"God destroys no man" explained

God does not commend or confirm men in impenitence, for this condition of the human heart does not glorify him, nor work good for humanity. God sheds light upon the souls of men, he grants them opportunities and privileges, and if these are not improved, if the precious moments of probation are neglected, the measure of the light given will be the measure of the guilt incurred through this inexcusable neglect of the gifts of God. The Saviour said, "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" We are told that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. The repeated refusals of the king to hear the word of the Lord, called forth more direct, more urgent and forcible messages. At each rejection of light, the Lord manifested a more marked display of his power; but the king's obstinacy increased with every new evidence of the power and majesty of the God of heaven, until the last arrow of mercy was exhausted from the divine quiver. Then the man was utterly hardened by his own persistent resistance. Pharaoh sowed obstinacy, and he reaped a harvest of the same in his character. The Lord could do nothing more to convince him, for he was barricaded in obstinacy and prejudice, where the Holy Spirit could not find access to his heart. Pharaoh was given up to his own unbelief and hardness of heart. Infidelity produced infidelity. When Pharaoh hardened his heart on the first exhibition of God's power, he made himself more capable of a second rejection of God's power. Pride and stubbornness held him in bondage, and hindered him from acknowledging the warnings of God. It was contrary to the nature of Pharaoh to change after once having given expression to his purpose not to believe. {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 1}

What Pharaoh has done, will be done again and again by men until the close of probation. God destroys no man; but when a man stifles conviction, when he turns from evidence, he is sowing unbelief, and will reap as he has sown. As it was with Pharaoh, so it will be with him; when clearer light shines upon the truth, he will meet it with increased resistance, and the work of hardening the heart will go on with each rejection of the increasing light of heaven. In simplicity and truth we would speak to the impenitent in regard to the way in which men destroy their own souls. You are not to say that God is to blame, that he has made a decree against you. No, he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth, and to the haven of eternal bliss. No soul is ever finally deserted of God, given up to his own ways, so long as there is any hope of his salvation. God follows men with appeals and warnings and assurances of compassion, until further opportunities and privileges would be wholly in vain. The responsibility rests upon the sinner. By resisting the Spirit of God today, he prepares the way for a second resistance of light when it comes with mightier power; and thus he will pass from one stage of indifference to another, until, at last, the light will fail to impress him, and he will cease to respond in any measure to the Spirit of God. {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 2}

Those who claim to be Christians are in continual need of a power outside of, and beyond, themselves. They need to watch unto prayer, and to place themselves under the guardianship of God, else they will be overcome by the enemy. The Christian must look to God, as a servant to his master, as a handmaid to her mistress, saying, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" The servant of God must use his ability in such a way that it will bring glory to God. When he yields himself to the control of the Spirit of God, he will be renewed, transformed into the image of Christ. He will give his affections to God, he will be enlightened, strengthened, and sanctified, and will become a channel of light to the world. {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 3}

But the sinner who refuses to give himself to God, is under the control of another power, listening to another voice, whose suggestions are of an entirely different character. Passion controls him, his judgment is blinded, reason is dethroned, and impetuous desires sway him, now here, now there. The truth will have but little influence over him, for there is in human nature, when separated from the Source of truth, a continual opposition to God's will and ways. The physical, mental, and moral being are all under the control of rash impulses. The affections are depraved, and every faculty intrusted to man for wise improvement is demoralized. The man is dead in trespasses and sins. Inclination moves, passion holds the control, and his appetites are under the sway of a power of which he is not aware. He talks of liberty, of freedom of action, while he is in most abject slavery. He is not his own. He is not allowed to see the beauty of the truth; for the carnal mind is enmity against God, and not subject to his law. He views truth as falsehood, and falsehood as truth. The mind controlled by Satan is weak in moral power. Can such a one without change be taken into a holy heaven?--Oh, no; it would be no mercy to the impenitent sinner to place him in the society of the angels. {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 4}

When the wicked dead are raised from the grave, they come up with the tastes, habits, and characters that they formed in the time of probation. A sinner is not raised a saint, neither is a saint raised a sinner. The sinner could not be happy in the companionship of the saints in light, with Jesus, with the Lord of hosts; for on every side will be heard the song of praise and thanksgiving; and honor will be ascribed to the Father and the Son. A song will be raised that the unsanctified, unholy ones have never learned, and it will be out of harmony with their depraved tastes and desires. It will be unbearable to them. The apostle John heard this song. He says, "I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord our God: for true and righteous are his judgments;. . . And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." It is impossible for the sinner to enjoy the bliss of heaven. {RH, February 17, 1891 par. 5}

"God destroys no man" refers to self-destruction. "The law of self-serving is the law of self-destruction." {DA 624.1}

"[This] exalting of self, this self-righteousness, is nothing short of deception and self-destruction. {ST, December 17, 1894 par. 1}

"Self-renunciation is the great law of self-preservation, and self-preservation is the law of self-destruction. {ST, July 1, 1897 par. 13}

"Subjection to God is restoration to one's self,--to the true glory and dignity of man. {DA 466.5}

"Men and women must be awakened to the duty of self-mastery, the need of purity, freedom from every depraving appetite and defiling habit. {MH 130.3}

Does it refer to the fact that God destroys no man?

What do you mean "destroys"? Do you mean it in the way it's used above?

If you say, "God destroys no man" is talking about self-destruction, meaning that men destroy themselves by their choices, that's fine. I'm just asking if "God destroys no man" might mean that God doesn't destroy anyone.

That is, could it be that causing destruction and death doesn't even pertain to God's government? Perhaps death and destruction only pertain to Satan's government.

The passages posted above indicate "self-destruction" means committing the unpardonable sin. God doesn't cause anyone to sin beyond hope or repair.

Also, "God destroys no man" isn't referring to perdition. True, "self-destruction" ends in "everlasting punishment". Will the kingdom of light rely on the kingdom of darkness to "execute justice" and "everlasting punishment" at the end of time?

The deeper question is, I think, if destruction and death are a part of God's kingdom and character.

We're discussing that question elsewhere. Guess we shouldn't discuss it here. Do you agree "self-destruction" means committing the unpardonable sin, hardening one's heart beyond hope and repair? And, do you agree that's what "God destroys no man" in the OP is referring to?

The topic is entitled "God destroys no man." I don't see how we could avoid discussing it here.



I think it's the same principle as GC 35-37.



This looks to be very similar to the OP.

Yes, the OP is similar to GC 35-37 in many ways. However, one big difference is the OP isn't discussing final judgment and second death. Her focus is people who harden, destroy their hearts beyond hope. In this way "God destroys no man." They destroy themselves by rejecting the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit thus making themselves unfit for heaven.

Isn't it exactly for this reason that the Bible speaks about the "strange work" of God?

The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked has emboldened men in transgression; but their punishment will be none the less certain and terrible for being long delayed. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. 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. {ST, January 25, 1910 par. 16}

The "strange work" of God is when God uses things which in general only pertain to Satan's government? Usually they pertain to Satan's government, but occasionally God makes use of them?

Are there any other principles that are examples of this? That is, principles which generally pertain to Satan's government, but that occasionally God makes use of?

She makes the same point in GC 35-37, doesn't she? That is:



This is exactly the same principle, isn't it? That is, if we consider the final judgment:



This looks like the same principle to me.

Death, whether inflicted or permitted, pertains to Satan's government, not to God's. Even if you attribute a passive role to God, I don't think you believe that watching people die and doing nothing to save them (having the power to do so) is a principle of God's government.

[quote=Rosangela:T:The "strange work" of God is when God uses things which in general only pertain to Satan's government? Usually they pertain to Satan's government, but occasionally God makes use of them?

Are there any other principles that are examples of this? That is, principles which generally pertain to Satan's government, but that occasionally God makes use of?

R:Death, whether inflicted or permitted, pertains to Satan's government, not to God's. Even if you attribute a passive role to God, I don't think you believe that watching people die and doing nothing to save them (having the power to do so) is a principle of God's government.[/quote]

I'm not following how this is responding to my questions. I asked:

1.The "strange work" of God is when God uses things which in general only pertain to Satan's government? Usually they pertain to Satan's government, but occasionally God makes use of them?

2.Are there any other principles that are examples of this? That is, principles which generally pertain to Satan's government, but that occasionally God makes use of?

Were you responding to question 1, or question 2? Or both? And how does your response answer these questions?

I'll take a stab at it. It sounds like you're answering question two, and skipping question one. It sounds like you're saying, "Here's an example of a principle which generally pertains to Satan's government, but also to God's, doing nothing to save one from dying when you have the power to save them." Is this correct?

And the point of this argument is that if this example is a valid one, of a principle existing in God's government that naturally pertains to Satan's, then it can also be the case that while causing death and destruction in general pertains to Satan's government, God can make use of these principles. This is the general argument?

Tom, in the past you have cited the humane hunter parable to explain why Jesus "commanded" godly people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Elijah, etc to "utterly destroy" every man, woman, child, and infant, to "spare not". I seem to recall you saying Jesus was willing to run the risk of being accused of being in favor of what He commanded. Do you think Jesus was incorporating the principles of Satan's kingdom?

No. I've got no clue as to why you would think this.

Yes, although there is a fundamental difference between God and Satan, which is their motivation.

I'm shocked at your response. Are you certain Jesus commanding His chosen leaders to kill women and infants isn't representative of Satan's kingdom? Or, do you think it's reflective of God's kingdom? Did Jesus ever command anyone to kill someone while He was here in the flesh?

PS - Please show me respect by addressing each one of my questions. Thank you.

Really? Shocked? You ask me if I think Jesus Christ was incorporating the principles of Satan's kingdom immediately after I explained that I thought the two kingdoms are completely different, and I couldn't think of any examples where God uses any of the principles of Satan's kingdom, and you're "shocked" that I would answer your question "no"? Why? Do you think I'm not aware of the implications of what I had said? I would think you should be "shocked" if I answered "yes," as that would contradict what I had explained. My agreeing with what I had said doesn't seem like it should cause you to be "shocked."



I don't know what questions you're referring to. If you feel I haven't addressed a question adequately, you're free to re-ask it, but please do so in the context of my response. That is, quote your question, quote my response, and respond to my response.

Regarding your question here, yes, I've used the father hunter illustration, as that's the best one I've come across. However, I think it's rather hopeless to discuss this without first having in place a foundation for what God is like. Otherwise, we'll simply be interpreting things in accordance with our false picture of God.

I agree that there motivation is different, and that this is of vital importance, but I also believe they are governed by different principles in terms of what they actually do. For example, I don't believe God causes death and destruction as a means of accomplishing His ends, because I believe these are principles which are fundamentally contrary to the principles of His kingdom.

Satan is the author of sin and all its results, so he is the author of death and destruction. Satan causes these things to happen, and whenever they happen, he is ultimately responsible. God works to prevent these things from happening, although at times He is constrained to permit them. When Satan permits someone to die, and does nothing to save them, he is allowing something to happen which he himself caused, or, at a minimum, is responsible for. When God permits someone to suffer, whether death, or destruction, or any other evil which is the fruit of sin, God is permitting something which He did not cause, nor is responsible for, so I see that God and Satan are acting differently in this case, not simply that their motivation is different.

But even if He does not cause the person's death, He would still be letting the person die, and this would still be against His principles.
However, I consider that God is partly responsible for the death of the wicked at the lake of fire, as I believe that the resurrection of the wicked in order to be judged is a step that could be skipped.

You didn't answer my questions. I'm shocked. You have made it clear that the Father and the Son are alike loving and merciful and just. "He was never rude, never needlessly spoke a severe word, never gave needless pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure human weakness. He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears were in His voice as He uttered His scathing rebukes."

