No it doesn't. But let's pretend it does. The assumption is that you are more educated/learned than they were. How do we know that Tom isn't more educated/learned than you are? It appears to me that your view is very similar to the people under the papacy which you are calling uneducated/unlearned. How do we know that Tom's view of God isn't at a more educated/learned level than your view?

“All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” “Can know” refers to our limited ability to comprehend truth. Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life. Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.” Nevertheless, engrained prejudices, preconceived opinions, widespread misconceptions, and time and circumstances did not permit Jesus to explain and/or demonstrate everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God. The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said. More on this point at the end of this post.


Where in the Bible does it progress to the point it says, in the immediate context – “The death and destruction herein described was caused by Jesus withdrawing His protection and giving His enemies permission to do it”? I realize Ellen says so concerning specific situations, which you believe must be applied to every situation, but where in the Bible is it plainly stated in the immediate context?

Also, how early in the biblical record did God articulate the withdraw-permit principle of punishment? The reason I’m asking is to understand why, if He explained it in the beginning, and the chosen people were already aware of it, why didn’t He remind them of it whenever circumstances forced Him to do it?

Surely it would have helped them avoid adding insult to injury by concluding God, rather than Satan, was directly responsible for causing death and destruction. Isn’t that what a loving, merciful, compassionate Lord and Savior would do? Why run the risk of being misunderstood when simply reminding them of the truth could prevent it?

Of course, if Jesus didn't say anything about it (the withdraw-permit principle of punishment) until much later on, then it stands to reason they had no idea early on God wasn't directly responsible for causing death and destruction. But then who can blame them for getting it wrong if God never explained it to them? They simply took God at His word when He told them He was going to cause death and destruction.


Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. In order for His enemies to do it, they would have had to been inside the most holy place when they employed fire to burn N&A alive. Well, come to think of it, I suppose it’s possible they could have figured out a way to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place without having to be physically inside the most holy place. Also, what kind of fire did God’s enemies use?


I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?


I’m sorry you misread the question. Please know that it was an honest question. At any rate, I’m glad we agree “we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God” and “all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son" do not mean the same thing.


Perhaps you overlooked the following: “He could not open to them the truths He longed to unfold. . . He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples.” “He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit” would introduce and explain the things Jesus did not, could not, reveal to them. As explained above, Jesus could only share with them truths they were capable of comprehending, truths they “needed to know” to experience rebirth.

Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God. When we take the Bible as a whole, rather than excluding the OT and NT, that is, rather than restricting our view of God to the four Gospels, we find that Jesus does indeed reveal everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

In the humane hunter illustration the father raised his son to abhor killing animals. Later on, when the son craved to kill animals, the father taught him how to kill animals in the most humane manner. Those who would have overheard the father teaching his son how to kill animals humanely would have heard him mingling pleading with his son not to do it and the son begging his father to let him do it. Or, are you assuming the father would not have mingled teaching his son how to hunt humanely with gently reminding him it is contrary to his will and wishes?

Now, let’s take two common stories from the Bible and apply the principle of the humane hunter. Story One: Fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Story Two: Elijah prayed twice for fire to consume two separate bands of fifty and twice “the fire of God came down from heaven” and burned them alive. Please apply the principles of the humane hunter to these two stories.


It is obvious Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. With this in mind I am compelled to ask – Why did the OT Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

I have no idea what your answer is to this question. I’m not even sure if you agree Jesus did so. Your continual reference to the humane hunter illustration implies you do, which suggests you believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. If so, according to your view of God, doesn’t it mean Jesus commanded them to do something diametrically opposed to the will of God?


Here are the two questions I asked above:


Why do you think these questions are a repetition of the one above? Do you believe killing enemy soldiers in battle and killing citizens through the execution of capital punishment are the same things?


No one in their right mind would argue Jesus, while here in the flesh, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.


You are jumping to conclusions. Just because I believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it doesn’t mean I believe He opposed capital punishment. He often spoke about it. “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when the Son of man shall come in his glory.”


I also believe a proper understanding of God's character, especially through the life and teachings of Jesus, is paramount to properly understanding the Bible, especially as it pertains to all the killing and destruction. The passages I posted above are too plainly worded to assume they mean something other than what they obviously mean. Jesus did indeed command the things described in those passages. There is no doubt about it. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise. The question is – Why did Jesus command such things? Why did a loving, merciful, compassionate Savior command godly people to kill ungodly people?

The statement says that whatever man is able to know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ.



What she said is that "all" (not "only") that we a)need to know OR b)are able to know, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It wasn't a limiting statement, as "only" would make it, but a non-limiting statement.

You're basically reversing what she said.



Whatever we are capable of knowing is what Jesus Christ revealed.



This is another way of stating something different than the EGW statement.

This part is OK.



This you just made up. The statement doesn't say anything like this or about this.



Ok.

You didn't deal with the point of logic I brought up. That is, this:





GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.



Why do you think I said this?



Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.



We're not capable in any state of knowing everything there is to know about God. Can we be glad to agree on this point as well?

Regarding the second point, when you say, "'all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son' do not mean the same thing," you mean the same thing as "it is not possible for man to know everything about God?" In which case you're echoing what I said?

Basically you asked a question implying these were related, and I said these are independent things, so that your question didn't really make sense. You're saying you agree with me on this point? If so, I'm glad we agree too.



I've already explained why this doesn't contradict what she said.



You keep changing things that were said. She didn't say "to experience rebirth" but simply "all that man needs to know, or can know."

