That would be applying EGW's words more vehemently than EGW intended, making her contradict inspiration. That would be a bad thing.

That's precisely my point, Arnold.

The same thing is happening here with a statement that "all that man can know."

I can easily counter that statement with one fell swoop, if I should stoop to the same level of "interpretation." Look here:



Shall I say that Jesus revealed nothing new?!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is interesting. This goes along with this idea:



The object Christ had in view was the revelation of His Father, that men might be set right and kept right with God.

Even if it were true that Christ revealed nothing new, it would still be the case that all that man can know was revealed in the life and character of His Son in the flesh.

What is it you think I'm saying God will do?

This whole discussion seems rather moot.



When I read from the SOP that all that man can know of God was revealed by His Son, it changed my life. I realized that I had given lip service to the concept that God is like His Son Jesus Christ, that I didn't really seem them as the same, that in my mind were unconscious differences which my conscious mind had not recognized.

I believe the statement (that all that man can know or needs to know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son) as it reads. The context is clearly speaking of Christ's humanity. If one wishes to doubt the statement, there's always some other way to interpret a statement like this.

Again, as I stated above, "the point isn't that Christ did everything that God has done, or will do, but that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Christ in His humanity."

I see in "The Desire of Ages" pages 107, 108, the answer to the question that was asked in regards to the death of the wicked. I see a similar principle in play in the cleansing of the temple.

Again, I see evidence that the SOP statement is true, an one would ordinarily read such a statement, but I don't see the point in trying to prove it.

This is fairly representing the difference. Here's the statement:



There's no doubt this is speaking of Christ's humanity. Anyone can see that.

Where we differ is that I believe that Christ, in His humanity, revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God, and you don't.

Tom,

If you choose to believe that "all that man can know" was revealed by Jesus, AND that "He did not make new revelations to men," then it necessarily follows that "all that man can know" is contained in the Old Testament scriptures.

This is why I do not think it is quite fair of you to sidestep the Old Testament stories and keep saying we should be focused on Christ's life instead. It appears that Christ Himself cast the focus behind, to what had already been revealed.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I allow for the possibility that Jesus revealed things about God in His pre-incarnate days that He did not replicate during His 33 years here. You don't allow for that. Right?

But there is something else that differentiates our views. Even if Jesus did reveal everything we can know about God during His 33 years here, I allow for the possibility that I might not know about everything that He did during His 33 years here. And more importantly, I might not understand everything that He did during His 33 years here. Therefore, I consider the 4,000 years of inspired revelation that He gave about Himself before His incarnation as a valuable resource in understanding what He did during His incarnation.

In contrast, you seem willing to discount clear passages of Scripture and SOP that seem to contradict your understanding of what He did during His 33 years here. I do not trust my understanding that much; I would rather trust a "Thus saith the Lord," even if He didn't say it while wearing sandals.

That is a sound argument.

No, I do not believe what you posted. I believe God will rain down fire from above and raise up fire from below. The wicked will suffer in this environment.


Nothing you have written so far (please repost it if I’ve missed it) explains why you think the wicked are physically able to suffer emotional agony for millions of sins, one at a time, without dying after revisiting the first sin. Also, which aspects of this statement do you disagree with and why?


Reposting the same quote wasn’t helpful, Tom. I understand the who (God) and the what (the consuming fire of His glory and presence); what I don’t understand is the how and the why. That is, why do you think His presence will cause the wicked to suffer? And, how does His presence cause them to suffer?

Do you think it is a comprehension of His character that will cause them to suffer and die? If so, how and why?


I’m talking about the suffering that precedes death. As you know, death is the end of the results of sin. It is relief from the results of sin.


Do you think the wicked will experience emotional anguish as they revisit each sin during judgment? If so, why do you think they are capable of experiencing emotional anguish as they revisit each sin? Also, do you think they will eventually die of emotional anguish? If so, why do you think they are physically able to survive revisiting their first few sins? Why do you think they are able to endure revisiting millions of sins without dying? Do you think God does something supernatural to keep them alive? If not, why are they able to endure such unimaginable emotional agony without dying prematurely (before they revisit all their sins)?


That sin doesn’t cause sinners to die is evident from the fact evil angels have been alive for more than 6,000 years in a sinful state. Also, humans live for many years in a sinful state without dying. Instead, they die of disease or destruction.

Why do you think evil men and angels have been able to live so long without dying? What do you think is the source of their life and their longevity? And, what do you think will change at the end when they finally die? What do you think will cause them to die? If you think sin will cause them to die, please explain why it hasn’t killed them yet. What do you think sin is waiting for? Why hasn’t it killed them yet?


