It's a courtesy. Instead of asking Tom to go back and find it, I am simply reposting it for his convenience. Hope you don't mind.

I am perfectly okay with you using illustrations to make a point. But please work to make sure it makes the point. I’m not concerned about Kland. He rarely posts anything that appeals to me, that motivates me to respond.

The idea that there is such “a person who knows all there is to know about butterflies” is too far fetched to make your point. No one has written a book that contains everything there is to know about butterflies. The illustration doesn’t work. It’s not adequate to make your point.

"All that can be known by man about X was revealed by Y, where X is a subject and Y is a person.” I see no need to invent a formula. The quote in question is too clear to require abstract formulas. “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” There is nothing abstract about this statement.

Ellen White elaborates on this point in the following passages:


In the passages quoted above Ellen White makes it clear that Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God. Do you agree?

Not really. We could change it to something more esoteric, like Abelian Algebra, or Squash and the Olympics, and the illustration would work fine.



MM, it's hard to conceive of why you're picking on these things. They're not material to the point.



It's not a formula. It's a statement, with variables to stand in for the non-essential elements so you wouldn't become distracted by them. You keep focusing on non-essential elements, rather than the point.



It's not an abstract formula, MM.



MM, it doesn't appear to me that you grasped the point.

Let's try again. We'll change the subject to something else, say, squash and The Olympic Games. "All that one needs to know about squash and the Olympics was revealed by N. Ramachandran ." "All that one can know about squash and The Olympic Games was revealed by N. Ramachandran." The former is a subset of the latter. Why? Because only things which can be known about squash and The Olympic Games could possibly be things one needs to know about the subject. Once can't need to know things which can't be known. Is this point clear?

(N. Ramachandran is the president of the World Squash Federation, and it is quite conceivable that he knows all there is to know about Squash and the Olympics).



She said, "All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the Great Teacher." You're asking me if I agree this means that Jesus didn't do what she said He did? If so, no, I don't agree with what you're suggesting. I think she was correct, that Jesus Christ did reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God in His life and character.

If you're asking something else, I don't know what it is. To clarify what I've been saying, it is what she said, that all that one can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in his humanity.

She doesn’t limit our knowledge of God to Jesus’ revelation of God while here in the flesh. In the same section she wrote, “The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ.” Elsewhere she wrote, “God cannot be understood by men. His ways and works are past finding out. In regard to the revelations that He has made of Himself in His Word, we may talk, but other than this, let us say of Him, Thou art God, and Thy ways are past finding out.” You seem to be saying she is limiting it to Jesus’ earthly revelation. I disagree.


You wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” I agree. That’s all I’m saying about the phrase “needs to know”. However, you seem to go on and say “can know” has nothing to do with one’s ability to comprehend God. Please clarify this point.


“What man needs to know of X is a subset of what man can know of X. Do you understand this?” Yes, I understand what you’re saying, and I agree. We can learn things about God that we don’t need to know. The question is - What do we need to know about God and why? And, what can we learn about God and how?

Ellen White wrote, “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” She expresses the same idea elsewhere in the following manner: “All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed [1] in His Word and [2] in the life of His Son, the great Teacher.” This concept is couched in the context of our inability at this time to comprehend everything there is to know about God. And, for this very reason, God has not revealed everything there is to know about Himself.

To be clear, this means Jesus did not reveal, either in His actions or in His teachings, everything there is to know about God. Instead, He only revealed what we need to know, which also happens to be what we are capable of knowing. In other words, we are capable of comprehending everything God has revealed about Himself in the Bible, but there are tons of things He has not revealed in the Bible because we either don’t need to know or are incapable of comprehending at this time.

Again, here is the larger context of this concept:


“There is a knowledge of God and of Christ which all who are saved must have.” This is the knowledge she was referring to when she wrote, “All that man needs to know and can know of God. . .” She is talking about the knowledge necessary to experience salvation.

I’m glad to learn we agree that what Jesus experienced on our behalf on the cross provides our only means of escaping the death penalty. However, please keep in mind that that’s not all there is to it. Two goats were required to make atonement on the day of atonement.

No, I’m not implying Satan’s punishment and death will add to what Jesus wrought out for us on the cross. Jesus became the lawful owner of our sin and second death when drained the cup of woe and wrath on our behalf on the cross. Satan, however, will die our second death with our sins in the lake of fire at the end of time. Not until then will the full penalty of the law be visited and justice satisfied. Ellen White put it this way:

“In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}

In the typical service the high priest, having made the atonement for Israel, came forth and blessed the congregation. So Christ, at the close of His work as mediator, will appear, "without sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28), to bless His waiting people with eternal life. As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}


You have yet to explain how or why it does.


You are the author of the humane hunter analogy, right?


No! We both agree that Jesus conquered the second death on the cross. Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered our sin and second death on the cross. It is Satan who will be punished and die our second death with our sins in the lake of fire. He “will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked.”


You wrote, “The only way to be freed from sin is by repentance and faith.” Can you back this up with inspired statements? That is, where does it say repentance and faith atones for our past sins? Law and justice demand death for sin – not faith and repentance!

You also wrote, “When the truth is revealed to them, in such a way that they see all, of course they suffer.” Again, can you back this up with inspired statements? That is, where does it say the wicked will suffer emotional anguish when they revisit their sins in judgment? Nowhere in the following description is such a thing said:


Instead of succumbing to emotional anguish, they turn upon one another in fits of rage. “Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them.” In the midst of this mayhem, God will rain down fire from above and raise up fire from below. The earth will become a lake of fire. In this environment, after judgment has been executed, the wicked will suffer pain and agony in duration and in proportion to their sinfulness. Ellen White put it this way:

Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men--"the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 34:8. {GC 672.2}

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They "shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. {GC 673.1}

What she said was that all the we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (in His humanity, from the context). This doesn't mean we can't learn things from other sources, but the things we learn from other sources can be found in the life and character of Jesus Christ, in His humanity.



