ignorantly presenting "lying representations."

Lucifer was not banished when he first began presenting these lying representations, which is to say, there was a period of time where Lucifer was acting with intent to misrepresent God, during which he was not banished from heaven, which is to say, he was not sinning in ignorance.

You are equating "lying representations" with "misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator." This is incorrect, as I had pointed out that this quote shows:

“Satan had excited sympathy in his favor by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ.[= lying representations, before his fall; at this point there were several opportunities of repentance] 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. [= last opportunity] But he chose to carry his points at all hazards. [= fall] To sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator. [= misrepresentation, after his fall]” {4SP 319.1}


No, this just means they were false, not necessarily that they had the intent to deceive.

According to Webster's, "lying" means "false; not truthful."

Let's deal with this first. What you are asserting is incorrect. A lie does not have to do with the veracity of what is said, but with the intent of the person telling the lie. For example, let's say I think you are at home, but you really aren't. A friend asks, "Where is Rosangela?" I say, "She's not at home." This is a lie.



Back to EGW:



Note that "as he stubbornly justified his course, and maintained that he had no need of repentance" implies that time elapsed. So does "again and again he was offered pardon."

According to your point of view, pardon is not needed for sins of ignorance. So since Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again," it must be the case that these were not sins of ignorance that Lucifer was being offered pardon for. Therefore from the time that Lucifer was first offered pardon up until his final decision not to repent, Lucifer was sinning, and not ignorantly.

I'll reply tomorrow, but where have I said this?

You wrote this to MM:



If the least deviation from the requirements of the law is sin, and exposes the sinner to the wrath of God, and God's wrath is never visited upon sins of ignorance, then doesn't it follow that God does not need to pardon them? If there is no exposure to wrath, no "least deviation from its requirement by neglect or willful transgression," why would there be a need for pardon?

EGW wrote that where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. Again, if there is no light, and no sin, and no frown of God, why would there be a need for pardon?

That according to your view, pardon is not needed for sins of ignorance was something I inferred from what you presented to MM.

Also, it stands to reason that God was not offering Lucifer pardon for something he was doing that he didn't know was wrong. That's just common sense. Why would God offer to pardon Lucifer for something Lucifer didn't know was wrong?

First God convinces us that we've done something wrong, and then He moves upon our hearts to repent. That's the way it works.