The question is - Why did Jesus command godly people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, and Elijah to kill people?

In the humane hunter story the father, who opposes hunting, teaches his son, who insists on hunting, how to kill animals in the most humane way. In so doing, the father runs the risk of people thinking he approves of hunting. The compromise is worth it. It is the lesser of evils.

Again, Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people. He even commanded laws requiring and regulating the execution of capital punishment. In the past, you said commanding and legislating death was not Jesus' will or desire. Seems to me you believe the unholy expectations of God by Jew and Gentile alike forced Jesus to behave uncharacteristically of God. He was willing to compromise in order to win their respect and devotion long enough to wean them from killing people.

In light of this insight, do you think killing people in battle and executing capital punishment reflect the principles of God's kingdom or Satan's kingdom?

PS - Tom, I really hope you answer the questions asked above. It would be unproductive and unfortunate if you waltz around them without actually answering them.

MM, has Tom ever "waltzed" around your questions without actually answering them? Please show evidence. If you think Tom didn't just answer your question, perhaps you could look at where was the first time Moses was commanded to kill people?

You have said only God has the right to kill people, but what gives here? If it were true (Not saying you agree with it) that we are to have God's character perfectly reproduced in us, would God have us kill people? Did godly people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, and Elijah have God's character perfectly reproduced in them?

Kland, would you mind summarizing what Tom believes?

I believe he believes very similar to what I believe and am shocked that you keep saying you have no idea what he believes when you find nothing else to respond to him with. What I understand Tom to believe is that we should look to Christ to see what God is like, although I understand you disagree with that idea. He does not believe that God uses the methods of Satan nor works with and directs him to destroy those who won't accept Him, nor in any way uses principles of Satan's kingdom. Often times, people refuse God's ideal for them. Rather than zapping them with fire, He works with them as much as they allow in order to bring them back to Him. Saying God works with people who refuses His ideal will is not saying that that is God's ideal will.

Where was the first time Moses was commanded to kill people?

Kland, you didn't address the questions I asked Tom. Please answer them for Tom.

I thought I did. Which ones?

Where was the first time Moses was commanded to kill people?

http://marshill.org/teaching/2010/11/07/returning-to-the-field/

Here is a sermon discussing the parable about the king who threw a wedding party for the guests who were uninterested in attending. It gives an interesting view of the parable, well in line with the threat title.

Kland, you didn't answer the following questions:

1. Why did Jesus command godly people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, and Elijah to kill people?

Again, Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people. He even commanded laws requiring and regulating the execution of capital punishment. In the past, you said commanding and legislating death was not Jesus' will or desire. Seems to me you believe the unholy expectations of God by Jew and Gentile alike forced Jesus to behave uncharacteristically of God. He was willing to compromise in order to win their respect and devotion long enough to wean them from killing people.

2. In light of this insight, do you think killing people in battle and executing capital punishment reflect the principles of God's kingdom or Satan's kingdom?

1. I did. See #129266
2. Which do you think?

Here's what you wrote:


1. "You keep saying you have no idea what he believes when you find nothing else to respond to him with." I don't understand how this answers the questions I posted above.

2. "We should look to Christ to see what God is like." I don't understand how this answers the questions I posted above.

3. "He does not believe that God uses the methods of Satan nor works with and directs him to destroy those who won't accept Him, nor in any way uses principles of Satan's kingdom." I don't understand how this answers the questions I posted above.

4. "Often times, people refuse God's ideal for them. Rather than zapping them with fire, He works with them as much as they allow in order to bring them back to Him. Saying God works with people who refuses His ideal will is not saying that that is God's ideal will." I don't understand how this answers the questions I posted above.


When Jesus commanded His chosen children to kill His enemies in battle, He totally expected them to obey Him in every detail. Obedience is a principle of God's kingdom. When King Saul failed to obey Jesus' command to kill every man, woman, and child, Samuel was commanded to rebuke him and to kill King Agag. "Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." Disobedience is a principle of Satan's kingdom.

Do you agree?

Please post a quote[s] where I have written something that led you to believe I disagree with the idea we should look to Jesus to learn what the Father is like. Please bear in mind I believe Jesus demonstrated what the Father is like in both the OT and the NT.

Tom has directed you to this idea on multiple threads at multiple times. I have found no where you confirming that was correct, but instead listing contrary things. Maybe you could post a quote which shows you do agree with looking to Jesus when He came to live among the people to find out what God is like in the Old Testament.

Do you agree that hacking people to pieces is a principle of Satan's kingdom?

Regarding to what you earlier said about compromise:
Is it possible to help someone out without compromising one's morals?

"The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New." {DA 799.2} Do you agree? Or, do you get the impression God is angry and unlovely when you read the OT?

Yes. But you didn't address my comment and question. Do you believe Samuel was incorporating the principles of Satan's kingdom when he obeyed Jesus' command to hack Agag to pieces?


Yes. You realize, don't you, that I wasn't saying I believe Jesus compromised truth and principle when He commanded godly people to kill ungodly people and when He commanded rules and regulations regarding capital punishment?

Here's what you wrote:


1. "You keep saying you have no idea what he believes when you find nothing else to respond to him with." I don't understand how this answers the question I posted above.

2. "We should look to Christ to see what God is like." I don't understand how this answers the question I posted above.

3. "He does not believe that God uses the methods of Satan nor works with and directs him to destroy those who won't accept Him, nor in any way uses principles of Satan's kingdom." I don't understand how this answers the question I posted above.

4. "Often times, people refuse God's ideal for them. Rather than zapping them with fire, He works with them as much as they allow in order to bring them back to Him. Saying God works with people who refuses His ideal will is not saying that that is God's ideal will." I don't understand how this answers the question I posted above.

PS - Why did Jesus command godly people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, and Elijah to kill people?

Why? If we're talking about the first death, I don't see why you would think that allowing a person to die would be against God's principles. If you're talking about the second death, death is what those who die have chosen, so God allows them their choice. That's in harmony with the principle of free will.



I strongly disagree with this. I don't have time to elaborate right now, though. Will soon.

I can think of no questions you've asked that I haven't answered, often many, many, many times.



We've discussed this at great length.



Was the hunter father acting uncharacteristically of himself? Or was it the case that he was acting consistently with his character, but others could misunderstand that?



I think the principles of God's kingdom were made clear by Jesus Christ. Do you see Jesus Christ's life exemplifying violence at all?

An issue I've raised quite a few times, which I don't think has been addressed, is the question of whether the use of violence is part of God's kingdom. I think all would agree that before sin, it wasn't, as there was no violence. So the question is after sin, violence began to play a part in God's kingdom.

It seems to me there is a big problem with the idea that God would use violence to accomplish His purposes, as violence seems to me to be as tied to sin as selfishness is. Indeed, violence is simply a means that the selfish use to accomplish their goals. I don't see Jesus Christ every using violence, or approving of it. James speaks to the principle of violence here:

MM, here are a couple of quotes to consider. The first one says to offer as peace terms the opportunity to surrender and become slaves, or to be killed (males) and forcibly become slaves (women and children). Do you think this represents the principles of God's kingdom?

In the second quote, girls were sold into slavery, and their masters were allowed to take them as "another wife." Do you think this represents the principles of God's kingdom?

Here's another one:



Same question.

Many of these can be added. There were many things which the Lord permitted the Israelites, because of the hardness of their heart. But would you want to live in a such a society? Do you think such a society represents the mind of God? Or does Jesus Christ represent the mind of God? (or do you see no difference?)

Why is the wages of sin death? Who said so? It's because God created things that way. Why didn't He create things some other way? How fair is it if you only have one good choice - obey and live, disobey and die? Most of my relatives are unbelievers, and yet each one is as kind and loving and compassionate and guilt-free as the members at church. They go to bed and rise with a clear conscious.

You seem to be saying God "he was acting consistently with his character" when He commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.


You asking me this question doesn't help me understand what you believe. Again, do you think obeying the command of Jesus to kill people in battle or to execute capital punishment reflects the principles of God's kingdom or Satan's kingdom?

PS - This question is aimed at the concerns you raised in 129454 and 129455.

I'll deal with this part separately, and then your questions.

The reason I disagree with this is that the whole purpose of the Great Controversy is the vindication of God. God cannot be vindicated without the judgment.

That turned out to be a lot briefer than I had anticipated.

So it's not a step that could be skipped.



That the wages of sin is death means simply that sin results in death. One version puts it something like this: "Sin pays its wages: death," which makes the point clearer. It's not an arbitrary result, where the death is disconnect from the sin, as if it weren't an organic result, but death is to sin what the oak is to the acorn. We see at Calvary what sin develops into.

James brings this out in saying:



Sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. Why? Because the root of sin is selfishness, and selfishness can do no other than to bring about misery, suffering, and death. It's not a principle that promotes life.



God didn't create "things" in this way, but created beings with free will. These beings could use this free will to reject God, who is the source of life, and death would result, but this has nothing to with how God created "things" other than that He chose to create beings with free will that could choose to love and be loved.



It sounds like your saying your relatives have the character of Christ (kind, loving, compassionate), and are not knowing rejecting light (go to bed and rise with a clear conscience). But you think they will be lost? And ask how fair this is?

Well, as you have described things, this wouldn't be fair, of course. No one with a Christ-like character who isn't rejecting known light will be lost. I think you're not describing things well here. I also don't see the point you're trying to make.

Was the hunter/father acting inconsistently with his character? Was he for or against hunting? Could his actions be misinterpreted so others would think he was in favor of these things?

What I'm saying is that God was constrained to do things because of the hardness of people's hearts which, like the hunter/father, could be taken in a way that His character could be misunderstood. I'm saying that if we wish to know God's character, we should be centered upon the revelation of Jesus Christ. All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ. To know God's character, we need but ask, "What was Jesus Christ like?"



Sure it does. You're arguing in a certain way, that God commanded certain things, so therefore obeying these commands must mean that these things are in harmony with the principles of His kingdom. I'm countering this argument by bringing certain things to your attention, and one of the means I'm using to do this is by asking you questions.



In the story of the hunter/father, was the son following the father's will by obeying his counsel to be careful while hunting, of being humane to the animals, etc? One could say yes, he was, but what the father would really have liked was that his son not hunt at all. Similarly, God gave counsel in regards to divorce, but what He really would have liked would have been that they not divorce. And the same can be said for all counsel which involves principles which are different than the principles Christ revealed.

The principles of God's kingdom were revealed fully and completely by Jesus Christ. That should be our starting point. We can catalog these, and then use them for comparison, to know when God is giving counsel because of the hardness of men's hearts, as opposed to counsel which represents His ideal will. Makes sense?

Tom, let's do it your way. Let's limit our study to the earthly life and teachings of Jesus to determine why He commanded godly people in the OT to kill ungodly people. You wrote, "God was constrained to do things because of the hardness of people's hearts." Did Jesus command Moses to kill ungodly people because Moses' heart was hard? If so, how do we glean this from Jesus' words in the NT? If otherwise, same question.

God establish the order of things, namely, obey and live, disobey and die. There's nothing natural or arbitrary about it. It is the result of divine design. There are no parallel pathways that also result in perfect peace. The reason for this is divine design, that is, God did not create us to experience perfect peace in other ways.

The truth is, however, there are plenty of people out there who experience perfect peace who have made informed, conscious decisions not to embrace Jesus as their personal Savior. And yet they are just as kind and loving and compassionate as the best of Christians. They understand that joy and happiness and peace are byproducts of being kind and loving and compassionate. What accounts for this anomaly? Do these people really deserve to suffer and die because they refuse to embrace Jesus? What is the evidence their choice is death?