I'm just saying what she said. All we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (in His humanity, from the context).



That's just a part of the picture. If you read the whole article I quoted from, you will see that she speaks of a host of subjects, including spiritualism, pantheism, and other things.

It's easier to understand things, IMO, if one keeps in mind the big picture. The big picture is the Great Controversy. Satan desired to exalt himself, and to win the homage of God's creatures, He resorted to deception, misrepresenting God's character. This is how he deceived men and angels. To counteract this deception, God sent His Son.

You'll notice that in the very next after the one I keep quoting, she quotes John 1:18, which says that no one has seen God at any time, but His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like (CEV). This is the context of which she is speaking. What is God like? That's the question to which the answer is, "All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son."

This isn't referring to certain facts, like facts necessary to be saved, but to knowing God personally, to know His character. You'll notice that in the article you quoted from she quoted from John 17:4, which speaks of how knowing God is life eternal. This is the same concept. We know God through Jesus Christ's revelation of His character.

Why are you talking about this?



It's been explained, but not understood. No, I wasn't the author of the father hunter analogy.



If you believe that:

a.Capital Punishment is the penalty for sin.
b.Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sin.

then it follows you believe that

c.Jesus Christ was capitally punished.



Sure, but I don't see the need to. John 3:16 comes to mind.



What did I write, MM? ("The only way ...")



In DA, "Calvary", EGW says that Christ experienced the mental anguish the wicked will suffer then mercy no longer pleads for the human race, so that's one place. DA 108 is another, where she talks about Christ as the revealer of God's character, and how the wicked could not abide His presence.



Surely all of this will be overwhelming to anyone who doesn't have faith in Christ.

The MB passage I quoted several times says that if we had to bear our guilt, it would crush us. That's another one (in the judgment, the wicked will have to bear their own guilt).

Christ spoke of how their would be weeping and gnashing of teeth in the judgment. This is speaking of the mental anguish the wicked will suffer.

Regarding the GC 673 statements, this isn't all she wrote on the subject. She also wrote DA 674, and GC 541-543, and DA 107,108, to name three other places that speak to this. I've yet to see any explanation on your part that takes into account these other passages.

From my perspective, you're understanding of the whole process, from beginning to end, is arbitrary, or imposed (as opposed to natural consequence). You don't see that sin causes death, so you perceive that God assigns an imposed penalty to those who sin. This arbitrary, or imposed, penalty can be removed by an equally arbitrary process which involves Christ's death and believing in Him. If a person refuses to partake of the process then God, who has stayed the natural consequence of choosing sin (which would be suffering in proportion to their sin and death) instead imposes an arbitrary punishment. A part of the process also involves an imposed punishment upon Satan.

As opposed to this, what I see is that the inevitable result of sin is death. People who sin suffer and die, as a natural consequence, not due to something arbitrary God does to them to make them feel pain and be killed. Christ didn't suffer an imposed punishment, but took our sin upon Him, and suffered because of our sins. That was a natural consequence as well.

When people perceive the love of God revealed from the cross, they are "brought back to God," freed from sin, and receive eternal life. The law is written in their heart, and they become new creatures, forgiven and pardoned by God.

In the judgment, the wicked suffer in proportion to their sin, because sin and guilt are what cause the suffering and death.

the reward for the righteous is eternal life.

the reward for the lost is eternal death.

no problem at all. i just didnt understand why you reposted them 1 or 2 posts apart was all. would you like me to show you what i mean?

See my answer below.


Yes, you have explained that God decided, against His ideal, to direct the COI in their desire to kill people. Is that your final answer? If so, do you think He directed them in violating His law? Does God ever compromise with sin or command sinners to sin?


This is why I made the point I did above. Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered capital punishment on the cross. But that isn't all there is to it. As you know, atonement was not completed at the cross. Satan must also suffer and die with our sins for God to fully satisfy the demands of law and justice. She makes this clear in the following passages:


Atonement is not complete until Satan suffers and dies with our sins and second death.


Why do you think John 3:16 supports your idea that faith and repentance is the only way to be freed from sin? What about satisfying the death demands of law and justice for past sins?


Why do you think the GC quotes I posted previously say nothing at all about the wicked experiencing the kind of shame and guilt you're talking about? Instead of the results of judgment causing them to suffer and die an emotional death, she describes them turning upon one another in fits of rage.

I have written a lot about "our God is a consuming fire" as it relates to the final judgment and eradication of sin and sinners. Apparently, though, I haven't been clear enough to prevent you from thinking I have yet to include it in my explanations. I believe "God is light." (1 John 1:5) He radiates light. God glows. The light of God causes sinful flesh to burn up. That's why "this corruptible must put on incorruption" before we can be in the presence of God without burning up.

"To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you." (MB 62) It's almost as if the death of sinners is collateral damage. This refutes the idea that the "presence of God" at judgment causes sinners to suffer and die an agonizing emotional death. Since it is the "presence of God" that consumes sin, and since sin cannot experience emotional anguish, it is obvious it's not referring to sinners experiencing emotional anguish.


Again, there is nothing arbitrary about God keeping His promise to punish transgressors. Neither sin nor guilt will punish sinners. The credit will belong to God alone for punishing and destroying sinners. Here's how Ellen White put it:


She says nothing about sin or guilt putting down rebellion. Instead, she plainly says God will employ His power and authority to punish and destroy sinners. She labels it - "retributive justice".