Tom, you are acting as if this quote is the only place it is talked about in the SOP. Consider this one:

“The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked, emboldens men in transgression; but their punishment will be none the less certain and terrible for being long delayed. . . . While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some He must cut off those who become hardened in sin. . . . And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor. But while inflicting judgment, God remembered mercy. {CC 155}


Why do you think the SOP employs the word “inflict” to describe the judgment of the wicked? For example: “God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. Who will say God will not do what He says He will do? {LDE 241.3}

“God had declared that if at that time they refused to hear His voice, He would inflict upon them fearful retribution. They did refuse to hear, and He pronounced His final judgments upon Judah, and He would visit with special wrath the man who had proudly lifted himself up against the Almighty. {PK 435.3} The lightest punishment that a merciful God could inflict upon so rebellious a people was submission to the rule of Babylon, but if they warred against this decree of servitude they were to feel the full vigor of His chastisement. {PK 443.2}

“The Lord commanded Jeremiah to stand in the court of the Lord's house and speak unto all the people of Judah who came there to worship, those things which He would give him to speak, diminishing not a word, that they might hearken and turn from their evil ways. Then God would repent of the punishment which He had purposed to inflict upon them because of their wickedness. {4T 165.2}


Again, why doesn’t sin cause sinners to suffer in this way now?


Again, why do you think sin doesn’t cause sinners to suffer and die now? Also, please consider the following: “Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial. {FW 30.1}

“We were all debtors to divine justice, but we had nothing with which to pay the debt. Then the Son of God, who pitied us, paid the price of our redemption. {CC 267.5} “He had come to take man's place, to pledge Himself in man's behalf, to pay the debt that sinners owed. {LHU 75.3} “By dying in our behalf, He gave an equivalent for our debt. Thus He removed from God all charge of lessening the guilt of sin. By virtue of My oneness with the Father, He says, My suffering and death enable Me to pay the penalty of sin. By My death a restraint is removed from His love. His grace can act with unbounded efficiency. {TMK 69.3}


1. Why do you think the grace of Christ prevents sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin?
2. Do you think the grace of Christ prevents evil angels from suffering and dying? If not, what do you think prevents them from suffering and dying the moment they sin?
3. Why do you think the wicked are capable of comprehending the character of God in a way that causes them to suffer and die?
4. Why do you think Jesus’ character didn’t cause sinners to suffer and die while He was here in the flesh?
5. Do you think sinners would suffer and die without the presence of God? If so, how and why?

Ellen White wrote:

The principles of God's government and the plan of redemption must be clearly defined. The lessons of the Old Testament must be fully set before men. {DA 34.1}

In every page, whether history, or precept, or prophecy, the Old Testament Scriptures are irradiated with the glory of the Son of God. So far as it was of divine institution, the entire system of Judaism was a compacted prophecy of the gospel. To Christ "give all the prophets witness." Acts 10:43. From the promise given to Adam, down through the patriarchal line and the legal economy, heaven's glorious light made plain the footsteps of the Redeemer. Seers beheld the Star of Bethlehem, the Shiloh to come, as future things swept before them in mysterious procession. In every sacrifice Christ's death was shown. In every cloud of incense His righteousness ascended. By every jubilee trumpet His name was sounded. In the awful mystery of the holy of holies His glory dwelt. {DA 211.5}

The Old Testament Scriptures stated plainly every detail of Christ's ministry, and again and again He quoted from the prophets, and declared, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." If they had honestly searched the Scriptures, bringing their theories to the test of God's word, Jesus need not have wept over their impenitence. He need not have declared, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Luke 13:35. {DA 241.4}

He spoke the word of God, as He had spoken through all the prophets and teachers of the Old Testament. The whole Bible is a manifestation of Christ, and the Saviour desired to fix the faith of His followers on the word. When His visible presence should be withdrawn, the word must be their source of power. Like their Master, they were to live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt. 4:4. {DA 390.3}

In teaching these disciples, Jesus showed the importance of the Old Testament as a witness to His mission. Many professed Christians now discard the Old Testament, claiming that it is no longer of any use. But such is not Christ's teaching. So highly did He value it that at one time He said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31. {DA 799.1}

It is the voice of Christ that speaks through patriarchs and prophets, from the days of Adam even to the closing scenes of time. The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New. It is the light from the prophetic past that brings out the life of Christ and the teachings of the New Testament with clearness and beauty. The miracles of Christ are a proof of His divinity; but a stronger proof that He is the world's Redeemer is found in comparing the prophecies of the Old Testament with the history of the New. {DA 799.2}