I'm splitting this up. First post.



Our sin has broken our relationship with God. God, from His end, has forgiven us, but our relationship remains broken if we don't repent and accept His forgiveness.

We need a relationship with God in order to survive. In the judgment, those who have refused to respond to God's efforts to heal them will suffer and die, because we need a relationship with God in order to be healthy, in order to live.



No, it's not B's fault, and this is actually quite a good example as "B" in the example represents God (except that God does not become angry, or respond in any selfishly, because He has been insulted.). God, even though He is the One who has been wrong, and by all rights could demand restitution, doesn't. Instead, He forgives, although, again, He is the one who has been wronged. As Psalm 69, depicting Christ's death on the cross put it, "I restored that which I took not away."

Here's another human example. Say you're dating a woman, and she gets upset at you without cause. You realize she is upset, so you take a day off work, and visit her accompanied with flowers and chocolates, or whatever it is that she likes. She unexpected sees you with flowers in hand, and her whole mood changes. She sees from your sacrifice that she has misjudged you and repents (changes her mind; changes from being angry at you to no longer being angry), and you and she live happily ever after.

Even though we are the ones in the wrong, we are the ones who are angry, and we are the ones who need to be fixed. God fixes us by healing us with His love, by revealing the truth about Himself and the truth about ourselves.



The whole point is that Jesus did not wait. God forgives. His forgiveness is unconditional, from His side. He doesn't wait.

However, in order for us to be healed, we need to receive that forgiveness. So in the case of Jesus' enemies, the ones who did not respond, were forgiven, but not healed.

By the way, we receive great value from God's forgiveness, even if we refuse it. We owe our physical lives, and all our possessions, to God's forgiveness. We, like the prodigal son, may receive these blessing, our inheritance, as it were, to selfishly live for ourselves, in which case God's forgiveness will only be of use for us for this life. Or we, like the prodigal son in the story, may choose to respond to the Father's love, and while we are still a long ways off He will receive us.



This is interesting. You acknowledge that I am right not to take offense at your accusation, but find it odd that I'm lingering with it. Well, if you agree that I am correct in taking offense, then you should agree that I am correct in requesting that you retract it.

However, regardless of what you choose to do, it's led to an interesting discussion, and you've been pleasant since then, so I won't bring it up again (unless I'm responding to something you say).

Second (and final) part.



Because you don't know that what you said is true. You accused me of disregarding what you (plural) were presenting in regards to Jesus' teaching of the judgment because it didn't fit in with my view of God. You have no way of knowing that this is true. (in particular, although you may perceive me as disregarding Jesus' teaching, you have no way of knowing, and no reason to state, that I am doing so because it doesn't fit my view of God; that's the particularly offensive part).

You could, instead of making an unsubstantiated accusation like this, which is out of place in a forum among friends, to simply state that you disagree with what I said, and leave it at that.



I think it's pretty easy to misuse Scripture, and that practically everyone does. Probably everyone does, to some extant. Our big problem is that we don't know God, which causes us to misunderstand and misapply His attempts to communicate with us. In general, Scripture is used as a club to hit people over the head with (and people do exactly the same thing with Ellen White, of course) as opposed to a means by which good news can be shared.

We let our own paradigmns get in the way of what God is really saying to us. Knowing and recognizing that we do this is a first step to really understanding what He's trying to tell us.



I agree with this, given the premise. I don't think God expects us to believe things "just because." However, I would question the premise because Romans 1 tells us:



This seems to be saying that God has revealed Himself clearly enough that they know who He is, to the extent that He created things, and they should be thankful to Him.



I don't have the opportunity to read the chapter, so I am constrained to respond in ignorance. I think that God's holiness is an outspringing of His love, and do not believe there is tension between these attributes.

It's very interesting that you should mention this because I just heard a sermon regarding God's holiness. The preacher presented it as *the* defining attribute of God. This got me to thinking, and it seemed to me that the defining attribute of God is love, of course ("God is love" we read; not "God is holiness") and I wondered how we should understand God's holiness as something tangible and meaningful.

I got to thinking of Jesus Christ. Was He holy? As holy as God? Even while here with us in the flesh? Of course, we would say. What is it that constituted His holiness? It seemed to me that it was the fact that He was in perfect harmony with the law of God. Jesus was holy because He never sinned.

Now the law of God is a law of love, so it follows that holiness is defined by love. If we love (speaking of agape here), then we are holy. God is holy because He loves.



Well that's what makes things such a challenge, isn't it? Jesus seemed to have just the right way of reaching each one. Most of what Jesus taught and believed made little sense to those He came in contact with. Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," and almost nobody believes that, even though just about any Christian would affirm that they do.