Why do you do this? On purpose, or ignorantly? This isn't "my way". I've never suggested this.

What I've said is that God's character was revealed by Jesus Christ, and we should use this as our foundation to understand what God is like. This is "my way." Why would you substitute something I've said over and over again for something I've never said?



This isn't doing what I suggested. What would be "my way" would be to consider the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. For example, the Sermon on the Mount would be a good place to start. What does the Sermon on the Mount tell us about what God is like?

Here's the thing: how we interpret inspired comments is *highly* dependent upon how we view God. You see God as capable of doing certain things, such as setting people on fire and keeping them alive for the purpose of punishing them. Because you see God as capable of doing this, you interpret certain inspired statements the way you do. But you don't see God as capable of lying. So when there's an inspired statement which says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, you would (I presume) understand this to mean that God permits these spirits to lie to Ahab, not that God was using these to lie to Ahab, since God does not lie.

Or here's another example. You have a certain view regarding how God views the future. So statements which speak of risk you interpret in the way you do, a way which seems strange to me, since "risk" means the possibility of loss (in the context of Christ, of failure), which you reject, because you believe Christ was certain He would succeed. (To connect the dots here, unless you think Christ might have been wrong in being certain that He would succeed, it follows that it was not possible for Christ to fail. This is because if Christ failed, it would mean He was wrong in being certain that He wouldn't. And, given it was not possible for Christ to have failed, there was no risk involved.)

Similarly I interpret certain inspired statements the way I do, a way that seems strange to you, because my understanding of God's character, that He was exactly like Jesus Christ revealed during His earthly mission, constrains me to do so. I can't imagine that God would do things which could only be called "torture" if anyone else were doing exactly the same thing other than God.

I believe Jesus Christ revealed conclusively, both by precept and example, that God is not violent. Not only is God not violent, He is anti-violence. As such, how could God act violently or be in favor of violence?

Also I believe that Jesus Christ revealed clearly that the Kingdom of God is not a kingdom of violence. Indeed, I can't imagine how Jesus Christ could have communicated this point any more clearly than He did. For example, how did He react when Peter cut off the man's ear? How did He react when the disciples wanted to have fire from heaven destroy those who wouldn't receive Him? How did He react when others sought to do Him harm?

Or consider the idea that force is not a principle of God's kingdom. It seems to me that Jesus Christ illustrated this as clearly as could be done, in the entirety of His life. And we have a clear statement stating exactly this point, that force is not a principle of God's government. Yet you believe that force IS a principle of God's government, despite the clear statement, and despite the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Why do you believe this? Mainly, as far as I can tell, because of the way you understand the Old Testament.

The main purpose of the Old Testament, which is true for all Scripture, and all inspired statements, is to lead us to Jesus Christ. In Him we see, in unrivaled clarity, what God is like, and what constitutes the principles of God's government.

There is under your view, because you don't see that there's an organic relationship. That's what "arbitrary" means. It could have been something else, under your view, if God had so chosen. Again, this is the meaning of "arbitrary."

(btw, when you said there's nothing "natural" about it, is this what you meant? Or did you mean "unnatural"?)



God could not have created us in to experience peace in other ways, besides agape, because there is no other way. It wasn't a question of God's choosing that perfect peace would result from obedience, as opposed to selfishness, but this followed simply by the fact that God created beings capable of loving Him.

Things could not have been other than this.



No, this is false. I have no idea why you would think this.

By the way, you contradicted yourself. You said first that, "God did not create us to experience perfect peace in other ways (than obedience)," and immediately following that there are many people who experience perfect peace in disobedience. I'm not sure which you really believe. I agree with the first one, but not in an arbitrary sense, but because this follows from God's having created beings with free will capable of loving Him.





Then they are Christians too. If not by profession, by character.



The "anomaly" is that you think it's possible for people to reject Christ and simultaneously have the character of Christ.

Tom, it sounds like you're saying it is impossible for someone to consciously refuse to embrace Jesus and be kind and loving and compassionate.

MM, you wrote this:



This doesn't make sense to me, as you first say:

a.God did not create us to experience perfect peace in other ways.

and then

b.The truth is, however, there are plenty of people out there who experience perfect peace who have made informed, conscious decisions not to embrace Jesus as their personal Savior.

So which is it, a. or b.? Does one experience perfect peace only by "obey and live"? Or are there "plenty of people" who experience "perfect peace" who have made conscious decisions not to embrace Jesus as their personal Savior?

In response to your question, I think if a person is consciously resisting the Holy Spirit (which your question to me looks to be implying, as it says they're "consciously refusing to embrace Jesus") that this would impede their ability to be "kind and loving and compassionate." I think resisting the Holy Spirit would inevitably lead to a religion of putting self first. I don't see how this could be avoided.

You wrote:



So apparently you feel that being a Christian has no impact whatsoever on one being kind and loving and compassionate. I don't understand this idea. It is only by beholding Christ that one becomes Christ-like. Now one may behold Christ without recognizing that this is what one is doing (in the case of those who are uninformed regarding Christ) or even "reject" Christ because of the false misrepresentations of Him offered by Christians only so in name, but I don't see how one could actually reject the Holy Spirit and be as living, kind, and compassionate as those who embrace His work.

Tom, "a" is "obey and live, disobey and die". It is by divine design. Do you agree?

Why do you think people can be kind and loving and compassionate like Jesus even though they consciously reject Jesus as misrepresented by people who are Christian in name only? Do you know of anyone in this category?

PS - I believe "a" is true and "b" is impossible. That is, I don't think "b" can experience "perfect peace" as defined in the Bible. But how do you explain the fact there are people, like former believers, who once rejoiced in the Lord and but now consciously reject Him, and yet are still very kind and loving and compassionate? Are these attributes evidence they are experiencing "perfect peace" as defined in the Bible? If not, how do you prove it? Upon what evidence or "fruit" do you base it on?

Not in an arbitrary sense, but as an organic relationship, yes.



Because they're not really rejecting Christ; they're not resisting (necessarily) or rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit.



Yes.



Then why did you say this was "the truth"?



I don't know anyone like this.



Don't know what you're asking here.

Neither life nor death are organic. Life is entirely dependent upon God continuing to grant it. And death is entirely dependent upon God withdrawing life. When Jesus first formed Adam, he was lifeless, dead. Not until Jesus breathed into him the breath of the life did Adam become a living soul. It is very arbitrary.


Are you really going to make me ask you to name the person or people you have in mind? Seems disrespectful.


Because there are people who appear, in truth, to have as much peace as believers.


I'm surprised. I find them just about everywhere I go.


I'm not surprised. Having never met former believers who are kind and loving and compassionate, it makes perfect sense you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

James speaks of a process: sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. Death is to sin what the oak is to the acorn. We see what this process looks like at Calvary.



You mean disrespectful to you? You don't know the person.



Then you mean "not in truth." When you write things like "in truth," when what you really mean is "apparently," it makes it difficult to follow you.



So you think a person can knowingly resist the Holy Spirit, knowingly reject Christ, and be just as loving and kind and compassionate as "the best of Christians"? It doesn't appear that you believe that responding to the Holy Spirit and knowing Christ has an impact on one's character. I find this odd.



I don't think you're communicating clearly here.

We disagree.


That was unproductive.


The truth is, there are people who seem to be as peaceful as some believers seem to be. Since we cannot judge motive, since we can only go on outward signs, there are many unbelievers who seem just as peaceful as believers seem to be.


What seems odd to me is the fact you have never met an unbeliever who is just as kind and loving and compassionate as the best of believers.


I'm talking about the unbelievers you have never met, namely, the ones who are just as kind and loving and compassionate as the best of believers. My question is - Do these observable outward signs and fruit (the fact they are kind and loving and compassionate) prove they are experiencing the kind of peace defined in the Bible? If not, upon what bases do you prove they are not experiencing the kind of peace defined in the Bible? Or, is it impossible to prove or disprove it?

Is it possible to express the fruit of the Spirit except it comes from God? Irrespective of whether the person has a confessed belief in Jesus or not..

Regarding? I mentioned three things:

1.James speaks of a process: sin, which, when it is finished, brings forth death.
2.Death is to sin what the oak is to the acorn.
3.We see what this process looks like at Calvary.



You asked me if I knew someone in a given category. I do. But you don't. I don't know what else you would expect from me.



This is clearer.



You mean apparently so? (as opposed to actually)



I don't think such people exist, if you're talking about people actively resisting the Holy Spirit, which I inferred you meant from your comment that they are consciously rejecting, based on an informed decision, Jesus Christ.



1.I don't think such a group of people exists.
2.I would "prove" this on the basic of logic. Does it make sense to assert that a person resisting the Holy Spirit is actually experiencing perfect peace.
3.Also there's the verse which uses this expression to consider, which I assume is where you got the expression, which is that "Perfect peace have they whose mind is stayed upon Thee." If this is the case, it's difficult to see how it could also be the case that "Perfect peace have they whose mind is not stayed upon Thee," which looks to be what you were suggesting.

Thank you for expressing the question in this way.

1. Can unbelievers (especially ones who deliberately reject Jesus and consciously resist the Holy Spirit) experience the fruits of the Spirit?

2. Can they be kind and loving and compassionate like the best of believers?

3. Upon what basis do we discern whether or not they are kind and loving and compassionate like the best of believers?

4. How do we apply "by their fruits ye shall know them" in this case?

Again, you have admitted that you've never met anyone who is as kind and loving and compassionate as the best of believers who have also deliberately rejected Jesus and who consciously resist the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit. This being the case, you are unqualified to answer the 4 questions posted to Thomas above.

When they do express the qualities of the gifts of the Spirit, do we recognise that God once again moved outside of our limited frames for His glory and grace?

This isn't at all responsive to what I wrote.

Regarding what you wrote, the Bible says that those whose mind is stayed on God have perfect peace. You appear to be saying the reverse, which, I guess, according to your logic, makes you "qualified" to ask and answer questions like the ones you posted to Thomas. But, because I believe what the Bible says, I'm not "qualified."

Consider your first question:



Your logic is if I say "no" then that means I'm not qualified to answer the questions you're asking, including this one! So you're asking a yes/no question that one is only "qualified" to answer if one answers it in a certain way.

Aren't you assuming it is impossible to manifest the fruits of the Spirit without help from God? I know several people who reject Jesus and resist the Holy Spirit and are kind and loving and compassionate like the best of believers.

Tom, how do you explain the fact there are people who deliberately reject Jesus and consciously resist the Holy Spirit and who, in spite of this, are kind and loving and compassionate like the best of believers? For example, in response to people displaced by natural disasters, I have worked side-by-side believers and unbelievers (like the ones described above). There is no outward discernable difference. Both are kind and loving and compassionate.

The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

30 Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31 and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32 Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ 33 So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”

34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[b] and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

It wouldnt be the first time God doesnt play after the rules we humans make.

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting the people who reject Jesus and resist the Holy Spirit are kind and loving and compassionate like the best of believers because the Holy Spirit is poured out on them?

I am saying that everyone who expresses the fruit of the Spirit has been given this fruit by the Spirit to express.

22And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23meekness, temperance: against such there is no law;

Satan is not in the business of dispersing any of the qualities mentioned above on his followers. And humans are usually not known for having these in our natural character. Therefore everyone who enjoys them has received it from God. If the person who enjoys these fruits refuses to recognise their source, there will likely be consequences to reap. But that does not negate their source.

Thomas, thank you for clarifying what you believe. I suspect, however, that people who reject Jesus and resist the Holy Spirit and are kind and loving and compassionate like the best of believers are able to do so because Satan feels it best serves his purposes not to interfere and prevent it.

