Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

What we don't realize is there's a purpose for evil, which is point to God and his justice. The entire history of this universe is a big cosmic school textbook that we have to learn in order to understand God's nature, and likewise willingly conform to it.

There's a reason why the tree was titled "knowledge of good and evil". This event in essence was meant to happen sooner or later, and it also typifies the human growth from childhood into adolescence. As children we are given certain explanations without underlying understanding. I.E.

- don't drink alcohol

- why not, it's just a liquid?

- it will kill you and cause harm to other

- what? Then why is it sold?

- Just don't, trust me

That's why all birth process stops in New Heaven and New Earth... because we as human race reach the spiritual maturity.

So, in essence, the experience of evil (by directly doing it, or indirectly suffering from it) gets us in contrast to understand goodness of God. The lesson is for us, thus the suffering and sin eventually play out a role that in the end does benefit us as a race... no matter how sick it may seem.

I had trouble following your post, but I strongly disagree with what you're saying here, provided I've understood you correctly.

Evil has no purpose. It came about as a fluke. God has given us information as to what happened, but I believe the idea that man's fall was intended to happen portrays God in an extremely unfavorable light.

Just to mention one thing, suppose sin had never happened. Would this mean that we could not understand God's love and justice? Is God dependent upon evil in order to make His goodness known?

[fccool]

I don't think that you would disagree with me saying that it would not be the same level of understanding of goodness and sin, and evil. Knowing about something and first hand experience is two different things.

But, to refute your point that evil was merely is fluke... then from God's perspective it could have been avoided all together.

When I write a software, I make sure that that the flukes don't happen. I know what the software can potentially do, and I avoid these pitfalls by creating procedures that would stop the crash. Good software writers do that. They plan... they don't merely put something out and then debug it as it goes.

Likewise, think about the blind man coming to Jesus. It's a simple demo of what I'm saying. Was it because of sin that the man was blind? No, the bigger picture was so that through the miracle of God people would believe.

Evil has a certain purpose in God's plan, and likewise evil had a purpose of uplifting good... evil is always the other side of free will. In order to contain it, one must understand the consequences. Without humanity experiencing evil, can they truly understand the meaning of good and evil as diametrically opposite? It's like trying to explain colors to blind person.

I'm not saying that God created evil. I'm saying that God foreseen all possible ends of the story, and He chose the one that has evil in it, because it works out for the best.

[Gerr]

Quote:

I addressed this with the fireman analogy. To whom was the price the fireman paid?

In a sense it was paid to the fire. The fire which is to claim the life of its victim is set free and the fireman pays for it with his life.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't think that you would disagree with me saying that it would not be the same level of understanding of goodness and sin, and evil. Knowing about something and first hand experience is two different things.

[pnattmbtc]

p:I addressed this with the fireman analogy. To whom was the price the fireman paid?

G:In a sense it was paid to the fire. The fire which is to claim the life of its victim is set free and the fireman pays for it with his life.

This is a rather forced and odd interpretation, wouldn't you agree? That is, it would be very odd to describe what happened as the firefighter giving his life to pay a debt to the fire.

Much more natural would be simply to say that the fireman gave his life to save others.

[fccool]

No, God didn't choose the the one that has evil in it. That's the point! God would never do this. *Adam* (and Eve) chose the one with evil. Not God.

Let me break it down to you even further... once again, going back to the story of Job. Why did God let Satan do all of the evil to Job? Was it Job's choice to have all of these things be brought on him? Was it for Satan's sake that Job went through all of the suffering with God watching? I don't think so.

You could not rightly say that God did not intended Job to go through all of the suffering. There's no other way to explain it. If God did not intended for Job to suffer, He would not have permitted it. In this case it had nothing to do with Job's free will. We read that Job in fact was a righteous person who did follow God. Yet, in spit of this, God knowingly permits evil to be unleashed on Job... with certain constraints on what Satan would be allowed to do.

