tq,

Don't skip out now. We're on the verge of something important here. Let me stop speaking in parables and tell you plainly what I was hoping you would see.

"No verbal description could reveal God to the world."

If you apply that too vigorously, you must conclude that you cannot know God because all you have to go by are the verbal descriptions in the Bible. And for people such as Tom, all they have to go by are the verbal descriptions of 4 of the people who wrote books of the Bible, and 2 of them might have based their books on others' verbal descriptions. Essentially, the only ones who would know God are those who saw Him personally; the rest of us are out of luck.

More than that, you would have to discard the testimony of those such as Jesus Himself who told us that the OT testified of Jesus.


EGW certainly did not limit her study of God to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Look at that last sentence. If we would be acquainted with Jesus, she told us to study a verbal description.

Teresa,

She makes that statement within the specific context of the advent, that is clear. I fully agree with her point, too. However, she is not saying that God has only revealed Himself to us through the incarnation, is she? If you feel so, how do you understand this quote?

If God could only be revealed through Jesus' incarnation, then, it would appear to me, that statement could not possibly be true, for it says God's "glorious ideal of character" was revealed at Sinai.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

tq,

The words of inspiration are sharper than a two-edged sword. If we do not wield it carefully, it will leave us maimed.

God Himself was revealed to humanity. But He started doing that long before He was laid in a manger. Yes, His time in flesh revealed much, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that He clarified much, but He wasn't just twiddling His thumbs until that time.

Amen, Arnold.

You put that to words far better than I have. I feel my attempts at expression here have been feeble and do not adequately represent my understanding.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There was also "kinesthetic learning" involved. Moses, who talked to God face to face, was deeply involved in setting that up.

There's a principle involved, and the principle is that force is contrary to the principles of God's government. If this is true, it has universal application. It can't be limited to just certain situations. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be a principle of His government. It would simply be a principle He abides by in some specific circumstance. I trust you see the difference here?



Here's the main statement I've been quoting:



What's the context? The context is specifically about how God dealt with Satan. Now if God used force to overcome Satan, this would a direct contradiction to what Ellen White is writing. She specifically writes that rebellion was not to be overcome by force.

Regarding Satan's being cast out, she writes, a bit later in the same chapter:



Is this a description of force being used? No, not at all. How then was Satan cast down? Not by force, but by light. His disguise was torn away. He lost his influence. That was how he was cast down.



There could hardly be a better example of God's using compelling power to achieve his will than the Egyptian plagues as traditionally understood. It's like a mafioso who applies more and more force to get you to pay protection money until you finally succumb.

I think not enough attention is being paid to the principles involved.



What does "the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government" mean if not that God does not use force to get His way? Let's try substituting some other words for "force" here:



Would you understand this to mean that sometimes God uses deception? That to claim that God does not use deception to get His way is not taking the statement in context?

Let's try another:



Wouldn't this mean that God doesn't use cruelty?



Would you say the same thing about God's judgements? Or do you make a distinction between judgements and plagues? What I'm asking is if you would also claim that God's judgements will never by caused by people or evil angels?



You mean, because of their bad behavior, they are "asking for it," asking that God would use His power to "teach them a lesson," to "get His revenge"? So when God does something like inflicts the wicked with excruciatingly painful boils, you would say "they asked for it," and God is acting in harmony with His own character and following the principles of His government?



I'm curious as to what you mean by they no longer have an option. Do you mean, they might want to make a choice in one direction or the other, but God will not let them? Or do you mean something else?

By the way, Mark has a thread on the plagues where he argues that the plagues fall before probation has closed. Have you seen this thread?



??? Why would God do this? I hope you're not misunderstanding what I've saying as this. You're not, are you?



So if we love God, and He asks us to do things like apply biological weapons to the wicked (this would cause an effect similar to that described by the plagues), we will obey this of our own will out of love to Him, because we are "Christlike"?

This is the danger in the philosophy you are espousing. If you serve a violent God who is able to command that terrible violent things be done in His name, then you are liable to do these violent things thinking you are serving him in so doing. This has happened many times throughout history.

In the Middle Ages ingenious methods were devised to torture heretics. The idea was to get them to confess to save their souls. Anything was better than to be eternally tortured in hell, was the reasoning. So out of love the heretics were tortured.