Your suspicion assumes that humans are by default kind and loving and compassionate and would only do good had satan not stepped in into every individuals life and ruined it for them.

I'm trying not to make assumptions. I really am trying to understand why such people are able to be kind and loving and compassionate like the best of believers. You seem to think it's because the Holy Spirit enables them. Otherwise it's not possible.

I responded to this question already. I explained I don't believe such a group of people exists.



How would you know they were deliberately rejecting Jesus Christ and consciously resisting the Holy Spirit? You may think they're deliberately rejecting Jesus Christ and resisting the Holy Spirit when they're doing the reverse. They could be actually responding to the Holy Spirit by denying themselves and helping others, under the prompting of the Holy Spirit.



If there's no discernible difference, how do you know they are rejecting Christ or resisting the Holy Spirit?

This is getting at the point here. We're very faulty in our ability to judge others. It's human nature to want to reject those who reject our work as ones who have rejected God, and therefore God has rejected. But maybe our work is faulty, and they're not rejecting God at all, but just rejecting us.

And how do know they aren't?

Are you basing it on their fruits? "By their fruits ye shall know them." Is exercising kindness and love and compassion like the best of believers proof they are "actually responding to the Holy Spirit by denying themselves and helping others, under the prompting of the Holy Spirit"?

Ellen wrote:

They may produce an outward correctness of behavior . . . {SC 18.1}

It is true that there may be an outward correctness of deportment without the renewing power of Christ. The love of influence and the desire for the esteem of others may produce a well-ordered life. Self-respect may lead us to avoid the appearance of evil. A selfish heart may perform generous actions. By what means, then, shall we determine whose side we are on? {SC 58.1}

By Scripture, and by logic. Let's consider the logic part. Why do you think it's logical that one can choose Satan over Christ, and be as loving and compassionate as the best of Christians? You seem to have the idea that whether one accepts Christ or rejects Him has no effect on one's character. I don't understand this.

What I believe is one my think one is rejecting Christ, when one isn't really. That is, if Christ has been misrepresented to one, and one rejects that misrepresentation, but responds to the prompting of the Holy Spirit (for example, to deny self and be kind and compassionate), one is, in reality, not rejecting Christ. But when you say, as a supposition, that one is consciously rejecting Christ and resisting the Holy Spirit, I don't see why you would think such a one could have a character as good as "the best of Christians." This doesn't make sense to me.



If you're asking if denying self, and choosing to be loving and compassionate, as opposed to being selfish, is proof that one is responding to the Holy Spirit, yes, that what it appears to me to be.

What makes you think they have chosen Satan?


Is being kind and loving and compassionate the same thing as having a character as good as the best of Christians?


In essence then you're saying atheists who are kind and loving and compassionate are in reality experiencing the fruits of the Spirit under the influence of the Holy Spirit. This idea seems to be at odds with the following insight:

It is impossible for us, of ourselves, to escape from the pit of sin in which we are sunken. Our hearts are evil, and we cannot change them. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Job 14:4; Romans 8:7. Education, culture, the exercise of the will, human effort, all have their proper sphere, but here they are powerless. They may produce an outward correctness of behavior, but they cannot change the heart; they cannot purify the springs of life. There must be a power working from within, a new life from above, before men can be changed from sin to holiness. That power is Christ. His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness. {SC 18.1}

What you said makes me think so. You said they were consciously rejecting Christ and resisting the Holy Spirit.



It's closely related. The really key part of this is the part about rejecting Christ and resisting the Holy Spirit.



Actually I'm saying the reverse. I'm saying that atheists, or whoever, who respond to the Holy Spirit will exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit, including being kind and compassionate. Also I'll say that apart from the Holy Spirit, I don't see how one can deny self, so I'm still not understanding your idea.



No, MM! This is exactly my point! You're the one saying it's possible for atheists and others who consciously reject Christ and resist the Holy Spirit to be as loving and compassionate as "the best of Christians." I'm rejecting this idea, and, in so doing, am in harmony with what's being said here. You're saying the reverse, it appears to me.

You haven't answered any of my questions. Please answer my questions. It's really hard to follow your train of thought here.



Yes, this is what I've been saying.

I found this in USA Weekend about a survey:

"Non-believers, about 5%, didn't miss a chance to chime in with declarations that we can all be good without God."

If that being true, maybe we'll have to say, by their fruits we won't know them.

5% is smaller than I would have expected.

Non-believers who consciously reject Jesus and resist the Holy Spirit do not necessarily also consciously choose Satan. Some do, of course, but I hazard to guess most do not. Many are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, New Age, etc, all of whom are very capable of performing generous actions in a kind, loving, and compassionate way.


When the unbelievers we’re talking about (with the "key part of . . . rejecting Christ and resisting the Holy Spirit") repeatedly act kind, loving, and compassionate are they cultivating related traits of character? Or, are they fostering and strengthening selfishness? For example, when they work side-by-side Christians, day after day, week after week, month after month, helping feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy, are they nurturing selfishness or virtuous traits of character?


In what way is your first sentence the reverse of my sentence? Regarding your second sentence, why do you think working side-by-side Christians helping the poor (like the example above) involves denying self?


I’m talking about the “outward correctness of behavior” they “produce”. I assume you agree with me being kind, loving, and compassionate qualify as “outward correctness of behavior.” All of which they “produce” without first experiencing rebirth, while consciously rejecting Jesus and resisting the Holy Spirit.

“It is true that there may be an outward correctness of deportment without the renewing power of Christ. The love of influence and the desire for the esteem of others may produce a well-ordered life. Self-respect may lead us to avoid the appearance of evil. A selfish heart may perform generous actions. {SC 58.1} You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that whenever a selfish, unrenewed heart produces a well-ordered life, avoids the appearance of evil, and performs generous actions they are acting in response to the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit.

Also, which of your questions have I failed to answer?

Isn't there something similar in the Bible to, you are either with me or you are against me?

Of course not consciously. Very few non-believers even think Satan exists. I didn't say they consciously did so.



I don't doubt that, but I doubt your idea that they do so while consciously rejecting Christ and consciously resisting the Holy Spirit. I've been asking you why you even think this is possible, and haven't seen a response. Why do you think someone consciously resisting the Holy Spirit could manifest the fruits of the Holy Spirit?



Again, why do you think this is possible? You keep asking what seem to me to be FOTAP type questions (fallacy of the assumed premise). I'm asking you to back up your premise.



Same question. Why do you think people consciously rejecting Christ and consciously resisting the Holy Spirit can reflect the character of Christ and the fruit of the Holy Spirit?



See what follows after "I'm saying."



I added to this be clear what I'm hearing you say. When you say they are as loving and compassionate as "the best of Christians," I understand this (your idea) must involve the denying of self, because it certainly does for "the best of Christians."



But this isn't what you said. You said they were as loving and compassionate as the best of Christians. Being loving and compassionate involves more than "outward correctness of behavior," which you should realize (I assumed you realized this in my responses.)



It involves this, but is not limited to this.



I disagree. I still don't see why you think it's possible to consciously reject Christ and consciously reject the Holy Spirit yet reflect the character of Christ and manifest the fruit of the Spirit.



I'm actually saying the same thing she's saying, but disagreeing with what you're saying. I disagree with your assumed premise, that the selfish, unrenewed heart can produce the fruit of the Spirit. I've been saying this over and over.



The one I've been asking over and over again, about why you think that a person who consciously rejects Christ and consciously resists the Holy Spirit can be as kind and compassionate as the best of Christians.

I posted the following quote to establish my point:

“It is true that there may be an outward correctness of deportment without the renewing power of Christ. The love of influence and the desire for the esteem of others may produce a well-ordered life. Self-respect may lead us to avoid the appearance of evil. A selfish heart may perform generous actions. {SC 58.1}

I believe this addresses your question - "Why do you think that a person who consciously rejects Christ and consciously resists the Holy Spirit can be as kind and compassionate as the best of Christians?"

You seem to think anyone who is kind and loving and compassionate is responding to the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit (as opposed to consciously resisting Him). Whereas I believe a selfish, unrenewed heart is capable of performing generous actions (kind, loving, and compassionate).

I hear you saying, no, it is a selfish, unrenewed heart responding to the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit that is capable of being kind and loving and compassionate - otherwise it is incapable of such generous actions. Let's assume you're right; how does their fruit differ from the fruit of the best of believers?

For example, when working side-by-side helping to feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy, how does the generous actions of one differ from the generous actions of the other? Are both the pure and holy fruit of the Spirit? Or, is one stained with sin? (Note: I'm talking specifically about comparing the best of atheists and the best of believers. By best of atheists I'm talking about people who have seen Christ in the best light and have made a decision not to believe in Him.)

Above you said the best of atheists do not consciously choose to Satan, but that it happens by default when they consciously choose to reject Jesus. Which begs the question - Can people who are serving Satan simultaneously respond to the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit and, as a result, perform generous actions, be kind and loving and compassionate like the best of believers? Can such people serve two opposing masters at the same time?

This establishes my point! This is saying the reverse of what you've been alleging. There's no idea here that a person can consciously reject Christ and consciously resist the Holy Spirit yet be as loving and compassionate as the best of Christians, unless you have a very shallow idea of what being "as loving and compassionate as the best of Christians" means.



No, it doesn't, unless you have a very shallow idea as to what being loving and compassionate means. I think this may be the case, from the looks of things.



Yes, we differ as to what being loving and compassionate means. You have what to me is a very shallow idea as to what this means, encompassing merely outward correctness. You believe being loving and compassionate is something a selfish heart can produce. I think being loving and compassionate involves more than what you think it does.



No, I'm not saying this. I'm saying that being loving and compassionate involves more than what you say it does.



If I'm right, then your idea regarding being loving and compassionate is wrong.



Are you supposing that one group is consciously rejecting Christ and consciously resisting the Holy Spirit? If so, I've said over and over again that I disagree with your idea that the group of people exists that you're postulating, that one can consciously reject Christ and consciously resist the Holy Spirit, yet deny self, and be loving and compassionate. I think that you have a false premise here, as I've been pointing out.



I think you have a false premise here.



I don't think the best of atheists are consciously rejecting Christ or resisting the Holy Spirit.



I think this is another false premise.



Actually, I said nothing about the "best of atheists." What I in fact said is that one who consciously rejects Christ is choosing Satan, a point of view which I can easily substantiate, and one which I find odd that you would challenge. Are you challenging the idea that to consciously reject Christ is to choose Satan?



First of all, one who is serving Satan can choose to respond to the Holy Spirit, and we may see many examples of this in Scripture, and, indeed, this is what happens, to some extent at any rate, anytime one is converted.

Secondly, it is *your* idea that one who is consciously rejecting Christ and resisting the Holy Spirit can be as loving and compassionate as the best of Christians. I have repeatedly, I think a dozen times by now, asked you why you think this is the case, but you have so far refused to answer. I'm still interested in knowing why you have this idea.

Thirdly, I've repeatedly explained that I disagree with this idea, and have explained why, so you should be able to see why a question addressed to me including what I have repeatedly identified as a false premise is a flawed question.



This is my question to you, why you appear to think simultaneously serving two masters is possible, which, to my mind, is what being loving and compassionate while consciously rejecting Christ and consciously resisting the Holy Spirit would entail.

"A selfish heart may perform generous actions. {SC 58.1} What kind of people do you think Ellen had in mind here? And, what do you think she had in mind for generous actions?

"I don't think the best of atheists are consciously rejecting Christ or resisting the Holy Spirit." Very interesting. I assume you have in mind they are rejecting the wrong image of Jesus?