_____________________________________

As far as my programs and free will. Free will is our perspective. From God's perspective, there's only ultimate outcome based on variables. Different sets of variables determine the outcome.

Example:

A person was born dirt poor in an Islamic country, where he is educated based on the principles of Islam.

A person is born in Communist Russia and undergoes the communism brainwashing of an education.

A person is born to a home of a Pastor where Christ's love is being practiced and demonstrated.

In all three cases the variables are different, thus the outcome will be different. Sure, some other variables may be introduced to change the outcome, but there's a certain determinism even within the range of free will.

We throw the "free will" argument around very loosely, while in fact the free will is merely expression of a person to make a choice he believes is right, or believes will benefit him the most in one way or another... thus it's a subject to a certain way of thinking, and subject to previous information. We don't merely make decisions. We make educated decisions based on our worldview. Different worldview would assume different decisions. We don't arbitrarily make decisions at random.

God could have tweaked the variables and avoided it all together. He knew what's going to happen before He even created the universe. A fluke by definition is something unexpected.

From God's point of view, there's nothing different that you will do that you are going to do. To paint sin as a cosmic "fluke" would be beyond unreasonable. In universe that God creates nothing just happens just because. There's a purpose to every single thing. Even before the universe existed, the only reality that existed was in fact God. There was no other reality.

Based on cause-effect relationship... everything that was brought about is in fact the effect of God's creative powers. To certain extend God does take responsibility for creating people with free will:

“The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” (Gen 6:6)

I'd like you to address the points that I've made though:

1) God's willingly allowing Job to suffer. To say that it was not God's will for Job to suffer would be inaccurate IMO. God essentially gave go ahead to Satan to do these things. To say that it was not His will would be a contradiction. If it was not His will, it would not happen in this scenario.

2) God wiping out most of the humanity during the flood, yet allowing Satan to keep on keeping on. Why? The mere argument that He would be perceived as a tyrant does not really fly in light of what happened. Both, humans and Satan cause quite a bit of destruction and suffering.

3) Why wouldn't there be any new birth in New Heaven and new Earth? Why no more procreation?

[fccool]

p:I addressed this with the fireman analogy. To whom was the price the fireman paid?

G:In a sense it was paid to the fire. The fire which is to claim the life of its victim is set free and the fireman pays for it with his life.

So,

Based on this analogy... did Christ make a payment to sin and rebellion? Perhaps to Satan, just like the Christus Victor theory would suggest?

I know you are not suggesting it... just merely trying to draw the parallels here. :)

[pnattmbtc]

p:No, God didn't choose the the one that has evil in it. That's the point! God would never do this. *Adam* (and Eve) chose the one with evil. Not God.

f:Let me break it down to you even further... once again, going back to the story of Job. Why did God let Satan do all of the evil to Job? Was it Job's choice to have all of these things be brought on him? Was it for Satan's sake that Job went through all of the suffering with God watching? I don't think so.

You could not rightly say that God did not intended Job to go through all of the suffering.

[pnattmbtc]

Based on this analogy... did Christ make a payment to sin and rebellion? Perhaps to Satan, just like the Christus Victor theory would suggest?

[John317]

God offered Lucifer pardon again and again on the condition of repentance. Had Lucifer repented, he would have changed (that's what repentance is; a change of mind). Christ's death wasn't necessary because Lucifer already knew the love and character of God.

Christ's death is not only for the sake of the sinner to learn about God's character. Christ's death was ultimately for the entire universe. His death proved that God could be just and yet show mercy to the sinner, that mercy does not set aside justice and the law. God sacrificed himself in the death of Christ. If this hadn't happened, God could not have forgiven mankind and therefore the whole world would have perished.

God could offer Lucifer pardon as long as he was Lucifer, but as soon as he became settled into rebellion, and became Satan, God could not possibly save him. He had gone too far. Both angels and men reach a point where they can't change.

