If it were true that all that man could know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ while here with us in the flesh, then studying what Jesus did while here in the flesh would be helpful, don't you agree?

It is not true to say Jesus revealed everything we can know about God through His actions while here in the flesh. That wasn't His purpose. It's not even true to say Jesus taught everything we can know about God while here in the flesh. "'I have many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear them now.' Their own limited comprehension put a restraint upon him, so that he could not open to them the things he longed to unfold; for it would be labor lost." {Bulletin, March 3, 1899 par. 1}

Christ said to his disciples, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." There were many things he did not say to them because their education and ideas were of such a character that his instruction would have confused their minds, and raised questioning and unbelief that it would have been difficult to remove. {Canvasser, December 11, 1890 par. 3}

Not only was it His purpose, it was His "whole purpose."

Tom, do you agree Jesus was unable to teach His disciples everything He wanted to? And, do you agree that in spite of this He was able to reveal everything they needed to know to be set right in regards to God's character?

Regarding your second question, it seems to be a bit imprecise. Here's what EGW actually wrote:



Here are some points to mention:

1.The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes.

2.The whole purpose of Christ's mission was to set men right through the revelation of God.

3.The object of Christ's mission was the revelation of God to the world.

If you're asking if Christ accomplished these things, I say yes.

Regarding if there were things Christ would have liked to have said to His disciples, yes there were, but you seem to have the assumption that because Christ could not say these things, since the disciples weren't ready to hear them, this means that Christ did not reveal something He could have had they been willing to listen. This reasoning is flawed for at least four reasons.

1.The thing which Christ had to say to the disciples was not necessary related to the "revelation of God" EGW speaks of.

2.Christ may have already revealed the thing He was going to tell the disciples about. The disciples may not have understood it, but it could have already been revealed.

3.The thing which Christ couldn't tell the disciples He may have revealed afterward in some other way (e.g. dying on the cross).

4.The SOP tells us that all that man can know of God was revealed by Christ in the flesh, and that His mission was the revelation of God, and that Christ accomplished this mission. So there couldn't have been something lacking in His revelation.

Now if I may ask you a question, you said:



but there are several quotes saying that this was his purpose. So I guess my question is, why are you asserting this given that Ellen White wrote that:

1.Everything man can know of God was revealed by Christ.
2.His mission was the revelation of God, in order to set men right and keep men right with God.
3.Christ accomplished His mission, which was the revelation of God.

On a side note, Ellen here says Jesus "could not fail". And yet you insist that God did not know this in advance, that He was not certain Jesus would succeed.

Regarding your speculations and assumptions articulated above: No, I do not believe Jesus revealed through His actions alone everything we need to know about God. Yes, I believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God through His actions and teachings. He very plainly said that He couldn't say everything He wanted to because of prevailing erroneous ideas. Nevertheless, He went on to say, the Holy Spirit would explain it latter on. Again, two things Jesus did not reveal through His actions was employing the withdraw and permit principle or commanding people to stone sinners to death.

What she wrote should be read in context. Elsewhere she emphasized that Christ could fail. You're aware of this, aren't you? So if you took it the way you're suggesting here, you'd have her contradicting herself.



EGW said that all that man can know of God was revealed in Christ's life and character, speaking of when He was here with us in the flesh.



According to EGW, what Christ taught, He lived, and it was this which gave His teachings the power they had.



No He didn't.



He said the Spirit would guide them into all truth, and bring to remembrance the things He had taught them.

The SOP says that Christ's mission was the revelation of God, and that Christ accomplished this mission. Actually, Christ said this, in John 17, and she quoted Him, and explained Christ's words as His accomplishing His mission of revealing the Father.



I think there's a better way of looking at this. Think of things in positive terms. What *did* Christ reveal? He revealed the Father. What *was* His mission, His purpose? To reveal the Father. Did He accomplish this? Yes, He did. Was there anything lacking in His revelation of the Father? No, there was not.

If one starts from this standpoint, by faith accepting that Christ did do what He said He did (and the SOP as well) -- reveal the Father -- then it should be possible to deal with any questions or doubts that might come up, related to isolated incidents that may be difficult to understand.

Besides Saul, I came across another instance. In 2 Chronicles 18 starting around the middle, He asks the "hosts of heaven" (a side topic) who will entice Ahab so he will fail. I had come to this in a conversation regarding Genesis 6 and therefore had a good idea. I decided to check the commentary to see what it said. Amazingly, I found it to call this a parabolic vision and that it must be interpreted as such and that which God does not restrain is represented as having done. Hmmm.... Where have I heard that before. It goes on to mention the fiery serpents and agreed with Ellen White in saying that God withdrew His protection with death as the result. They even refer to GC pg. 614.

So, seems to me, this idea of withdrawing protection is not some newfangled idea to put God in better light than He deserves, but something that has been around for many years supported by the Bible, Ellen White, and the commentary. And a few here on this forum.

This is assuming that the idea of God's withdrawing His protection puts Him in a better light than the idea of God's directly causing the action in question. What do you think this is the case? (I'm asking because some have questioned this, saying that if God permits something to happen, there's no difference between this and if He had done it Himself).

True, she does not contradict herself. In theory Jesus could have failed, but in reality God knew He wouldn't. The two are perfectly compatible. Of course, only God knows the beginning from the end; therefore, it doesn't apply to us. That is, it cannot be said of us that we know such and such will or will not happen in the future. We can say, "In theory it could happen." But we cannot also say, "But in reality we know it will not." The rules change dramatically when we factor in God's perfect knowledge of the future (i.e. He knows in advance precisely how things will play out).


If you take into account everything she wrote about it, it is clear she taught Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God through His actions and through His teachings.


Jesus taught Moses permitted divorce. You are implying Jesus lived it. He taught the wicked will wail and gnash their teeth in hell. You are implying He lived it. Obviously, Jesus did not live everything He taught.


The SOP quotes I posted awhile ago say so.


Jesus said the Holy Spirit would teach them the things He couldn't.


Jesus taught the truth regarding the wrath of God. It's just that He didn't employ the withdraw and permit principle of destroying sinners, nor did He command people to stone sinners to death. That Jesus didn't do these things while here in the flesh doesn't prove God didn't do them in the past.

I'm not saying you believe it does. I still have no idea why you think God did such things. You dance around the idea that He ran the risk of being misunderstood by accommodating their sinful desires and expectations, but this insight in no way explains why you think God did such things. Jesus never gave sinners permission to do something to accommodate their sinful desires and expectations. Why do you think He did such things in the OT?