"By best of atheists I'm talking about people who have seen Christ in the best light and have made a decision not to believe in Him." By definition atheists do not believe God eixsts.

Unconverted people.



Could be, but I wasn't assuming they were necessarily rejecting Christ at all. Many have never heard the Gospel.



This sounds like "the worst of atheists." Why would you term this the "best"?



The Bible says



so this says that all know of God, because God has revealed Himself to all. That's right, isn't it?

Tom, I'm having a hard time discerning what you believe (nothing new, eh). I think I hear you saying no atheist ("people who have seen Christ in the best light and have made a decision not to believe in Him") can be kind and loving and compassionate (e.i. work side-by-side the best of believers serving the poor and needy, etc) without responding to the sweet wooing influence of the Holy Spirit.

If this is what you're saying (not saying it is), what is the difference between their fruit and the fruit of the best of believers? Or, is there no difference since both are the result of the influence of the Holy Spirit? In particular, are they saved like the best of believers?

"A selfish heart may perform generous actions. {SC 58.1} What kind of generous actions do you think Ellen had in mind? And, do you think she assumed such actions were the direct result of them responding to the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit?

1.You used the phrase "the best of atheists" to describe atheists who had consciously rejected Christ and consciously resisted the Holy Spirit. I think these would be "the worst of atheists," while "the best of atheists" would refer to people who were unknowingly responding to the Holy Spirit.

2.I believe that being loving and compassionate, like "the best of Christians," involves more than simply outward behavior, but an inward change as well, including a denial of self.

3.I do not believe people who consciously reject Christ and consciously resist the Holy Spirit can be as loving and compassionate as "the best of Christians."

4.I believe all are saved through Jesus Christ, although many will not be aware of that fact until after the resurrection. I believe this will include those of all religions, except possibly some Satanic cults, or similar types of cults, although it wouldn't shock me if some soul in some mixed up thing like this wound up in the second resurrection. It's all about responding to the light one has.

5.Regarding generous actions, I don't know that she had anything specifically in mind. If she did, I wouldn't know what, since she didn't say. No, she wasn't referring to responding to the Holy Spirit in the actions she mentioned.

6.You haven't been responding to my questions or points, although I've asked some questions repeatedly. I've been responding to your questions. I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to mine. In particular, this one:

So, Tom and Mike, dont you think that many if not most atheists who think that they have rejected Jesus and the Holy Spirit have in fact only rejected the strawmen of Jesus that so many christians (adventists included) build up and present to the world? How many who claim to reject Jesus have really meet the living God? As opposed to having been presented to the counterfeit christ?

Yes, that's what I think.

Thank you for stating your position more clearly.

You asked, "Why do you think someone consciously resisting the Holy Spirit could manifest the fruits of the Holy Spirit?" Because Ellen wrote, "A selfish heart can perform generous actions." You and I agree she's not saying they are responding to the Holy Spirit. In my book, helping the poor and needy qualifies as generous actions.

I also believe such actions can be labeled as fruits of the Spirit (not in the sense the Holy Spirit empowered them, but in the sense their generous actions are no different than the best of believers). For example, there is no difference between the best of believers handing a poor and needy person a loaf of bread and someone who has seen Jesus in the best light and decided to believe God doesn't exist handing them a loaf of bread.

These are miles apart in meaning.



I think it's clear from the context that what EGW is saying is that a selfish heart can produce actions which may appear to others to be unselfish. She's not saying that a selfish person can perform genuinely unselfish deeds. There are all sorts of Scripture texts that contradict this idea. For example, James speaks of how a bitter spring cannot produce sweet water. The whole principle of conversion is that the heart must be made pure.



But isn't there a difference? Isn't that what Jesus Christ taught when He said not to let the left hand know what the right hand is doing, that the Pharisees had their reward, while the widow who gave her mite without anyone seeing gave more than all the rest?



Why do you think a someone who has seen Jesus in the best light, and rejected Him (I assume this is what you mean), would do such a thing? This is where we're disagreeing. You appear to think that rejecting Christ, or accepting Him, is independent of one's character; that is, that regardless of whether or not one rejects or accepts Christ, one can be just as unselfish. What I think is that one cannot be unselfish without divine help, but one may receive divine help without realizing it, without being conscious of the fact that it is really through Jesus Christ that they are doing the good things that they do.

Question: Can someone with a selfish heart be loving and compassionate?

You seem to be saying anyone who hands a poor and needy person a loaf bread does so through divine help and Jesus Christ, the fact they saw Jesus in the best light and chose to believe God does not exist does not prevent them from experiencing "righteousness aned true hliness" the same as the best of believers.

Have you ever witnessed what I described above?

I have been deceived many times by those apparently doing good, but later found out it only appeared to be. Their comments and attitude revealed differently. My experience has been that those who appear the best are some of the worst, but maybe it's only because I came to know them and have the inside story. But, maybe some that don't appear so good, are at least honest in their appearance of actions.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Have you ever met a person who learned about the Lord in the best light and chose not to believe God exists and in spite of it are truly kind and loving and compassionate? I meet plenty of them. Most of my extended family are like that. Tom seems to think they are benefiting from the influence of the Holy Spirit.

1.Why would you think that your extended family was learned about the Lord in the best light?
2.Why do you think one can be truly loving and compassionate without God's assistance?

1. Because most of my extended family were raised by kind, loving, and compassionate Christian parents. They were not taught to fear the Father.

2. Because people like my extended family are truly kind, loving, and compassionate.

I think this is a case where good theology (Tom) fails to make sense when it is compared with real life (Mikes family).

I.I don't doubt that your parents were/are kind, loving, and compassionate Christian parents, but assuming they were/are so, I believe it is only by the grace of God, meaning the Holy Spirit must have been involved. We are not by nature kind, loving and compassionate. We need the assistance of God in order to overcome our sinful natures.

II.Kind, loving and compassionate people can have wrong ideas about God, and other things, and unwittingly teach things which aren't true, which can have an impact on what others think about God. For example, there are kind, loving, compassionate people who believe that hell is eternal, which could have a negative impact on what one believes. I'm just giving that as an example. I know your parents didn't teach this, assuming they were Adventists, but I doubt they were either perfect in their teaching or examples. Our own deficiencies can have an impact upon our witness, both in terms of what we teach and in terms of the influence of our lives.

III.Even if your parents were perfect, their teachings and examples could be rejected, which, in this case, would be tantamount to rejection of the Holy Spirit. In this case, I would doubt your assessment of the situation, because you would have people being kind, loving and compassionate while rejecting any assistance from God, and I believe this is impossible, because of our sinful natures.

Nope. Like I said, I thought I had, but I came to find out I was wrong.

You seem to be saying that God is not necessary for people being truly kind, loving, and compassionate. Do you agree?

How about, God is necessary for people to be truly kind, loving and compassionate, but believing in God is not. God gives us many gifts whether we thank Him or powers of chaos for them.

I agree with this, if one understands "believing in God" in the traditional sense. However, one can "believe in God" without knowing that one is so doing, depending upon how we understand the phrase.

I understand God gives good gifts even to people who passionately disbelieve in Him. Rain and sunshine grows the plants in Richard Dawkins window equally to those in your window. Unlike us, Gods generosity in dispensing gifts is in no way hindered by such petty details as whether the recipient will actually appreciate the giver.

Tom and Thomas, if the kind of people I've described above are truly kind, loving, and compassionate because they are unwittingly responding to the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit, in what way does their fruit differ from that of the best of believers?

If the fruit is produced through the wooing of the Holy Spirit, why would it differ?

I wasn't addressing this aspect, but I agree completely with this as well. God can do no other than give good gifts, because that's His nature.

You've been saying these people have been resisting the Holy Spirit, not responding to it.

But if they are ....

If people are responding to the Holy Spirit, then there fruit will be like that of other people who respond to the Holy Spirit.

By "other people" are you referring to the best of believers? If so, are you suggesting there is no difference between their fruit and the fruit of the worst of unbelievers who respond to the Holy Spirit and help feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy?

"Other people" wasn't specific; it was simply referring to people responding to the Holy Spirit other than the "people" of the subject.

When you speak of "unbeliever," what do you mean? In some sense, if a person is responding to the Holy Spirit, such a person is a believer, isn't (s)he? Isn't that what believing entails, responding to the Holy Spirit?

By "unbeliever" I have in mind "people who learned about the Lord in the best light and chose not to believe God exists." It sounded like you were saying such people who are kind and loving and compassionate (helping feed, clothe, house, etc the poor and needy) are incapable of such "generous actions" without the aid of the Holy Spirit. If so, do such actions imply they are believers?

Also, when such people perform the kinds of "generous actions" I named above, is there any difference between their actions and the same kind of actions performed by the best of believers? That is, are both sets of actions the result of the Holy Spirit empowering them?

From Romans 1, we read



This says that people are without excuse because they know of God because God has revealed this knowledge to them. Or do you understand what this is saying in some other way?

Regarding your question about believers, it seems to me that anyone who responds to the Holy Spirit is "believing." That is, this is what it means to believe.

If a person is truly loving and compassionate, I believe that's only possible by the help of God, because we have sinful natures. As Jesus said, no one is good but God alone. If someone is doing good things, that's because the Holy Spirit is involved.

What is the difference between the two sets of "generous actions"?

I don't see how your question makes sense given my response. What's your train of thought here please?

1. The best of believers feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy.

2. The worst of unbelievers feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy.

Two different groups. Identical "generous actions". According to you, the same "Holy Spirit is involved."

Is there any difference between the two sets of "generous actions"? Or, are both sets the result of the Holy Spirit empowering each group to perform the same "generous actions"?

Why do you think the worst of unbelievers would be characterized by such things, as opposed to things like rape, child abuse, etc.?

You jump around a lot. I don't think you've addressed the points I've made. You just ask more questions.

Many of your questions appear to have as an assumption that a person can be loving and compassionate apart from the Holy Spirit's influence. Is this really what you think?

The worst of both believers and unbelievers "
7Cruel people tell lies--
they do evil things,
and make cruel plans
to destroy the poor and needy,
even when they beg
for justice."

MM, could you respond to Tom's question about Romans 1?

Yes, I believe the worst of unbelievers are capable of helping the best of believers feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy. Such "generous actions" are kind, loving, and compassionate. Ellen wrote:


The worst of unbelievers, as I understand it, include people who produce "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ." I hope this answers your question.

Please answer my question: Is there any difference between the two sets of "generous actions"? Or, are both sets the result of the Holy Spirit empowering each group to perform the same "generous actions"?

Earlier on this thread I made it clear that I'm referring to "people who learned about the Lord in the best light and chose not to believe God exists." Paul referred to such people when he wrote, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

So, yes, the people I'm talking about on this thread are fully aware of the truth and in the best light (as opposed to an unfavorable misrepresentation of God). Nevertheless, for whatever reason, they have concluded that God does not exist. In spite of this, they are capable of performing "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ". Assuming, of course, you agree feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy qualify as kind, loving, and compassionate.

I don't understand your point.

My point is that the worst of people, believers or unbelievers, do not volunteer their time to serving soup at a homeless shelter, the worst of people do what the worst of people have always done, they make cruel plans to destroy the poor and needy, even in their face when they beg for mercy.

Interesting.

Thats why they are the worst of people, rather your pretty nice neighbour who's BBQ parties you go to and who's only fault is that he is agnostic..

Yes, I believe the worst of unbelievers are capable of helping the best of believers feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy. Such "generous actions" are kind, loving, and compassionate. Ellen wrote:


The worst of unbelievers, as I understand it, include people who produce "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ." I hope this answers your question.