That is what happened to Adam and Eve the moment they chose to disobey God. Their natures were radically changed. They couldn't undo their act and change back to the way they had been before they sinned. By contrast the natures of the angels didn't change immediately. Some angels changed sides. Humans couldn't change in that way.

Speaking of the time when God offered Lucifer forgiveness, Ellen White says, "[Lucifer] had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God." PP 39.

Even after Lucifer had gone too far to be forgiven and reinstated, the other angels still had opportunity to return to loyalty to God because they had been blinded by Satan's deceptions. PP 41

Originally Posted By: john317

There was nothing God could teach or show Satan that He hadn't known before.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Right! Which is why a mission for Lucifer, including Christ's death, wasn't necessary for him as it was for man.

The point is, however, that *God* did not need the death of Christ in order to be able to forgive.

His death was needed in order for God to be able to forgive mankind. This comes out in the following paragraphs by Ellen White.

Originally Posted By: john17

Also, Christ did not need to die for Lucifer to be forgiven at that point because as Lucifer he had not yet fully cast off his allegiance to God.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

He had sinned. The point is that God can forgive sin without Christ's having to die to enable Him to do so.

The following, in DA 762-763, explains why Christ's dead and sacrifice was necessary:

In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner.

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.

Through Jesus, God's mercy was manifested to men; but mercy does not set aside justice. The law reveals the attributes of God's character, and not a jot or tittle of it could be changed to meet man in his fallen condition. God did not change His law, but He sacrificed Himself, in Christ, for man's redemption. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.

....God's love has been expressed in His justice no less than in His mercy. Justice is the foundation of His throne, and the fruit of His love. It had been Satan's purpose to divorce mercy from truth and justice. He sought to prove that the righteousness of God's law is an enemy to peace. But Christ shows that in God's plan they are indissolubly joined together; the one cannot exist without the other. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Ps. 85:10.

By His life and His death, Christ proved that God's justice did not destroy His mercy, but that sin could be forgiven, and that the law is righteous, and can be perfectly obeyed. Satan's charges were refuted. God had given man unmistakable evidence of His love.

Another deception was now to be brought forward. Satan declared that mercy destroyed justice, that the death of Christ abrogated the Father's law. Had it been possible for the law to be changed or abrogated, then Christ need not have died. But to abrogate the law would be to immortalize transgression, and place the world under Satan's control. It was because the law was changeless, because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts, that Jesus was lifted up on the cross.

Originally Posted By: john317

There were also many angels who once sided with Lucifer but who ultimately became loyal angels of God

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

I don't think this is clear. I'd like to believe this is the case, but I'm not aware of any direct statements to this effect.

Ellen White says in SP vol. 1, page 22, that for a time almost 1/2 of all the angels sided with Lucifer. By the time the fallen angels were driven from heaven, there were 1/3 of angels who sided with the devil. For this to happen, some angels must have changed their allegience. We know that the good angels as well as the Father and the Son tried to persuade the angels to change their mind, and it makes sense that they succeeded with some of the angels.

We also know that some of God's angels continued to have some sympathy for Satan right up to the death of Christ. Ellen White wrote, "By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings.....The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken." DA 761.

[fccool]

Quote:

I hope we can continue our discussion. It does appear you've thought about these things, and many people will discuss matters like this without having thought things through, which leads to discussions which are often not so fruitful.

I would not discuss this issue with you if I did not in fact think it through.

First of all there's a difference in perspective when it comes to the view of determinism. From God's point of view, the things are already determined. There's nothing that you can do that God already have not seen you do, thus your future is laid out. It will not change. From that perspective, there's nothing wrong about determinism that is inconsistent with free will.

That's why I mention us using the free will as a sacred cow without realizing a certain realities that God is apart of.

God foreseen sin before He created us. By definition this could not be classified as fluke. Fluke is something completely unexpected. God knew, and God nevertheless went through with creating this world in such a way that would in fact make it possible for evil to exist. There could be many ways to avoid the possibility of evil as I've mentioned before. God could have skipped creation of Satan all together... and problem solved. Why would God go through with creation of Satan? Please don't give me the child analogy. If I knew for a fact that my child would be the worst murderer that this world has ever known... I would think twice about bringing him into this world.

