Yes, she does.



She even quoted the same Scripture I mentioned. Jesus Christ came for the purpose of revealing the Father. She says this was the "whole purpose" of His earthly mission. Here she says that all that man can know of God, or needs to know, was revealed in the life and teachings of His Son. She quotes John 1:18, which makes the same point, that Christ came to reveal the Father, and she goes on to say that Christ took our humanity, that He became flesh, and so forth. When she says that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, she's clearly speaking of when He became flesh.



Sure, this statement does include a conjunction. But the other one doesn't. For the other one to be true, it must be the case that all that one can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. It doesn't matter that another statement says that all that man can know of God was revealed by this and something else. Of course that's the case. It would have to be.

For example, let's say I wrote, "All that man needs to know of X was written by Y." Let's say I also write, "All that man needs to know of X was written by Y and Z." Can both of these statements be true? Of course. If the first one is true, the second one, of necessity, must be true.

GC, I wish to make clear the 8T 216 statement is not the only statement that makes this point. For example, this is from ST 1/20/90:



This brings out that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission on earth was the revelation of God's character.

Here's another statement that discusses this theme:



This is again referencing John 1:18. The point is made that it was necessary for Christ to manifest God's character, to counteract the work that Satan had done. This work only one being could do. That she says this means this was a work that needed to be done!

By considering the above statements, we see not only that Christ did fully reveal God's character, but that it was necessary that He do so.

Tom,

I think you are being too dogmatic about this. God walked with Abraham, talked with Abraham, ate with Abraham, allowed Abraham to bargain with Him; and Abraham is called "the friend of God." If no man has seen God at any time, which I believe is true of the Father and of the full Divine glory (which Jesus veiled in Himself while on earth), it can only be that "God" in the story refers to Jesus. Do you agree?

Were not the Jews the children of Abraham? Or do you think the Jews were not children of Abraham?

The statements you just quoted about "Christ's whole purpose" do not indicate that it was also the sole time in which He was revealed to mankind. Was He not also the One who spoke with the patriarchs? Did He not reveal anything at all to them?

When you say "whole" and then mean "fraction" it doesn't add up.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, yes, the unfallen and the redeemed will praise God for ending the GC the way it is described in the GC. And, no, I do not believe the radiant firelight of God's glory and presence is like the jets of light on Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Also, what effect do you think the presence of God will play in the agony the wicked experience at the end of time?

This is a bit vague. Let's consider the actual quote:



This was a couple of years ago. I think you may have altered your view some from when this was written. Is that right?



Ok. Previously you indicated you were favorable to this analogy. But if you say this doesn't reflect your view, I won't use it to describe it.



This if from "The Desire of Ages"



Also, from GC 542-543:



I think these quotes bring out the answer to your question, especially the second one.

Yes, I believe Christ led the Israelites in the wilderness.



What? Do I think the Jews were not the children of Abraham? Why would you ask this?



The fact that all that man can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh does not imply God was never revealed at any other time. This is obviously faulty reasoning.

For example, let's say someone writes a book on the Apollo missions, which reveals all that can be known of them. This doesn't mean before the book was written there wasn't anything known of the Apollo missions.



This isn't relevant to the point, which is that Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, revealed all that can be known of God. This doesn't imply that things which can be known of God weren't revealed previously, or might be revealed afterward, but means that anything which was revealed previously (or might be revealed afterward) was revealed by Christ while here with us in the flesh. This is simply logic.



I didn't say it ("whole purpose"). I referred to it, which is why I put it in quotes. That the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God is taken from ST 1/20/90.

And was Christ alive?

A yes or no answer would be simple enough.

I'll speak to this issue once again in a soon-coming post.

Again, I'll address this one once again in a soon-coming post.

I have no issue with Christ's whole purpose during His "life in the flesh". I am taking an issue with the converse of this, which is to say it was NOT His purpose at any prior time. That is the fallacious logic I am objecting to.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

They praise the justice and judgment of God, which involves resurrected sinners suffering in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. What is not clear to me is why you think they are physically able to suffer emotional agony for millions of sins, one at a time, without dying after revisiting the first sin. This is crucial to an understanding of your view of the punishment of the wicked. So far you haven't explained what you believe about this particular aspect of judgment. It would be helpful if you did.


Why do you think the presence of God will cause the wicked to experience agony? How will it cause them to feel agony? And, what will be the end result of their agony? Do you think it is a comprehension of His character that will cause them to suffer and die?