Please answer my question: Is there any difference between the two sets of "generous actions"? Or, are both sets the result of the Holy Spirit empowering each group to perform the same "generous actions"?

This is a bit confusing, as you say "Yes," but then go on and talk about something I didn't ask, and present a quote about something I didn't ask about as well. So please let me try again.

Many of your questions appear to have as an assumption that a person can be loving and compassionate apart from the Holy Spirit's influence. Is this really what you think?

Please note that what I'm asking is if a person can *be* loving and compassionate apart from the Holy Spirit.



Why do you think this? Again, the "worst of unbelievers" would, in most people's mind, I think, include people who do things like abuse children, not help the homeless and other needy people. Why do you think these actions better define the "worst of unbelievers" as opposed to what would come to most people's minds?



So far you're asking me things about an empty set, as far as I can tell. It's like me asking you questions about the actions that people on Mars perform. First you'd have to convince me that there are people on Mars.

Paul isn't referring to self-proclaimed atheists here. Why would you think this? There's no hint of this in what Paul wrote.



This would just about limit the audience to people who heard about God directly from the lips of Jesus Christ. However, these probably weren't atheists.



Isn't the idea of inspiration that we must be born again, to partake of the divine nature, because of our sinful natures? Otherwise we are doomed to a selfish life.

You appear to have the idea that one can live selflessly apart from God's help. I'm not understanding why you think this is possible.

I'm not following this thread, but I think Mike's point is that Bill Gates is an atheist, so is Ted Turner and Warren Buffett and they have donated billions to charity. A selfish life doesn't exclude apparently good/unselfish deeds.

I haven't responded to this idea, but to the idea that it's possible for people to do good without God's assistance.

Nobody is entirely bad. Every person is born with something good in his/her heart. So it's possible to do occasional good deeds without God's assistance.

Yes! They can both be kind, loving, and compassionate, and they can do kind and loving and compassionate "generous actions".


Christians are also guilty of such atrocities. But they also help feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy. What is the source of their "generous actions"? What is the source of their sordid actions? Is it possible to do bad things in the morning, generous things in the afternoon, and bad things in the evening? If so, is the Holy Spirit the source of the generous things they do? I think not. I believe people can perform "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ." I'm not sure what you believe.


Well, do you agree with Ellen that people on earth can perform "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ"? If so, what is the source of their "generous actions" - self, Satan, or the Holy Spirit? By "generous actions" I have in mind helping feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy. Perhaps you would like the name other "generous actions" instead?

I think Rosangela phrased it well.



I think this is what EGW had in mind.

I'd still like to know how it is you think people can be good without God's help. What about our sinful natures?

Tom, could this be a case of acts don't reflect the person? That is, just like doing bad acts doesn't mean the person is bad, doing good acts doesn't mean the person is good. It has to do with the attitude and timing one has as they do them.

EGW speaks of how the character is not determined by the occasional good deed or misdeed, but by the trend of the life. That would fit with your comment.

Please address the following the comments and questions:

Christians are also guilty of doing bad things. But they also help feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy. What is the source of their "generous actions"? What is the source of their sordid actions? Is it possible to do bad things in the morning, generous things in the afternoon, and bad things in the evening? If so, is the Holy Spirit the source of the generous things they do? I think not. I believe people can perform "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ." I'm not sure what you believe.

Do you agree with Ellen that people on earth can perform "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ"? If so, what is the source of their "generous actions" - self, Satan, or the Holy Spirit? By "generous actions" I have in mind helping feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy. Perhaps you would like the name other "generous actions" instead?

Yes, maybe "generous actions" should be defined. Can someone perform "generous actions" which are bad? Such as, can someone perform "generous actions" to a drug ring, etc?

Jesus healed Simon the Leper, the scoundrel who led Mary into a life of sin. A "generous action" indeed.

The unconverted are not completely destitute of love, compassion, generosity, etc. Jesus said:

Matthew 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

The unconverted in this passage (the tax collectors) are able to love those who love them. What they are unable to do is to love their enemies.

How is it that you think a person can actually be loving and compassionate without any help from God? I don't mean simply performing certain actions which may appear to be loving or compassionate, but being generally loving and compassionate. The actions stemming from a loving and compassionate person will be loving and compassionate, but if a person is not loving and compassionate, can he really do loving and compassionate things?

Here's something from the SOP:

I don't understand how your observation addresses my question. It sounds like you're saying the fact they are helping feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy only appears to be kind and loving and compassionate but in reality it is not. Which suggests the source of their "generous actions" is evil and selfish. But does it matter to the poor and needy since they are receiving much needed help?

MM, I've been asking you the same question for a couple of weeks now, without a response, as far as I can tell. What I've been asking you is why you think that people can be loving and compassionate without assistance from God. My belief is we have sinful natures, and because of this, we cannot do good apart from divine help.

My observation was not meant to address your question, but to clarify the question I've been trying to ask you for several weeks.

I'm basing my observation on two things - 1) Ellen wrote that people can perform "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ", and 2) I know people who perform "generous actions" "without the renewing power of Christ".

Do you agree with Ellen? If so, what is the source of their "generous actions" - self, Satan, or the Holy Spirit? By "generous actions" I have in mind helping feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy.

Is helping feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy doing something "good"? If so, how do you explain the fact so many people who have seen Jesus in the best light, and decided to reject Him, "do good" things like help feed, clothe, and house the poor and needy? What is the source of their "generous actions"?

What I wrote above is a paraphrase of what Ellen White wrote. We are born with sinful natures which means that we, apart from divine assistance, are unable to do good. Regarding the quote of Ellen White's you are referencing, I agree with what Rosangela wrote -- I think she understood it the way EGW intended, and that you are attributing to EGW's quote a meaning she did not intend.



The source of anything good is God. There is no one good but God alone.

If the act is a good act, then God was behind it.

Do you believe this is true 100% of the time?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I recall from the SOP a statement to the effect that in order to do good, one must be good. With this understanding in mind, I don't see how one could perform a good act without God being involved.

Do you think it is possible that both God and Satan could be working through the same individual at the same time?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It depends upon what you mean by this. Jesus said we can only have one master. If you're looking at it from this angle, then no. However, we're imperfect, and even if God is our master, we may do things in ignorance, even very bad things, which are not God's will. How would you characterize that?

I would characterize it as that at the moment we do wrong, we are not under the control of God, therefore He is not our master at that moment. We have chosen a different master. This is why we need to renew our allegiance to God so frequently: daily, hourly.



If, as you point out, a man cannot have two masters, then he can have but one at a time, right? Would this be a satisfactory understanding in your mind?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

We are either all of His and free of sin or we are none of His and full of sin. There is no neutrality. One master at a time. "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Rom 8:9)

We are either gathering with Christ or scattering abroad. {RH, March 27, 1888 par. 15}

We are either doing the work of Christ to save souls, or the work of Satan to lead to perdition. {ST, July 15, 1880 par. 2}

"No man can serve two masters." We cannot serve God with a divided heart. {DA 312.3}

When the soul surrenders itself to Christ, a new power takes possession of the new heart. A change is wrought which man can never accomplish for himself. It is a supernatural work, bringing a supernatural element into human nature. The soul that is yielded to Christ becomes His own fortress, which He holds in a revolted world, and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. A soul thus kept in possession by the heavenly agencies is impregnable to the assaults of Satan. But unless we do yield ourselves to the control of Christ, we shall be dominated by the wicked one. We must inevitably be under the control of the one or the other of the two great powers that are contending for the supremacy of the world. It is not necessary for us deliberately to choose the service of the kingdom of darkness in order to come under its dominion. We have only to neglect to ally ourselves with the kingdom of light. If we do not co-operate with the heavenly agencies, Satan will take possession of the heart, and will make it his abiding place. The only defense against evil is the indwelling of Christ in the heart through faith in His righteousness. Unless we become vitally connected with God, we can never resist the unhallowed effects of self-love, self-indulgence, and temptation to sin. We may leave off many bad habits, for the time we may part company with Satan; but without a vital connection with God, through the surrender of ourselves to Him moment by moment, we shall be overcome. Without a personal acquaintance with Christ, and a continual communion, we are at the mercy of the enemy, and shall do his bidding in the end. {DA 324.1}

I pointed out that we are imperfect, and, even if God is our master, we may do things in ignorance which are not God's will. You appear to be disagreeing with this, saying that if we do anything wrong, even in ignorance, we are under another master. Is this really what you were wishing to say? That is, if we have God as our master, we will do nothing contrary to God's will, including things done ignorantly?

Please name examples of "very bad things, which are not God's will" that born-again believers do ignorantly nowadays while under the control of the Holy Spirit.

Why does it have to be nowadays? The guy who immediately comes to mind is Luther.

Tom, if you're going to ignore my question, why not cite the heathens:


Luther and the heathens have in common the fact they ignorantly do "very bad things, which are not God's will."

At any rate, please name examples of "very bad things, which are not God's will" that Spirit-filled, born-again believers do ignorantly nowadays while under the control of the Holy Spirit.

Considering Jesus' teaching for a moment, that we should deal our bread to the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned, and clothe the naked, is God always behind such acts of kindness?

What the world might term "altruistic" and we might think of as "Christian," do these acts always come from above?

Do you think, Tom, that if a heathen did these things, it was, as Mrs. White referred to in Mike's quote above, prompted by the Holy Spirit? Do you think it would always be from God when acts of kindness or mercy such as these are done?

I'm using the word "always" here because I'm hoping to understand the principle of the matter in your mind. Some might accept "situational ethics" where there are no absolutes. Others tend to see things in black and white and for always. It has seemed to me that sometimes you tend toward the latter, considering your view that God does nothing to harm or punish people, but lets Satan work his woes as the natural course of sin. But other times it seems you present both sides as possibilities and I'm not sure I quite understand you correctly.

Do you have a firm stance on this? or do you tend to be more flexible and think that God might be able to execute harsh judgments and/or that the devil might be able to do some good things?

Biblical support for your position would be helpful in understanding it, if you have time to add that.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

I guess it depends upon your definition of "very bad things". But, would you say worshiping the beast is a very bad thing? Do you believe there are those who are Spirit-filled and born-again but who have not had the opportunity to learn the truth and are worshiping the beast, or it's image, in ignorance?

Kland, yes, there are plenty of Spirit-filled, born-again believers who are ignorantly observing Sunday and violating the Sabbath day (i.e. "worshiping the beast"). Ellen wrote:


I'm not sure what kinds of things Tom has in mind when he says Spirit-filled, born-again believers ignorantly do "very bad things, which are not God's will" nowadays while under the control of the Holy Spirit. He took exception to "nowadays", so perhaps he believes it doesn't happen any more since the days of Luther. I don't know.

Personally, I cannot think of "very bad things, which are not God's will" that Spirit-filled, born-again believers do ignorantly while under the control of the Holy Spirit. Examples of "very bad things, which are not God's will" that come to mind are things like murder, rape, robbery, etc. That's not to say that things like pride and neglecting to help the poor and needy are not also "very bad things, which are not God's will."

Tom, another way of looking at the questions I posed in my last post is to look at the contrapositive of your statements here.

Suppose a Christian/Christlike individual "C" can do wrong (in ignorance or otherwise--any form of wrong here) while still being loyal to and under God's influence.

Is it possible for a sinner/spiritualist/Satanically-controlled individual "S" to do good (in ignorance or otherwise) while still being loyal to and under the influence of Satan?

Is it your belief that C can do evil, and S can do good, both while remaining on their respective sides with their respective masters?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It sounds like you do not consider worshiping the beast a "very bad thing".

