Tom, from your other posts above I understand you believe Lucifer was guilty of revolting, rebelling and that God was willing to pardon and reinstate him without shedding the blood of Jesus.

One possible explanation could be the following:

We can observe that some sins of ignorance can bar the entrance into God’s kingdom but won’t be visited by God’s wrath – won’t be punished. (See for instance the case of the slaves who will not be resurrected to die the second death.) Thus, a native in Africa may be condemned by the wrong things he did despite the warnings of his conscience (Rom. 2:12-16), but he will not be condemned for the sin, for instance, of not having observed the Sabbath. Nobody will be condemned and punished by the light which has not reached their understanding.
Why will these sins then bar the unsaved’s entrance into God’s kingdom? Perhaps because those who committed them are incapable of seeing their gravity and of experiencing genuine repentance for them.
One of the main objectives of Christ’s death was to teach man the gravity of sin. Adam and Eve didn’t feel the gravity of their sin until the death of the first lamb – until they understood that they had killed God Himself because of their sin. Without this sacrifice, they wouldn’t have understood it.

“Man had separated himself at such distance from God by transgression of His law that he could not humiliate himself before God in any degree proportionate to the magnitude of his sin. The Son of God could fully understand the aggravating sins of the transgressor, and in His sinless character He alone could make an acceptable atonement for man in suffering the agonizing sense of His Father's displeasure. The sorrow and anguish of the Son of God for the sins of the world were proportionate to His divine excellence and purity, as well as to the magnitude of the offense.” {Con 50.1}

However, we could suppose that if Lucifer had repented, perhaps he could have humiliated himself enough – that is, he could have fully understood the gravity of his sin.

But notice I’m not affirming this, I’m just exploring possibilities.



Same reason as above.


Obviously if he confessed his sin this meant he had returned to his sanity.


Willful sin? No, of course not.


Yes.


Well, it seems he was not guilty of sinning before he was convinced his course was wrong.

Not just of revolting, or rebelling. Lucifer had done a great many things requiring pardon, including rebellion.

Regarding the second part, yes, I see Ellen White saying that God was willing to pardon and reinstate Lucifer, on the conditions of repentance and submission.

What does the phrase "not guilty of sinning" mean? In ordinary language, this means the same thing as "not sinning," so to say that Lucifer was not guilty of sinning simply means he was not sinning. I have a feeling you have something else in mind, like perhaps not guilty of willfully sinning.

R: However, we could suppose that if Lucifer had repented, perhaps he could have humiliated himself enough – that is, he could have fully understood the gravity of his sin. But notice I’m not affirming this, I’m just exploring possibilities.

MM: Yes, it is important to keep in mind Lucifer's decision to rebel is mysterious and unexplainable. But the idea that Lucifer was guilty of sinning and that God would have pardoned and reinstated him without shedding the blood of Jesus is unbiblical. Everything we know about sinning points to blood atonement. I believe the same thing applies to sins of ignorance, that is, if Lucifer was guilty of sinning ignorantly the testimonies make it clear the shed blood of Jesus is required to make atonement.

R: Well, it seems [Lucifer] was not guilty of sinning before he was convinced his course was wrong.

MM: Are you referring to intentional or unintentional sinning? In other words, was he guilty of sinning ignorantly before he was convinced pursuing his course further would be sinning?

MM: God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer before he was guilty of sinning. This pardon was conditional upon Lucifer agreeing to dismiss his doubts and to cease pursuing his course any further. It did not involve pardoning sin. Had he chosen to comply with the conditions, including the final offer, he would have been pardoned and reinstated.

But the moment Lucifer chose to pursue his course "at all hazards" he was guilty of sinning. In that exact same moment he was guilty of committing the unpardonable sin. At that point, pardon was, of course, no longer offered. It was impossible. He did not, by the way, gradually sin more and more until pardon was no longer available. "But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

MM: What was the difference between Lucifer rebelling 1) before and 2) after he was convinced pursuing his course further would be sinning?

Regarding the second part, I'm still not clear - Are you saying you believe God was willing to pardon and reinstate Lucifer, even though he was guilty of rebelling and willfully sinning, without shedding the blood of Jesus, that the only thing God required of Lucifer was confession, repentance, and submission?

If this is what you believe, and this is what you believe Sister White taught, why, then, do we read in so many places inspired authors writing against the idea that sinners can do something to redeem themselves, to satisfy the just and loving demands of the law, to make propitiation for themselves?

He knew he was sinning before his final decision. This is obvious by his actions. For example:



If he had no conviction what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't have hidden his real purpose.



I think the easiest way to answer this is to understand what the problem was. If the problem were a legal problem, which required Christ's blood, then God could not have offered Lucifer pardon on condition of repentance and submission. So the blood is not necessary to solve a legal problem. But clearly, for man, blood was necessary, for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. So why was it necessary?

Man's fundamental problem was believing the lies Satan told about God.



How Satan got man to rebel was through deception, by misrepresenting God's character. In order to bring man back to God, it was necessary for man to see the truth about God.



