For reference re: my post #117537.

So you don't have any problem characterizing the view EGW presents in GC 35 as God's withdrawing His protection and watching to see what happens next? To my mind, that seems a bit derogatory, as if God were ignorant or apathetic (which reminds me of the old joke, "What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?" "I don't know, and I don't care.").

This was just one example of many. I think Teresa's point is well taken, that we should present the viewpoint of another as accurately and positively as possible. She included herself as wanting to improve in this area, and I do as well. Particularly with MM, I really need to watch myself. (Sorry, MM, for any "misses"!).

Actually, I'm glad I mentioned this. I don't have much of a problem presenting the other viewpoints here in this forum accurately/positively because they are standard ideas. MM's ideas are often unique. So they can strike me as "off the wall" or "goofy." So it's tempting to ridicule what he's saying. I imagine the reaction to some things I'm sharing is similar. But it's not fair to him if I make fun of him or his ideas just because I find them odd.

Anyway, back to your question. Yes, I would agree with your statement that I do not see that God was orchestrating the destruction of Jerusalem. I really don't understand how you could think this (the EGW quote) "doesn't seem conclusive." It seems to me saying



is as conclusive as it gets.

I don't see how there could be more information pointing to the idea that God was orchestrating this, because that would contradict the idea that Satan was concealing his own work.

For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. (Psalms 37:28, KJV)



The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. (Psalms 11:4, KJV)

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. (Psalms 11:5, KJV)

Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. (Psalms 11:6, KJV)

For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright. (Psalms 11:7, KJV)

-----

Those texts tell me that God's judgment is righteous, and is executed because He wishes to preserve the upright. God destroys the wicked in fairness and perfect justice to the righteous.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I was just quoting from the SOP. Do you think this is what she had in mind? I didn't take her statement that way.



I didn't say anything about authoritative. We can learn things from sources which aren't authoritative, even from people here on this forum! We can read or hear something we hadn't thought of before, and check it against an authoritative source, and voila! we've learned something about Jesus Christ in His humanity.



I believe Ellen White was inspired, so, generally speaking (I'm just giving myself an out here in case there's some tricky exception I'm not aware of) I'd accept anything she said as true, regardless of whether it was in the Gospels or even in Scripture.



I don't understand why you'd ask a question like that. You've said I didn't say anything specific about the Gospels. Why would you think I might consider something in the Psalms to be false?



I've said "in His humanity" because that's what the quote that I've cited was speaking of. I was only aware of one quote, until now. Here's the quote I've cited:



This is clearly speaking of Christ in His humanity, so I have done the same.

Given that it's true that Christ, in His humanity, revealed all that man can know of God, it doesn't matter to that point I have been making that He revealed all that man can know of God at other times as well. I mean, of course Christ is always revealing the truth about God! That's not in question.

But the point is that *all* that man needs to know, or can know, was revealed by Jesus Christ in His humanity. This is a thrilling and wonderful thing! It means we have a more condensed reference to consider. God has made it as easy as possible for us! He became flesh, and through a prophet has informed us that all that we can know of Him was revealed while in the flesh.



I don't understand why you wouldn't have known this all along. All I've done is cited the quote, which speaks of Christ in His humanity. So all one would have to do is ask,"Where can I learn of Christ in humanity" and that question would lead you to the sources I mentioned. That's really simple, isn't it? That's all I did. I have no idea where you were limiting things to the Gospels in the first place.



Let's be clear here as to what's being rejected. What's being rejected are ideas regarding God's character which are not in harmony with what Christ revealed of God in His humanity. That's it. Not certain books, but certain ideas some have regarding what's written in those books.



This is misunderstanding the point. What I'm saying is if one has an idea from wherever (could be Exodus, or anywhere) and that idea does not agree with what Christ in His humanity revealed of God, then that idea must be rejected.

This is perfectly logical, isn't it Arnold? This seems like extremely simple reasoning here to me. I'm not understanding the difficulty here.



I don't know why you're still singling out the Gospels. You've already admitted I haven't been speaking specifically of them.

If you're saying you can learn something from Exodus regarding God that Christ in His humanity did not reveal of God, then it seems very clear to me that you are disagreeing with Ellen White's statement. If, on the other hand, you said you could learn something in Exodus regarding God which you hadn't seen before, but was revealed by Christ in His humanity, I would agree with that.

The whole point is that if we come up with ideas regarding God which we do not see revealed by Christ in His humanity, those ideas need to be very carefully scrutinized, at a minimum.

Regarding #117557, GC, where do you see that Christ in His humanity revealed the ideas that you've shared?

Tom,

I do not understand your question. The implication which comes through to my mind as I read it is that "Christ in His humanity" trumps the Bible. To me, that is like saying God's Word is in disagreement with God.

I do not believe, however, that this is what you meant. So I am convinced I have not correctly interpreted your question. Can you please clarify?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The SOP statement from 2T 286 says that all that we can know of God was revealed by Christ in His humanity. You've shared an idea of God. I'm asking where Christ in His humanity revealed the idea you're sharing.

Regarding how to put the concept I'm speaking of, "Christ in His humanity trumps wrong ideas taken from the Bible" comes to mind, or "Christ in His humanity is in perfect agreement with right ideas taken from the Bible".

The point is that if we have some idea regarding taken from Scripture, and we cannot see where Christ in His humanity revealed the idea we have, then the idea should be scrutinized, as it might be wrong.

So you are saying you view "my" idea as wrong?

Perhaps you would like to share your idea as to what the texts I quoted should mean. If you agree with what I shared, perhaps you have some idea already of where "Christ in his humanity" demonstrated this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The "my" doesn't need to be in quotes. You weren't quoting anyone. It's your idea. (This isn't making any judgment as to whether it's correct or not.)

In regards to your idea, I asked you,"Where do you see that Christ in His humanity revealed the ideas that you've shared?"

I'm still interested in your answer to this question.



I see there are no quotes here. (around "your")



I'm interested in your answer to my question. Perhaps after that we can go from there.

I'm also interested if you have understood the principle I've been trying to explain, in relation to all that can be known of God's being revealed by Jesus Christ in His humanity (I'm not asking if you agree with the idea, just if it's been understood).

I'll get back to the main thoughts later, but will throw out a short comment on this.


Kind of like comparing my views of God's sovereignty to the Inquisition (Tom) or Hitler (kland)? "Accurately and positively" indeed.

It may not have been positive, unless you are a descendant of Torquemada, but it had some semblance of accuracy, if you cross your eyes and make everything very blurry. I don't remember characterizing your remarks as derogatory.

However, to say that God removed His protection and watched what happened next is derogatory? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, because others might conclude that they would like to be treated that way. WDYT?