Dave, the paragraph you quoted is difficult, isn't it? But it is also typical of the times. Nowadays we separate such paragraphs to make it easier to tell we are going back to the beginning of an event. Above, I have done just that. The word "after" is the clue that she went back to the beginning of the event.

Besides this, the quote provides gruesome details about the effect of God's glory upon the flesh of the unsaved sinners.

This is completely irrelevant to my point! We were discussing that question of whether Christ revealed all that man can know about God. I quoted the salient part of the quote.



"Can know" and "need to know" are two different things. There's no reason to equate them. If I said you to, "I'll teach you all that you need to know about the book of Galatians." that's not the same as if I said "I'll teach you all that can know about the book of Galatians."

The amazing part of her quote is the "can know" part. If she had simply said, "All that man needs to know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son," that gives the impression that there may have been some things left out. But when she adds "or can know" Whoa!!, that idea goes out the window.

Nothing was left out. Jesus Christ life and character was a full and complete revelation of God, all that man "can know."



Here's the quote, MM;



There's no need to refashion it into something else.

The whole purpose of Jesus' mission was to reveal the Father, so that man could be set right with God. So the criteria was to reveal the Father. John expressed the same idea:

Tom, "needs to know" and "can know" go hand-in-hand. "Can know" means capable of knowing now, in this present darkness. It is wonderful to learn we are capable of knowing what we need to know. Which implies saving knowledge.

Do we need to understand everything there is to know about God's "strange act" to experience salvation? The answer is obviously - No. Otherwise, Jesus would have demonstrated this aspect of God's kingdom and character while He was here in the flesh.

The wrath of God is loving, just, and good. It satisfies the demands of law and justice. It also involves venegeance.

"Can know" is much, much stronger than "needs to know." If I say, "I'll teach you all the math that you can know" that's MUCH more math than "I'll teach you all the math you need to know." I'd say, depending on your math ability, more than 100 times more.



"Can know" means "capable of knowing." That's it.



There's more involved than salvation. If one were to interpret "needs to know" as "needs to know in order to bring the GC to an end" *that* would be a lot close to "can know."



Good! You've shown that "can know" includes a lot more than "needs to know." Well done!



"This aspect"?



Not human vengeance, though. Human vengeance is "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth." Divine vengeance is not of this order. God does not overcome His enemies by force. Force is not a principle of God's government.

All right. Now let's move on.

What does it mean - The wrath and vengeance of "an offended God"?

It's easy to find "wrath" and "vengeance" in Scripture, in relation to God, and I'll quote some things on that in a moment. Regarding "an offended God," this is an SOP phrase. Here's a couple of Scripture which deal with the first two concepts:



There are tons of like Scriptures, which illustrate the principle that God's wrath is manifest in His "giving up" the object of His wrath.

Regarding "vengeance," the following illustrates the principle:



God's vengeance is to overcome evil with good.

The SOP speaks of the vengeance of God here:



This is easily seen to be the same concept of wrath illustrated from Romans 1.

Regarding an "offended God," I think GC chapter 1 is a great illustration of this concept as well.

I think a problem comes up when we make God such as one as ourselves, petty, and so forth, and so understand "offended" in a petty, small way, as if we ourselves were offended by something someone else does. God is completely selfless, so He cannot be offended like we are, because self is slighted. Instead, God is offended by sin, because of the damage that sin does to His loved ones.

Tom, from what you've posted above I get the distinct impression you believe God has never expressed wrath or vengeance in any other way. Did I understand your position correctly?

I think God always responds by overcoming evil with good, yes.

1. What is good? Is punishing and destroying sinners good?

2. Has God ever destroyed sinners Himself?

3. Or, does He only withdraw His protection and give evil angels permission to destroy sinners?

4. What was the origin of the following fire:

Leviticus
9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: [which] when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

5. What was the origin of the following fire:

Leviticus
10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers
16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

6. What was the origin of the following fire:

Genesis
19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

7. And, what is the origin of the following fire:

Revelation
20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

What Jesus did was good. He fully revealed God, which is to say, He fully revealed what good is.



As pointed out in GC chapter 1, yes.



No. Destruction is not always caused by evil angels, at least not directly. Indirectly all destruction is due to Satan, since he originated sin.

Regarding the origin of fire, we've discussed all of these incidents, haven't we? I'd come back to the same question I've been raising, and that is, where do you see Jesus acting as you think God acted, in terms of destroying people with fire. When Jesus was asked to destroy his enemies with fire, His response was, "You know not of what spirit you are." Why do you think He said that?

He continued, "The Son of Man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I perceive God to be acting consistently in harmony with this principle.