Once again, I notice that your approach makes no mention of Jesus Christ. In saying this what I mean is not that you didn't mention the name "Jesus Christ," but that the concept that we can only understand God by means of Jesus Christ's revelation nowhere appears. It does not appear that you feel a necessity to apply a study of Jesus' life and character to this question. I'm saying this, because you don't mention it in your posts.

Did you read what I wrote in the analogy of my twin? It seems you are doing the equivalent of not making use of the complete account I made of my twin, and account endorsed by an inspired writer.

I believe that to correctly understand God's character it is imperative that we study the life and character of Jesus Christ. There is no other way. He is the way.

He is the foundation. *After* a foundation has been laid, then come the apostles and the prophets.

A more glorious glimpse of divinity than Jesus revealed? That's simply not possible!

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

These words of Jesus need to find a place in our hearts.

It appears you're not understanding what I'm trying to say. I'll try to be more clear.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

What this means is that the Father is like Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, when He said this, was not talking about events in the Old Testament, but that which they were seeing right in front of them, with their own eyes. Jesus had lived with them for several years, revealing the Father as He did so.

This is what He was referring to.



This seems very clear to me to. The statement continues:



So again, clearly, this is dealing with the time of His earthly mission.

Here's another statement:



This tells us that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission (once again, this means the time He was here with us in the flesh) was the revelation of God.

So if we wish to understand God's character, how could it not be more clear than to do so we should study the life and character of Christ while here in the flesh?

We're not limited to only four books in doing so. However, we need to start somewhere, and certainly the Gospels are the most logical place to start, if our goal is to understand Christ's revelation of God during His earthly mission. As SDA's we are blessed to also have such books as "The Desire of Ages," "Christ's Object Lessons," and "Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing."

Does this insight account for all the stories in the Bible where God is credited for the "bad" things that happened? For example, the flood, sodom, the 250, etc. That is, do you think evil angels are responsible for all such things? If not, please cite a story in the Bible where something "bad" happened and evil angels were not responsible (something the Bible says God did).


Are you suggesting evil angels will cause the death and destruction described in the Bible and the SOP (talking about the plagues)?

Also, what do you think the angels and the voice of God in Rev 15 and the angels in Rev 16 and the vials they pour out symbolize?


If God doesn't withdraw His protection and permit evil angels or the forces of nature to wreak havoc what, then, do you believe about it? Why are you so opposed to referring to your view as the with withdraw and permit method of allowing death and destruction?

Also, do you think the kinds of death and destruction described in the Bible and the SOP would happen if God continued to prevent it from happening? And, in the case of evil angels, is God preventing them from experiencing the natural cause and consequence effect of their sins? If so, what is the effect He is protecting them from and why?

Why do you think Jesus' death on the cross demonstrates Jesus revealing the withdraw and permit principle God demonstrated throughout the OT in stories like the flood, sodom, and the 250?

Tom,

You would never have passed the test given to Abraham, since you place your own reasoning about who God is so high. You would never have believed that God was really asking you to kill your son Isaac, the only child of promise, since that, to you, is a "violent act," an act of "force," which is against the principles of God's government.

There are scores of examples in the Bible where God intervenes to settle the score or to judge those whose "cup of iniquity" is full. Yet you have never once offered a good explanation for this. (Saying the devil was "allowed" by God to do what God cannot do for Himself just doesn't do it for me. The devil would have little reason to do it. The flood? Sodom? Goliath's execution? Stopping the sun and moon so that the Israelites could finish off their enemies? etc.)

All I can say to answer your arguments here is simply this: I, in my human wisdom, cannot always understand why God does what He does, or why He asks certain things of us. For example, as a human, I sometimes have entertained questions in my mind regarding the reason for monogamous marital relationships. If we are supposed to love everybody, why do we need to be exclusive? And what about serving the Lord as a priest? Why were only the Levites permitted to do this? And further, why were certain men with blemishes not even allowed in the temple, by God's orders?

No, my human wisdom cannot understand all of these things. I must exercise faith and trust in a wisdom that defies human comprehension, because it is so far above our highest thoughts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.