So, why did God go through with creation of a being that He knew would rebel and essentially destabilize the entire creation?

You have to understand that determinism is consistent with free will from God's perspective. The simple idea of knowing something happening beforehand (God's seeing and predicting the future) would mean that the things can't unfold otherwise. Sure, there could be variables and conditions, but eventually God would see through the variables and conditions the final outcome. But that does not mean however that we are not free to make the choices which we are agents of.

I often ask the proponents of complete and absolute free will, how is it that they chosen to be born in Iowa? Why not choose to be born in some family in Hawaii? The reality is that we are not chosen to be born. That choice is made on our behalf. Likewise, the only real choice that we have for the first several years of our lives is to either eat the food, or spit it out.

We can assume that free will in essence is a combination of chance (our will) and determination on part of God, who directs the history to a certain end.

A good example would be Jonah. Jonah went against the will of God, and thus according to his own will. God, through the series of events eventually caused Jonah to follow His will, yet in essence it was not Jonah's free will to do so until a certain point. Even then it was a bargain.

So, when we take into consideration the problem of evil, we have to likewise consider the fact of God working through people who were basically "evil", to bring about good.

This is not to say that it was the "ideal circumstance"... or as we would say "Plan A", but nevertheless God did use evil people to punish Israel's disobedience.

Some people would go too far saying that God creates evil. I don't think this is the case. But God does use evil to bring about good.

Likewise I find it interesting that you merely dismiss Job's case as "not God's will". Take it down to a human level. There's a murderer in town who made a case to a cop that a mayor only loves his wife because she is beautiful. So, the cop says... go ahead and disfigure her, but don't kill her...

From human perspective, is it not cop's will do have the wife disfigured? How else could you explain this case? From the human perspective, the cop would be a co-criminal with the murderer.

From human perspective, Job questioning God is only a natural thing to do. What did I do wrong to deserve it? Why are you doing this to me? Even if Job knew that Satan is behind it, I doubt that his attitude would change by the end. The question still would remain (at least if I was Job)... why are you letting this taking place?

Notice that God did not give the explanation along the lines of what we give... I.E. I can't just wipe out Satan because he would be proven right. He merely gives his credentials and evidence of his love as portrayed in creation... thus demanding our trust. There was no underlying explanation.

I'll explain about the Children and New earth a bit later... can't keep my eyes open.

[pnattmbtc]

Christ's death is not only for the sake of the sinner to learn about God's character. Christ's death was ultimately for the entire universe.

[pnattmbtc]

Ellen White says in SP vol. 1, page 22, that for a time almost 1/2 of all the angels sided with Lucifer. By the time the fallen angels were driven from heaven, there were 1/3 of angels who sided with the devil.

[John317]

]We also know that some of God's angels continued to have some sympathy for Satan right up to the death of Christ. Ellen White wrote, "By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings.....The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken." DA 761.

Quote:

=pnattmbtc] Yes, I think this is the real point in regards to Christ's death being for the angels, and the unfallen worlds, as well as for man.

Here's a question I have for God:

Why was it not a sin for those angels to have sympathy for Satan and the fallen angels right up to the death of Christ?

Could it be that God knew those angels had loved those fallen angels and had been close friends? It must have been hard to let them go.

It just seems to me that it would be a sin to have sympathy for the devil. I have no sympathy for him. I will be glad when he is destroyed and sin is no more.

This is different from being joyful that God's creations went wrong and were destroyed. I don't think anyone views it that way. But the righteous will be joyful that sin and rebellion and death are finally at an end and that God's entire universe is once more in complete harmony.

[John317]

Ellen White says in SP vol. 1, page 22, that for a time almost 1/2 of all the angels sided with Lucifer. By the time the fallen angels were driven from heaven, there were 1/3 of angels who sided with the devil.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

1/3 is something less than half in Scripture. That's my understanding. It's not mathematically what we would call 1/3.