At any rate, as I previously explained, the fact that there were things which Jesus could not reveal to them at that time does not imply that all that man can know of God was not revealed by Jesus Christ. This isn't a valid argument.



No, it doesn't mean this! Your assertion would only be true if the things which Jesus Christ couldn't tell them were things about God's character which He did not reveal elsewhere.



Right! Jesus, during his earthly mission, revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God.



This is your opinion, but not what Ellen White wrote. Looking at the context of her statement, it is clear that she is speaking of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh.

I disagree with the idea that to learn of God we should supplement what Jesus Christ taught with what other sources teach us, and then add them together to get a full or true or complete picture. I believe Jesus Christ *is* the full/complete/picture of God's character, and that it is His revelation only which enables us to rightly understand other lesser revelations of God.

I think this is a chief disagreement we have. I see Jesus Christ in human flesh as superior to all other revelations of God.

#132770 looks like #132651 which I responded to in #132664.

Tom: I guess you are also selectively oblivious to this fact also, when I had repeated what you’d overlooked, you just outrightly ignored them yet again. What’s the point then?!!

-I don’t consider your peripheral questions comment as being worthy of a response

-And my endeavors to help save the lives of would be aborted infants is factually most worthwhile to me thus the inferior place of this discussion.

-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”

Quite predictable slant for a response kland, from you. I don’t have time for that either. Sorry. Can’t state the facts any other way or rewrite Church history to please you! You can deal with your own version of reality, including how you choose to view the exegetical facts I presented throughout this discussion.

Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His? Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction? Is Christ in control or is chance?


Do you believe God is not in control of sinners? If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it? As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan. Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.


Children are, of course, free to disobey their parents and stay out as late they please. However, there would be consequences after the fact. But in the case of evil angels, things are very much different. Jesus cannot afford to punish them after the fact, especially as it relates to hurting us or tempting us beyond Jesus’ established limits. He must impose limits on them and then work to enforce His limits to guarantee they do not ever, ever disobey. In this sense, evil angels are not free; indeed, they are very much shackled.


Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did Jesus resurrected them.


What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?


Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive. “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}


No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases. Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.


“The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}


We’ve tried doing it your way, Tom. However, the discussion died out. You ended your discourse on the character of God without explaining why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people. Is that the fruit of your view of God? If so, it comes woefully short of explaining some very difficult aspects of the Bible.

I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.


Again, Ellen wrote - “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} In what sense do you believe Jesus “used His enemies as instruments to punish” the Jews in 70 AD? By simply withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men and evil angels to kill them? If so, don’t you think expressing it the way she did in PC 136 is unnecessarily confusing? Would you ever express it in those terms?


No assumptions necessary. Ellen very clearly said – “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} My question is valid. Unless, of course, we assume as you do we cannot take her at her word, that we must interpret her words to mean something other than what they plainly say.


It appears to me you agree with the first sentence in my response above, namely, “Seems to me the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty and the death of Jews in 70 AD are similar in the sense Jesus, from your perspective, would have simply withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to cause the resulting death and destruction. “ Do you agree?

If so, what protection was Jesus providing, until He withdrew it, in the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty? Does fire lie in wait until Jesus gives it permission to selectively burn sinners alive? If so, doesn’t it imply fire is self-acting? If not, who, then, employed the fire that killed them? Please take your time and answer these questions in detail. Thank you.

If you feel you have better use of your time, why do you come here to hurl insults? You really don't see anything wrong here?

You're mixing too many things together here, and then asking a yes or no question. That's not cricket.

I think all evil is not the choice of Jesus Christ, and evil only occurs when beings choose to act contrary to His will.



Things happen by chance, if that's what you mean.



Things happen by chance, if that's what you're asking. Again, chance being in control isn't a logical construct.



Not when they sin.



I mean that sinners, when they sin, choose to exercise their free will to act contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.



The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.



Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.



No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?



This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.



To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?



How do you know they didn't already exist? That is, that they weren't already a part of the culture of the Hebrews and their contemporaries?



I'm sorry you feel this way. DA 764 tells us that if God had allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that the inevitable result of sin is death. I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between sin and death. I think not seeing this connections leads to many errors, all of which portray God negatively.



I don't think it matters much to one who is convinced in regards to God's character. For example, let's say someone is killed in your house by a fire. It's possible that your wife set them on fire and burned them alive. But you know your wife, and know she isn't capable of that sort of behavior. So how did the person die? Insofar as your wife's setting them on fire is concerned, you don't much care, because you know however the person died, it wasn't because your wife set them on fire.



I addressed this just above, in the illustration about your wife setting people on fire.



Then there's no Great Controversy. If God does His will, and Satan does God's will, there's no controversy at all; there's only God's will. If all that happens is God's will, that begs the question of what sort of God would will the sort of horror we see on this planet?



This seems a bit confused, in regards to the subject of discussion here. Are you talking about the final judgment? If not, none of this really makes sense. The punishment of the wicked isn't until the resurrection.

If you're talking about the final judgment, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus Christ leaves their punishment up to Satan. That's just a red herring.



Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.



No, we never have. You've always injected your agenda into the discussion. My way would be to consider the character of Christ on its own merits. You just ask questions like, "How did Christ's character reveal why He did this or that thing that I think He did"?



It never got started.



This was never my agenda; it was yours. "My way," as I stated, would be to examine the character of Christ on its own merits.



Again, "my way" would be to examiner the character of Jesus Christ on its own merits. The "whole purpose" of His earthly mission was "the revelation of God," which was the only way men could be set right and kept right with God. I think this would be wonderful fruit, don't you?



The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought?

Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect?

Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

(More later)