We can share with each other what makes sense to us, and through our discussing there may be a meeting of the minds as the Spirit leads us into all truth.

One final comment is that I find internet discussions to be a very difficult place to achieve consensus. It's much easy to do so when dealing with someone in person. One of my best friends, in fact the person I would say most closely sees things to the way I do, is someone with whom I "fought" on the internet for years. When on the net still most of the time when I comment on something he wrote it's because of something I'm not seeing the same. That just seems to be what happens.

However, when we speak on the phone we almost never disagree about subjects, but have a much more edifying conversation.

Just an observation.

TE: If all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, this means that there is no information in the Old Testament which tells us something about God which is not revealed in the New. That's simple logic.

For any event in the OT, there should be some corresponding event in Christ's life, or some teaching, which reveals whatever it is that is referenced in the OT in relation to knowing something about God. (#95622)

MM: In the OT, Jesus withdrew His protection and allowed evil angels and/or evil men to kill sinners. I assume you agree with this point. Where in the NT do we find Jesus, while here in teh flesh, demonstrating this behavior?

What's your point, MM? Is it:

a)Jesus never demonstrated this behavior.
b)Therefore, there are things about God that Jesus did not reveal.

My question is - Is it true Jesus demonstrated this behavior in the OT but not in the NT? If so, why not, that is, why didn't Jesus demonstrate this behavior in the NT (while here in the flesh)?

My question was, what's your point? Is it:

a)Jesus never demonstrated this behavior (in the flesh)
b)Therefore, there are things about God that Jesus did not reveal (in the flesh).

I'm asking you my question because I'm trying to understand your point of view. I'm not trying to make a point. I'm not sure what you believe about it. Please help me out. Thank you.

If you have no point to make, let's just move on.

Regarding my point of view, it is that all that we need to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ while here with us in the flesh.

So if we take some act that God commited, we should be interpret that act in the light of what we see in Jesus Christ's life and character. This seems very simple to me, MM. I don't understand why you're wanting to find something in the OT and look for the same thing in the NT. I find that very confusing, which is why I've been asking what your point is.

Certainly God has done different things in history than what Jesus Christ did here in the flesh, but none of these things reveals to us something new about God that Jesus didn't reveal. That's the point.

TE: Certainly God has done different things in history than what Jesus Christ did here in the flesh, but none of these things reveals to us something new about God that Jesus didn't reveal. That's the point.

MM: In light of what you believe about Jesus revealing the truth about our Father's character and kingdom, I do not understand how you can also say there are things "God" did in the OT that Jesus did not do in the NT, namely - withdrawing divine protection and giving evil angels permission to kill sinners.

In other words, I hear you saying "God" (which I take to mean the Father and not Jesus, please correct if I've misunderstood you) is the type of being whose mercy eventually runs out, withdraws protection, and gives evil angels permission to punish and/or kill sinners within defined limits.

So, again, here's my question - If this is true about "God", and if Jesus, while here in the flesh, demonstrated everything we can know about our Father's character and kingdom, where do we find Jesus, while here in the flesh, demonstrating this particular aspect of our Father?

If we do not find Jesus, while here in the flesh, demonstrating this aspect of our Father, do we dare believe such a thing about Him? Using your theory, would we not rather reject it wholesale?

TE: Certainly God has done different things in history than what Jesus Christ did here in the flesh, but none of these things reveals to us something new about God that Jesus didn't reveal. That's the point.

MM: In light of what you believe about Jesus revealing the truth about our Father's character and kingdom, I do not understand how you can also say there are things "God" did in the OT that Jesus did not do in the NT[/quote]

Jesus was alive for about 30 years. The history of the OT goes on for thousands of years. Jesus could hardly do all these same things in a mere 30 years, for one thing. For another, Jesus lived as a man during His life here in the flesh. So there's no reason to expect, in the first place, that Jesus would be doing the same things.

This isn't even an issue.

Ellen White did not write that Jesus *did* everything that God has ever done, but that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh.



I've not said this.



First of all, I wouldn't say what you said is true about God. Secondly, what Ellen White wrote is that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, while here in the flesh. So if there's something you're interested in knowing about God, you should be able to find that revealed in Jesus' life and character.

You should be just as able to find such a thing as I.



If we think we have some theory about God's character, and that theory is not reflected in Jesus' life or character while here in the flesh, I think one should question that theory. Either that, or look some more at Jesus' life and character. Certainly the theory regarding God, and the reality demonstrated by Jesus Christ should match.