Me? I answered your question. In answer to your question, I asked why nowadays was important, and gave Luther as an example of someone who did things which were wrong, even though he was under the influence of the Holy Spirit. However, you didn't address why question as to why "nowadays" is important.

In regards to Luther, the anti-Semetic things were what came to mind.

I didn't take exception to "nowadays," but asked you why this was important to your question.

I'll respond particularly to this aspect:



The principle of the matter, as I'm thinking of it, is that we have sinful natures, and because of this, of ourselves, apart from God, are incapable of doing good.

Also what comes to mind is Jesus' question, "Why do you call me good? There is no one good but God alone." It seems to me that goodness is a divine attribute. Other beings are only good by virtue of what they have received, or do receive, from the Creator, who alone is good.

I'm not understanding how this addresses my question to you. That is, you appear to be asserting that if God is our master, we will do nothing wrong, even in ignorance. Have I understood you correctly?

Before going on to your questions, which I'm happy to do, I'd like to establish if I've correctly understood what you're asserting.

Tom, sorry, I wasn't focusing at this time on my own perspective, I'm just trying to understand yours. I do have a view on it, which is that good people can do "bad" things and vice versa. The difficulty with trying to explain my position on it is that it seems we are working from separate definitions, so I am trying to understand more clearly what your definitions are.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I said the following:



To which you responded:



You must have had something in mind when you wrote this, which is what I've been asking you about. It is in response to this statement of yours that I asked:



You said the moment we do wrong, we are not under the control of God. What did you have in mind when you said this?

Tom,

A biblical example to represent the sort of thing I had in mind would be the time when Peter was sincerely presenting what he thought was good, only to receive the rebuke from Christ saying, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" Jesus was rebuking the devil directly, and Peter indirectly, for having allowed himself to become the devil's tool. Peter didn't know it, but Satan had become his master at that moment.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok, thank you for the explanation. How about Luther's antisemitism? Do we say that Luther was under the control of Satan whenever he had antisemitic thoughts or made antisemitic statements? But under the control of God when he was doing other things, like leading the Reformation? This was the sort of thing I had in mind when I asked my question previously.

Regarding a bad person doing good things, my thought was a recollection from the SOP that in order to do good, one must be good, and I believe this thought corresponds to Jesus' teachings. For example, the Pharisees gave money to the temple, but they weren't doing good, whereas the widow, who gave just a pittance, was doing good. So a "good" deed isn't necessarily good, as one's heart comes into play.

However, the other way around doesn't necessarily apply. For example, being antisemitic with a good heart doesn't work; prejudice is always bad. Similar for lying, and many other examples could be given. The ends do not justify the means.

So in other words, the act of giving offerings to God cannot be said to be always good. One can give, and the giving be bad. Is that what you're saying?

It sounds like you are saying that it is not the act that counts, but the heart behind the act (i.e. motivation). Would you characterize your understanding this way?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think that's what Jesus said about making great displays of their offerings.

However, Tom did say the other way around doesn't necessarily apply. That is, a good person doing bad acts.

GC, I wrote this:



I'm interested in your response to these questions.



It depends upon what you mean by "giving." Was what the Pharisees did an "act of giving"?



No, they are both important. That I said "the ends do not justify the means" should make clear that the means are important as well.

I limited my comment to believers who ignorantly violate the Sabbath, which, in my opinion, is not a "very bad thing" like rape, murder, robbery, pride, neglecting the poor and needy, etc.

A lot has changed since Luther's attitude about the Jews in the 1500's. Can you provide us with modern day examples of "very bad things" which Spirit-filled, born-again believers do ignorantly nowadays "while under the control of the Holy Spirit"? The reason it is important to me for you to give up-to-date examples is because I want to know what you believe is current and relevant now. I would greatly appreciate it if you would simply provide the examples I requested. Thank you.

Tom, when the specific atheists I defined earlier on this thread (i.e. learned about Jesus in the best light but concluded God does not exist) work alongside the best of Christians helping to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy - How would you characterize their help? Good? Bad? Please explain your answer. Thank you.

I don't agree with your premise, as I've mentioned a number of times. As I've pointed out, Romans 1 says:



This says that all know of God, because God Himself has shown them; all know of His eternal power and Godhead, so they are not excuse. They know enough that they should be thankful.

Regarding people doing good things, as I've said before, if anyone is doing something good, it is because they are responding to the Holy Spirit.

I'd like to know what your response to Luther's situation. As a modern day example, I don't see why there wouldn't be people nowadays who were anti-semetic, as Luther was. Was being anti-semetic in Luther's time OK? But now it's not? Is this the idea? What has changed since 1500 that's relevant to this point?

Is worshiping Sunday ignorantly the same as ignorantly worshiping the beast? I considered so. In GC page 449, Ellen White says that there are true Christians who honestly believe Sunday is the Sabbath. She goes on and says:
Sounds to me like it is a very bad thing that Spirit-filled, born-again believers are doing. Unless you say that it is only bad after they have been warned. But, is it a very bad thing to transgress God's law?

Do you think the atheists I specified above are doing good things? If so, do you think it's because they are "responding to the Holy Spirit"?

Also, what is the difference (so far as the good works are concerned) between the Holy Spirit dwelling inside the best of Christians empowering them to do the good things named above and the Holy Spirit dwelling outside the atheists named above "responding to the Holy Spirit" doing the same good things?

Like GC, I do not believe Luther's ungodly thoughts and feelings about Jews were the result of the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. Nor do I believe Luther was under the influence of the Holy Spirit whenever he indulged such ungodly thoughts and feelings. Do you agree?

So, what was the origin and source of Luther's ungodly thoughts and feelings? I believe whenever Luther indulged such ungodly thoughts and feelings he was under the control and influence of Satan. Do you agree?

Ellen wrote:


"We must inevitably be under the control of the one or the other of the two great powers that are contending for the supremacy of the world." "There is no middle ground. If not in harmony with the divine will, it must be Satanic." {ST, March 2, 1882 par. 12}

Again, can you provide us with modern day examples of "very bad things" which Spirit-filled, born-again believers do ignorantly nowadays "while under the control of the Holy Spirit"?

Do you think there are Spirit-filled, born-again believers "nowadays who are anti-semetic"? If so, do you think they are "under the control of the Holy Spirit" while they are in the very throes of indulging such ungodly thoughts and feelings?

I feel like deja vu. It seems to me I've addressed this several times, so I'll be brief. I don't think the atheists you are specifying exist.



I don't know what you mean here.

This wasn't the question. I agree with what you wrote. This is self-evident, isn't it? I mean, what would the alternative be? That the Holy Spirit was influencing Luther to have ungodly thoughts? I'm really not understanding why you're writing this.



Are you thinking Luther had these thoughts sometimes but not other times? That he wasn't sure what he thought of Jews, or vacillated on these thoughts? Or that Luther was always under the control of Satan?

Is it clear why I'm asking these questions? If not, I'll elaborate.



It seems to me we're doing fine discussing Luther. What would be the difference between someone having anti-Semitic thoughts now, as opposed to when Luther had them?

What I'm getting at is that Luther was a man used by God (I believe), but he wasn't perfect. For example, he had anti-Semitic ideas. I don't believe these anti-Semitic ideas came and went, but he had them as long as he had them, and they were due to ignorance on his part. However, this ignorance did not prevent God from using him.

Tom,

It seems your answer of "it depends..." is rather typical for any given question. Even if I ask you directly if you are on one side or another of an issue, "it depends." There are some things, Tom, that one simply cannot have both ways! Is there any portion of this current topic where you would feel comfortable being definitive about something that you firmly believe where "it depends" would not apply? Can you provide us a solid, immovable point of reference?

I've done some survey work, and in the job we must always start from a certain point of reference and then build out other reference points from there. The accuracy of all the other points of reference depend upon the accuracy of the starting point. I guess that's what I'm looking for here, Tom. I am not yet able to find any starting point with you. Please help me and give me something solid that can be a reference point in understanding your perspective. I don't know what question to ask anymore, perhaps you would volunteer something upon which I might base the discussion from here out.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Why would depending upon the questioner's definition of a word be objectionable? Just try talking to evolutionists and they change the definition mid-sentence. Clarifying what one is asking seems like a very responsible thing to do. Why not provide an immovable point of definition to the term being asked?

Exactly. What is the point of reference to the definition of "giving"?

(Honestly, I suspected that your question was trying to get him to say something that he wasn't. Maybe it was from past experience with others, but if true, a cautionary response would be in order)

GC, you didn't answer my question. I asked if what the Pharisees did was an act of giving. If you'll answer my question, I can answer yours, as it will give me a frame of reference as to what you mean by "giving."

Also, I've written quite a lot already. I've written several paragraphs of explanation, without reference to any questions, to give a frame of reference of what I have in mind. I think that should be helpful.

Tom,

To my view, acts are not defined by motives. Therefore, if the Pharisees gave, yes, those were "acts of giving," regardless of their reasons for having given. Even if they made a big pretense of it, and gave for the applause of men, it was still an "act of giving." Albeit, it may also have been an "act of pride." One act does not cancel another act. A motive may cancel the reward, however. God will reward each act, not on the basis of the act itself, but on the basis of the heart behind the act.

That is my perspective. What's yours?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I´m away on assignement. Will be back March 2nd.

I think it's often difficult to detach the motive from the act. There's a nice story that illustrates this. It goes something like this.

There was a man who started out on his quest for the holy grail, in Medieval times, who say a beggar, and, with arrogance and disdain, tossed him a coin, as the beggar was nobody, but he was a man starting a great and important task. Many years later, he returned in defeat, and saw the same beggar, and once again tossed him a coin, but this time his heart was in it, as he realized that he was no better than this man; the beggar turned into Jesus Christ, and the man on the quest found what he had been looking for.

In both cases we have the act of tossing a coin, but there are profound differences in the two cases.

Regarding your final sentence, you write:



I would express this so:



That is, I agree with you that the heart behind the act is the crucial thing, but the act itself is also important.

It seems to me that there can be acts which are bad, regardless of the motive, but the converse is not true (i.e., there are no acts which are good, irrespective of the motive.) Do you agree?

It could be you may wish to express the concept I'm getting at differently, given your statement that you don't see acts as being defined by their motives. If that's the case, please feel free to do so. I think what I'm getting at is clear. I'm not trying to ask the question so that it's expressing things in a way you wouldn't agree with, but trying to see if you agree with the general concept I'm getting at.

So, coming back to an earlier point, your view would be that everything that a bad person does is bad, no matter what the actual deeds are? In other words, bad people cannot do even a single good thing, because since they are bad, the deed is infected by their impure motives, is that right?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think we're all bad by nature, and can only do good things by the help of God. I think God is willing to help anybody, and that the Holy Spirit strives with all. Jesus Christ is the light that lightens every man that comes into the world.

If a person who does an act while striving against the Holy Spirit, then that act could be infected by their impure motives. If God is in no way involved, then the act could not be a good act. This is the way it seems to me.

It looks like we may finally be coming to the answers I was looking for about fifty posts back. In response to one of your statements I had asked for clarification:

To which you responded, at that time, noncommittally, so I followed up with this question:

And now it seems you finally have an answer to these questions, in the form of, to summarize: Any act done "while striving against the Holy Spirit" is bad, because "If God is in no way involved, then the act could not be a good act."

That is a definitive statement. Thank you.

From that statement, it is then possible to get round to Mike's earlier discussion regarding bad people doing good things. Apparently, to your way of thinking, they cannot do good things.

For example, if a devil-led individual feeds the hungry, the act was bad on account of the source of their inspiration.

