MM are you saying that your saved as long as your not currently committing an act of sin and life is a process of saved.. not saved.. saved.. not saved?
In this view I guess we just hope that we are in a saved state at the exact close of probation?

Aaron

Why would God do this? (Regarding the quote MM cited, it seems clear to me it's essentially the same as the GC quote. SG was a forerunner to the GC; same visions, but rewritten/edited)



You think they couldn't recognize Jesus because God made them forget Him?!



You're doing "serious violence to the text."

Why doesn't it mean the same thing it means when Ellen White says it? But you seem to have difficulty grasping the possibility that God can make Himself forget something.

But seriously, why do you think God would make us forget something? What good would it do? You seem to have difficulty grasping that God respects free will, and that manipulating someone's memories is verboten.

Back to Waggoner's explanation. It is clearly in reference to what Ellen White wrote. And it makes sense. Ellen White counsels us to use common sense in interpreting Scripture and what she wrote. If an interpretation of Scripture or the SOP leads to an idea which violates common sense, it should be seriously questioned. Here's an example of the idea:



There are those who think this is literal. That is, Satan is literally bound with a chain in a bottomless pit which is locked and sealed. If you suggested this meant that he is bound to the earth, you would be accused of doing "serious violence to the tenxt" and "have difficulty grasping that God could chain someone."

Here's another example:



Taking things as literal which shouldn't be leads to wrong conclusions.

Just a quickie....


I can't say definitively, but I have my ideas. Have you ever remembered one of your more dastardly sins, and shrunk in shame for what you did and what you were? I have. It's nice to forget sometimes.

But in any case, why God would do it is not something we need to answer in order for it to happen. God does not limit Himself based on our understanding or lack thereof.


I know that. But I believe that SG was also inspired and correct in its assertions.

========
There is a new thread to address the issue of how obedience and understanding relate. Click here: Is it possible to obey God before understanding His reasons for giving the command?

We'll continue the discussion there. Now,
========

God doesn't want the obedience of automatons:



In order to have an intelligent, appreciation of His wisdom, justice and benevolence, we need to understand His ways. The idea that God would zap our memories is contrary to common sense, and, more importantly, in contrary to His character and the principles of His government.



I'm not questioning the assertions of SG or GC, but your interpretation of these. I believe Waggoner's interpretation makes a lot more sense, and is in harmony with God's character.

God does want us to have an intelligent appreciation of His character. However, He will not let our unintelligence hinder His work. God will fulfill His purposes, even if Arnold and Tom are too dumb to understand them. There will be time enough during eternity to fill in the gaps.




EGW said people won't remember particular sins. Waggoner said people will.

It's not even a matter of interpretation of some obscure text. It's in plain language.

The problem is that the plain meaning of the text goes against what you believe is truth, and what you believe is God's character. In short, you can't accept the plain meaning because it does not match your current theology. Right?

It is possible that your current theology is not completely correct. You might not know God's character as fully as you think. And if you filter and adjust everything you hear to match what you believe, you will never detect any of your errors. Just something to consider.

Perhaps we will have a general notion about what we did, but won't remember the details. I agree with Arnold that it's bad to remember the details about our sins, but I also think I must not forget what God has saved me from.

That's why she says, "they have a deep sense of their unworthiness."

Arnold, I had a longer response prepared, buy my home computer died before I could sent it So I'll try again.

The context of her remarks should be taken into consideration. She compares the experience of the 144,000 with that of Jacob. Here are some comments regarding Jacob's situation:



How was Jacob able to see God face to face and live? Because he was pure in heart. He had no "concealed wrongs," but had confessed his sin. He couldn't bring any sins to remembrance, or else he couldn't have abided God's presence. This is the principle Ellen White is dealing with in regards to the 144,000. A zapping of Jacob's memory wouldn't have helped him any, in terms of being able to see God, and it wouldn't help the 144,000 be able to stand before a holy God without a mediator.



I think Waggoner understood EGW's intent.



If one reads things without taking into account the context of the writing or the intent of the author, I think this leads to problems of the sort I alluded to earlier, such as those who think Satan will be literally bound by a chain.



This is a simplistic analysis. First of all, I don't agree with you as to the plain meaning of the text. I agree with what Waggoner said. Just out of curiosity, would you ask the same questions of him? Isn't it possible that he interpreted her meaning correctly? That it wasn't just a matter of his not being able to accept what she wrote because it didn't agree with his theology?

Secondly, the interpretation you are suggesting doesn't taken into account the context.

Thirdly, it doesn't make sense. It's not just a matter of it's making sense in relation to God's character, but even apart from that it doesn't make sense. A selective zapping of the memory so that just certain things are forgotten, those certain things being precisely all of the sins that we've ever committed? Memory doesn't work that way.

Fourth, it doesn't agree with God's character.

Regarding the latter, it was because of my interpreting things in the light of God's character that I became an SDA. Especially in regards to the state of the dead, and God's not punishing people for all eternity.



I have no doubt whatsoever that my currently theology is not completely correct. I've never claimed it is. I've argued against ideas I think are plainly wrong, and defended ideas I've had I think are correct, but my views have been constantly evolving, and don't expect them ever to stop. There are always wonderful things to learn about God's character.

Regarding filtering things out which I don't agree with, I used to have a point of view similar to what I've heard from you, so if I were doing as you are suggesting, I'd be agreeing with you instead of disagreeing! However, I'm sure we're all guilty of what you are suggesting to differing degrees. It's inevitable that we will interpret new ideas according to the paradigm we already have. I believe the truth is always challenging our paradigms, and if we are responding to truth, our paradigms will be constantly growing, becoming more and more like Christ's.

1) Yes, we all have our biases. The difference is in how attached we are to our biases, and how willing we are to acknowledge error.

2) Yes, I would ask Waggoner the same questions. The same questions come to mind whenever I run across someone whose understanding of context goes against the plain meaning of the text. This is different from cases when context leads to an uncommon understanding of the text.

More later....

Since I started from more or less where you are, and ended up somewhere else, I would seem to be at least as willing to acknowledge error as you are. Of course, I could have some other problem, like accepting positions which are in error, instead of holding on to truth (assuming your position were correct, and I shouldn't have moved), but what you were suggesting as a possible problem (my perhaps being intransigent) doesn't appear to be the problem.



I think you're way of expressing yourself may be signifying a possible problem. That is, you write, "whenever I run across someone whose understanding of context goes against the plain meaning of the text" instead of the more circumspect "whenever I run across someone whose understanding of context goes against my understanding of the text." You seem to have a very high opinion of your ability to determine that "plain meaning of the text." I think a humbler perspective of your abilities in this regard would be in order.



Context and common sense are always important, IMO.



OK.