What do you think the inevitable result of sin is? I got the impression you think it is emotional agony ending in death. But now I'm not so sure. Please explain your position clearly, that is, don't post a quote and expect me to know what you think it means. Your interpretation of quotes is often radically different than how I read it. State your view plainly in your own words.

For example, I believe the inevitable result of sin is capital punishment. God will inflict punishment according to their words and works. They will suffer mental and physical agony in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. They will die the moment they pay for their final sin. Please state your position as clearly as I have. Thank you.

Not in humanity, so no, not in the sense the statement "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son."



This is a rhetorical question. Just go ahead and make your point please.



They reveal that the whole purpose of His earthly mission, which is the same period of time that the other quote is speaking of, was the revelation of God.



Ok. I'll just reiterate the point, then, that the fact that all that we can know of God was revealed by Christ in His humanity does not imply that there are things man can know of God which were revealed in other places. However, it does mean that anything that was revealed elsewhere can be found in Christ's revelation while here in the flesh. This is sound reasoning.



Not in His humanity.



Not in His humanity.




But this fallacious logic was never set forth (at least by me). So why object to it?

I'll go ahead and respond to your questions, but you didn't answer my question. Does the quote I presented of our conversation accurately represent your current view? If it does, I'll keep presenting it. If not, please let me know, so I won't present it as a current view of yours.

It's not clear to me why you think I think this.



I don't believe your characterization here. I've written out what I believe.

M: Also, what effect do you think the presence of God will play in the agony the wicked experience at the end of time?

T: "His very presence is to them a consuming fire." "A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire."



Here is a passage which speaks to your questions:





I've cited the following many times:



The inevitable result of sin is death.



What I've said is that the inevitable result of sin is death.



Sin is based on the principle of selfishness, as opposed to the law of life for the universe, which is self-sacrificing love. It couldn't possibly lead to anything but death. It doesn't require God's setting people on fire to destroy them. The wicked will die as a result of their own choice.



I really don't see how DA 764 can be misunderstood. The only possible part I see that can be misunderstood is what "arbitrary" means. If one goes with the common idea of the word, without reading the context, one might misunderstand its meaning, but I don't see any room for misunderstanding in the rest of the passage.



I'm not seeing where there would be room for misunderstanding here. For example, "but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin." This means that death comes as the inevitable result of sin, but had God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin right away, this wouldn't have been apparently to the onlooking angels.

Let me try expressing things another way. Given the principle upon which sin is founded, How could sin NOT lead to death?



This certainly can't be true. Just plug in "capital punishment" in for "reap the full result of their sin" and you can see it doesn't make sense.



This doesn't make any sense. For the quote to make sense, sin has to result in a death that can be misinterpreted as something else. God's killing someone would be understood for exactly what it is.



The wicked receive the results of their own choice. It's not something arbitrarily inflicted by God.



This is true! This is because sin causes suffering; the more sin, the more suffering.



You talk as if this were some sort of transaction. Do this wrong, and this is equivalent to X units of pain. Do this thing, and it's equivalent to Y. So God inflicts X units of pain if you do the first thing, Y units for the second, and so forth. This idea of God must be very harmful to one's own psyche.

Some people can't feel physical pain. Do you think God will supernaturally cure them, so they can feel physical pain, to "pay" for their sin? Where did you ever get the idea that sin is something that can be paid for by pain? That sounds utterly pagan. Where is there anything in Scripture which suggests such a thing? There is much in Scripture which speaks of sin *causing* pain, but nothing suggesting that one "pays" for sin by having pain inflicted on one's person.



I believe that sin ruins one's character, to the extent that merely being in God's presence is unpleasant (like a consuming fire). We see some explanation of this by even righteous beings in Scripture (e.g. Isaiah "I was undone"; Daniel/John "I fell as a dead man"), so it's not surprising that an unrighteous person couldn't stand it. The revelation of God's character of necessity makes clear our own. Without the bathing grace of Christ, this is impossible for us to bear. If we had to bear the burden of our own guilt, it would crush us. Those who reject Christ choose to do this very thing, and are not able to bear it.

Tom,

I <had> some material ready to post (my "soon-coming post") but the power went out, and I lost it all...so it may not be so soon-coming as I had planned.

Regarding the "rhetorical question," let's make it a real question, shall we?

Were the Jews the children of Abraham?

There's a real reason that I ask this question, so it was not intended to be rhetorical.


So you mean to say that "the life and character" of Jesus lasted only 33 years? He was not "alive" before this?



You have made the point very clear here that you only believe Mrs. White was referring to Jesus' life in the flesh. However, do you have some statement to that effect? Where does she say this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.