The purpose of Christ's ministry was to bring man to God by revealing His character.



In particular, His death on the cross reveal God's love and character:



I'm not understanding where you get the idea that there is any redemption of oneself involved. Speaking of Lucifer, his pardon was on the condition of repentance and submission, something which was within his power to do. Had he done so, he would not have been redeeming himself nor making a propitiation. He would simply have been acknowledging that he had done wrong and accept the forgiveness God was offering him.

In the case of man, repentance and submission was not something within his power to do, and so the Plan of Salvation was implemented. God so loved the world that He gave His Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Through Christ, we can be reconciled to God. Christ is the truth which dispels the lies about God.

MM: But what was the difference before and after? Why was his sin pardonable before but not after? See original question above. Realize, of course, that the idea Lucifer was sinning willfully (before he was convinced pursuing his course further involve sinning) is inconclusive. The evidence doesn’t support it.


MM: I appreciate the quotes you posted. But they don’t address my question, nor do they support your assertion that God was willing to pardon Lucifer’s willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus. Nowhere is such an idea advocated, that is, no where is it taught God pardons willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus. And, nowhere does it say repentance and submission are sufficient to atone for willful sin.

Please, Tom, post quotes that deal directly with the question, not quotes that you believe imply it. A supposed implication totally comes short of supporting such an audacious claim, namely, that God is willing to pardon willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus, that repentance and submission are, of themselves, sufficient to atone for willful sinning.

Such a claim goes against everything we know to be right and true. I need more than mere logical deduction supposedly based on unrelated insights to abandoned the truth, to believe such a contradictory claim. I need a plain, Thus saith the Lord. So far you haven’t provided it.

It wasn't that God could not pardon the sin, but Lucifer had made a final decision, and there was nothing more that God could do for him. The difference was in Lucifer.



Regarding Lucifer sinning willfully, the evidence is clear. One can see this by the description of what he did. For example, he lied. A lie is a willful sin. Another example is that he feigned reverence for God and acted with mysterious secrecy.

Also there is the fact that God offered him pardon. Since when does God offer pardon for anything other than willful sin? Has God, in your entire life (I'm referring to the Holy Spirit's work of convicting of sin) ever convicted you of something other than willful sin? Has God ever offered to forgive you of something other than willful sin?



Yes they do, MM. The quotes explain why the death of Christ was necessary, which is the very point we're discussing. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Why not? That's the key question to understand.

The quotes bring out that man was brought under Satan's rule by means of being deceived by Satan in regards to God's character (DA quote). It also brings out that the *whole* purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal God's character, in order to make man right with God (ST quote). Which explains why the cross revealing the love and character of God (DA quote) was so important. It all fits together.

As to the blood of Jesus not being necessary in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, we have the record that God did indeed offer Lucifer pardon many times, and we have the record that Jesus did not die, making it clear that His death was not necessary in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, since He did that very thing.

You have decided to look at things from the perspective that Anselm brought to light in the 11th century, a time when the honor of Lords was important, as well as maintaining order and control. But Anselm's understanding does not agree with the background of Scripture. In Paul's time, the idea of a sacrifice being needed in order for God to pardon simply didn't exist. Unfortunately, having moved recently, my books are still in a state of array, so I can't post what I was thinking of. I couldn't find anything on line regarding what I was looking for either. I thought I had posted something on this, but couldn't find that either.

At any rate, Anselm's idea simply didn't exist at the time of Paul.



Nowhere is it taught that God will only pardon sin if shedding of blood is involved. There is no need to teach something which is false.

Cite one thing from Jesus Christ where He says the purpose of His death was to allow God to pardon us. Just one thing. A statement of His, or a parable or anything. You can't. Such a statement or teaching does not exist.

If the purpose of His death were to allow God to pardon us, don't you think He would have at least mentioned that somewhere?



The facts are there, MM. We can see what he did. He "indulged" hatred and envy. He lied. He aspired to be equal with God. He schemed to get other angels to serve him instead of God. He feigned reverence for God and secretly hid the true purpose of his actions, which was to exalt himself. Any one of these things would be enough to show willful sin.

Plus there is the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again" as well as being the opportunity to confess his sin.



Please pay attention to the quotes and what I said! Every quote says exactly what I said it did. There's nothing implied. I'll go through just a little bit of this so you can see this.

Here's a quote.



Here's my comment:



Do you see how my comment is not something implied by what I quoted, not something I "believe was implied" but something which was actually stated?

Each comment I made is along the same lines. Each comment I made is sustained by the quote I'm commenting one.



Surely if what you say is true, that God is unwilling to forgive unless the shedding of blood is involved were true, Jesus would have taught it somewhere. Where is such a teaching to be found?

The account of Lucifer is a "thus saith the Lord" if you believe Ellen White to be inspired. We see in the account the sin, we see the repeated offer for pardon, but we see no mention of the need for blood. Why don't you need a "thus saith the Lord" for what you believe? And why should I need a thus saith the Lord to negate a position which is false?