I understand that Ellen White said that almost half of the angels rebelled, which agrees with the 1/3 in Scripture. I think they're the same number.

But isn't there quite a difference in the number of 1/3 of 4 billion angels, compared to almost 1/2 of 4 billion? (I'm assuming there are billions because Ellen White says that all babies dedicated to God by their parents are guarded by an angel and all followers of Christ have guardian and recording angels.) When we put it that way, it seems like there's quite a difference. If 1/3 are rebellious, it would mean 2/3 are loyal. But if we say that almost 1/2 rebelled, it would mean only a little more than 1/2 are loyal. It seems to me those figures make a significant difference.

What do you think?

Originally Posted By: John317

For this to happen, some angels must have changed their allegience.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

This is the argument I've heard, but I don't think it's very convincing. I hope it's right, though, that some did return.

Yes, me too. But I'll do some more research. It's an interesting question.

[pnattmbtc]

First of all there's a difference in perspective when it comes to the view of determinism. From God's point of view, the things are already determined.

[Nic Samojluk]

And there is NO retribution in God's justice system? So then, Christ's death was not absolutely necessary after all? A charade?

[Nic Samojluk]

I've asked you repeatedly to open another thread if you wish to discuss this. Please don't bring these things up on the other topics.

[Nic Samojluk]

what difference do you see between satan and us, that Christ had to die for us, but not for satan?

[Nic Samojluk]

Have you seen Kevin Morgan's work regarding the copying?

I think the extent of copying, imo, is exaggerated. If a teacher were to show a picture and ask students to describe what they saw, there would be a lot of similar words & phrases used. An outsider reading the compositions may see the similar words and phrases used in common. Wouldn't that then be interpreted as the students copying one another?

Did Mark or Luke or Matthew copy one another's work?

They did copy one another indeed. The difference is that they did not deny having doned it!

[Nic Samojluk]

Why Christ died is because He was killed.

I am amazed at the fact that someone else has come to a similar conclusion as a result of studying this issue. I have been giving this same answer for some time, and this is the first time I see someone else giving this answer to this question. Perhaps the Lord feels it is time for us to reach a deeper understanding of the Atonement.

[fccool]

Quote:

I disagree. It could only be the case that things are already determined if they are, in fact, already determined. This is because reality is what God perceives it to be.

I believe that reality is that there are things that are not determined, and this is true from God's point of view. That is, there are things which God views as not determined, and this is because they have not been determined.

There's a difference between determination and foresight. This is where a lot of absolute "free-willers" get confused.

If I know that you have a schedule and you tend to stick to it, then by picking into your schedule I can predict where you are going to be at certain period of time with certainty. You chosen the schedule. You could have choose otherwise. The choice is yours. The will is yours... unmoved by God.

God does not see the future because He perfectly causes the future. God knows the future, because He knows where every molecule in this Universe is going to be. The events of the end times are not merely a possibility. These are certain for that reason. The events of the end time involve decisions of millions of people who have to choose a certain way.

Likewise, the death of Christ was certain... and it involved decisions of millions of people to choose in a certain way.

There are certain philosophical norms to understand here.

1) The law of cause and effect. Everything that is or done had been caused by something. To a certain degree we may argue that the law does not apply to our free will, but it's not completely so.

Our will is not random. It can be caused, and it is caused, and ... otherwise the entire science of human predictive classification and statistics that works for insurance and marketing industries would not make sense. These people profile the personalities, and based on certain personality profiles they use certain techniques to cause these people to do or to buy certain things.

Human interaction is in effect a very complex web of cause-effect relationships. It may seem random, but there's nothing random about it.

The determinism by foresight does not rule out possibility... it simply ascribes the perfect knowledge to the one who foresees the events.

_____________________________________________

Here's how your logic goes on this matter:

1. An agent is responsible for an action only if said agent is free.

2. An agent is free only if causal determinism is false.

3. Therefore, an agent is responsible for an action only if causal determinism is false.

Yet, this is not what I'm proposing. I don't propose that God determines by making us do certain things. I argue that God knows for sure, by means of "perfect prediction"... or what we would call educated guess.

Can God infinitely predict the numbers on the falling dice before someone throws it? You would argue that no... God merely acts based on possibilities. I would argue that yes, God can foresee the possibilities along with what's going to happen... and that God's perfect foresight is in fact consistent with the free choice of the moral agent. It does not go against free will.

Some Biblical support here:

The famous one: "Before the rooster crows, you will betray me three times". Peter objected based on his understanding of free will . "No I won't... I can make a choice... I won't do it". And he did make that choice. It was not a mere possibility or "conditional prophecy". Peter had other choices, and as a moral agent he objected to such view of events. Yet, God knew Peter better than Peter knew himself. God knew the choices that Peter would make. Just like he knew that Christ's legs will not be broke, that his side will be pierced, and that he will be betrayed by a specific person and abandoned by his followers. He knew who will dip the bread... before it happened.

Before they were even born... "Jacob I loved and Essau I hated", but how can that be if what you are saying is a mere possibility?

“[T]his Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.” (Acts 2:23,24)

You may argue that the pre-determined plan only covered the "possibility"... but this is not the case based on Biblical prophecy. I.E. "He will crush your head"... and likewise every Biblical prophecy dealing with Christ would require a certain foreknowledge, and not mere possibility of the foreknowledge.

“Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers; and this people will arise and play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and hide My face from them, and they shall be consumed, and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, ‘Is it not because our God is not among us that these evils have come upon us?’” (Deuteronomy 31:16,17)

Likewise... not a conditional statement here, and the one that accurately predicts the course of Israel's disobedience.

I could go on, but for the sake of making this thread shorter ... I'll give you a chance to respond first.

______________________________________________________

In giving these examples, I likewise anticipate the endless Biblical passages that in fact may seem like God is merely guessing the outcome, but I'm fairly certain of my view and I have dedicated a several years of my life examining the possibilities and philosophical implications... and I'll gladly address these if brought up. So I can say with certainty:

1) Messianic prophecy given to every generation from Eve and forward would require a perfect foresight... and not merely the view of possibilities.

2) God in fact sees future perfectly, and it does not take away from our ability to choose freely. I know that this subject can be quite confusing from perspective of limited knowledge of human mind... I.E. if things happen a certain way for sure, do I really have a choice. YES

Free will does not negate determinism. Determinism in this case does not dealing with "pre-determined outcome", but rather with perfect foreknowledge. In Peter's case, he made the choices... nobody forced him to to that. Although the choices were caused by the people instigating, God knew Peter enough to know what will happen. The choice was still on behalf of Peter.

Once we agree on that, we can perhaps move on to the discussion of knowing that evil will happen for sure, and still choosing to go through with it.

[pnattmbtc]

What was the condition for forgiveness to this rebel? The answer is Repentance. Do you find there any reference to retribution, the payment of the debt, or the need to sacrifice an innocent bystander before God could offer forgiveness to Lucifer? What did the plan to save Lucifer consist of? The answer is Repentance.

If that was the condition for someone who had a perfect knowledge of God’s character, why are you trying to impose a more stringent demand on human beings who know very little about God’s character?

If the condition imposed on Lucifer was repentance, doesn’t it follow that the requirement for humans should be the same? And what could induce humans to repent. Isn’t this a deeper revelation of God’s character?

[pnattmbtc]

p:I've asked you repeatedly to open another thread if you wish to discuss this. Please don't bring these things up on the other topics.

N:And I have repeatedly responded that I have neither time nor interest to do this.

[pnattmbtc]

J:Here's a question I have for God:

p:Why was it not a sin for those angels to have sympathy for Satan and the fallen angels right up to the death of Christ?