This is interesting. I may not agree, but I am glad to understand more clearly your perspective. Thank you for being clear.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

I don't see what I said that would lead you to this conclusion. I wrote:



Is there something here you're disagreeing with? If so, what? And why? Also, what of what I wrote here would lead you to conclude, "Apparently, to your way of thinking, they cannot do good things."?

I said that without God, one cannot do good things, and also that God is striving with all, as well as that an act committed while striving against the Holy Spirit would not be a good act. I don't understand how, from these statements, you would conclude that "they" cannot do good things. What was your logic please?

You wrote:



I believe I reaffirmed the statement I made several times. Indeed, isn't my statement, "If God is in no way involved, then the act could not be a good act," simply a paraphrase of the same idea?

Do you disagree with this point? Do you believe that we human beings, with our sinful natures, are capable of doing good acts without God being involved? In reviewing this tread, I see that you've questioned me regarding this, but I don't recall your making a direct statement.

Tom,

Perhaps I am much better acquainted with non-Christian peoples than you have had opportunity for. I always think of them in discussions like this. I have a great many dear friends who do not believe in God at all. They are not Christians. They have their own religions, such as Buddhism or Taoism, etc., but some of my dearest friends have plainly told me that they have no interest in Christianity.

Yet these people do good things. They are good people. Some of them are more "Christian" than the "Christians" I know.

That is why my definitions of good acts versus bad acts may be shaped a little differently than yours. You said "If God is in no way involved, then the act could not be a good act." But I can name examples for you, even Biblical ones, where people led of the devil have done good things.

Philanthropists can be spiritualists. Wineries can, and have at times, give generous contributions to charitable causes, or even the church. (We are told by Mrs. White not to accept their "blood money," but that is another matter.)

The act may be good. But the motive is not. As such, God does not accept it. However, this does not change the nature of the act itself, only the worth of it. This is my view.

Consider the parable that Jesus told about the man with two sons.


Who was good according to His parable? The religious leaders? or the prostitutes? Which was commended here in the story? Motives, or acts?

It seems that the one who did the work, albeit reluctantly, is more highly commended than the one who was happy to do it, but did it not. There are some lessons here on the value of the deed itself. There are also lessons here on the importance of repentance in spite of past wrongs.

It is my view that acts can be good acts even though the motives are impure. Also motives can be good motives even though the acts are not good. Motives and acts are distinct from each other.

However, the best is to have both good motives and good acts together. This is the most acceptable to God. Secondarily, I believe God accepts as our best service even our imperfect acts or motives if we have done our best to try to please Him.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, perhaps this question may help you understand what Tom is saying: Do bad people always strive against the Holy Spirit?

GC, thank you for your detailed response. It's given me food for thought, which is appreciated.

Here are a couple of points that we agree on:



I've said this several times in this thread.



I agree with this, and have been coming from this perspective. (However, I believe these people do good things because they are responding to the Holy Spirit, a point regarding which we appear to disagree.)

Where we appear to disagree in our definition of what a "good act" is. To your way of thinking, the motive is distinct from the act, whereas to mine, the act encompasses the motive. So I would not characterize the Pharisees giving offers to the temple as a good act, for example.

I looked around in the SOP a bit, and this was the closest thing that addressed the points I've been trying to make.



In particular:



Given this statement, it doesn't appear to me that an act can be "good" independent of our motive, since it is our motive that "gives character" to our act (which seems to be meaning it determines whether it is "good" or not).

Those are good points, Tom, yet I might point out that the "character" of an act is still not the act itself. Even in this association, we see two distinct parts.

A real conundrum that would merit some study in relationship to this has to do with the prophet who prophesied against Jeroboam's altar, and then the other "prophet" who invited him home to eat. Was it good to feed the hungry prophet? Was it good to lie to him? Yet in the end, as the story goes, it seems the second prophet has taken the "high road." He then condemns the first prophet, whilst at the same time affirming the veracity of his message--and taking on the role of a true prophet himself.

Meanwhile, and this touches on the original topic for this thread, God has arranged the death of the first prophet for having disobeyed Him. Not an ordinary death. Not the sort of death that one would easily account to the devil as having been in charge of. No, this is an unusual one, in which a lion specifically targets the prophet and then guards his body harmlessly, without eating, while animals and people pass by and gawk.

I don't know why the devil would choose to lend credence to the honor of one of God's messengers by inspiring a lion to give such a testimony. It is clearly, as the Bible says, the Lord's own doing.



The prophet had been deceived by the other "prophet," who claimed to have instructions from God for him. The prophet's motives were pure. But he was simply mistaken in his act, and did not follow the original course. And does not God sometimes change our course? Sometimes new instructions come, and we are led a different direction. I've experienced this in my life more than once. And does not God use others to communicate with us at times? Perhaps the prophet was already acquainted with the other prophet, and supposed him to be a true man of God. How was he to know that this was not God's message for him to go and eat at the man's house? (At my present age and maturity I would never have accepted the dinner invitation. However, in my younger years I was much less self-confident and more gullible and vulnerable. Perhaps this was just a young prophet in tender youth.) We simply do not know all of what went on in the poor prophet's mind. But God is not to be trifled with. That much is clear. And here, it was the act that counted most, above any motive that may have been present.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If the motive gives character to an act, then the character is an attribute of the act. An attribute of something, and the thing itself, cannot be spoken of as "two distinct parts."



To interpret things this way, one would have to have the idea that God's character is such that He would do such a thing. Reading certain accounts in the Old Testament, one could certainly get the impression that God would do something like this, and even much worse things. But when considering the revelation of Jesus Christ, whose "whole purpose" in His earthly mission was "the revelation of God," one could hardly arrive at such a conclusion, it seems clear to me.

There's a disconnect between how we read the Old Testament, and the revelation of Jesus Christ. How should we determine what God's character is really like? Do we take what Jesus Christ lived and taught as the complete picture? Or a partial picture, which needs to be supplemented?

This to me seems the crux of the issue.

EGW, speaking of Christ's earthly mission, wrote that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. This is how I read the New Testament witness as well. In times past, God communicated to us in different way, but now He has spoken to us through His Son. No one has seen God at any time, but His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God was really like.

Until Christ came, we didn't know what God was really like. We thought He was one way, when He was really another. Even angels were amazed by the revelation of Christ.



It seems to me this is the wrong lesson to be drawn. Rather than the idea that God is not to be trifled with, the lesson is that Satan is not to be trifled with. Satan is the devouring lion that destroys, not God. We need protection from him, not from God.

When the prophet departed from the word of the Lord, he lost God's protection from the devouring lion. It's the same principle that took place in the destruction of Jerusalem.



As to why Satan does things like this, the answer is easy. Misrepresenting God's character is his most effective means of fighting the Great Controversy.

Tom, the Bible says God did it. How can one understand otherwise without holding to a "private interpretation"?

By focusing on the disconnect, and especially the wording you have used here, an honest individual might truly be left to feel that the Old Testament was not safe reading material...that it would lead him or her into misunderstandings of God.

When you give Bible studies, do you feel comfortable sharing passages from the Old Testament? or do you find yourself gravitating to the New, rarely straying from it?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In case Tom wasn't clear, the statement was
It's giving character "to" our acts, not "of" our acts. Minor article, but somehow it seems different to me.

By considering all the evidence in regards to the subject. For example, the Bible says that God destroyed Jerusalem (cf. the parables of the Murdered Son, and the Wedding Banquet). Yet, from the passage I recently quoted from GC 35, we read:



This says it was actually Satan who did this, and that he hides his own work by blaming God.

There are a number of examples like this, where the Bible says, "God did it," yet the SOP explains that He didn't. For example, the Bible says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but the SOP says the serpents were there all the time, and God removed His protection (the same principle as Jerusalem).

There are many examples of this principle, where Scripture describes God as doing that which He permits. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we can readily see that "God did it" often means "God permitted it."



Before Jesus Christ came, God's character wasn't understood. That's why it was the purpose of His mission to make God's character clear. I wouldn't say this is a fault of the Old Testament, but that it's simply not possible that this work could be done in any other way than by Jesus Christ.



Even though the Old Testament has been widely read, and studied in minute detail, God's character was not understood.



There's nothing wrong the with Old Testament. The problem is with a misunderstanding of God's character.

Here's an example. When Jesus passed through Samaria, with His face set to Jerusalem, his disciples asked if fire should be called down from heaven to destroy them. They didn't understand God's character. But Jesus did, and He responded that they didn't know of what spirit they were (which they didn't, because they didn't understand God's character).

Now both Jesus Christ and the disciples were reading the same thing (the Old Testament), but they were reading with different eyes. The problem wasn't with the Old Testament, but understanding something from it differently than what Jesus Christ understood.

We need to understand the Old Testament as He did.

Now Jesus Christ explained that what He saw His Father do, He did, and what He heard His Father say, He said (He was referring to the Old Testament in saying this). So if we ask the question, "How can we understand the Old Testament the way Jesus Christ did?" the answer is by seeing what Jesus Christ did and hearing what Jesus Christ said.

The disconnect comes when we see things differently from what Jesus Christ saw, and hear things differently from what He heard.

I guess that's why they crucified their own Creator!

Do you mean no one has ever learned of Jesus in the best light and have concluded God does not exist? Or, do you mean no one who has "learned about Jesus in the best light but concluded God does not exist" has ever worked "alongside the best of Christians helping to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy"?


You said, "if anyone is doing something good, it is because they are responding to the Holy Spirit." By "anyone" do you include the people who have "learned about Jesus in the best light but concluded God does not exist"? If so, what is the origin and source of their good works? And, how does it differ from the origin and source of the good works of the best of believers?

For example, when people who have learned about Jesus in the best light but have concluded God does not exist work alongside the best of Christians helping to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy - what is the difference between the origin and source of the good works of the two different groups (i.e. the believers and unbelievers)? In other words, what is the origin and source of the good works performed by the believers, and what is the origin and source of the same good works (i.e. feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy) performed by the unbelievers?

It seems we both agree Luther's ungodly thoughts and feelings were not the result of the Holy Spirit. I believe they were the result of Satan. Luther did not spend all his time with ungodly thoughts and feelings. But when he did, his thoughts and feelings were not of God. While indulging them he was under the control of Satan. He was voicing Satan's sentiments.

Similarly, Peter was under the control of Satan when Jesus said to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Ellen wrote, "The prince of evil was the author of the thought. . . And through Peter, Satan was again pressing the temptation upon Jesus." {DA 416.1}


Do you believe there are Spirit-filled, born-again believers "nowadays who are anti-semetic"?

If so, do you think they are "under the control of the Holy Spirit" while they are in the very throes of indulging such ungodly thoughts and feelings?

Or, do you agree with me that they are voicing the sentiments of Satan while they are actively indulging such ungodly thoughts and feelings?

The former. I've quoted Romans 1 to you several times. It says:



Doesn't this say that all are without excuse because they know of God because God Himself has shown them? And isn't the only way any of us can know God exists because He has revealed Himself to us? Why would God reveal Himself to some but not to others? If a person knows God exists, but chooses not to give Him thanks (vs. 21), even though they know of Him (because He Himself has shown them), then they would be without excuse (vs. 20). But otherwise, if God didn't reveal Himself to them, I don't see how what Paul is asserting can be correct. Or, to put it another way, I don't see how what you are asserting and what Paul is asserting can both be true.

Also knowing of Jesus in the best possible light, to my way of thinking, would mean to have known Jesus personally while He was here in the flesh. Do you think someone would have known and seen Jesus personally and concluded that God does not exist?

This is a tricky question, since I've stated that I believe this to be a set with 0 elements. I believe in this circumstance, any statement could be considered true.



Same comment.



Although I can't comment on the specific hypothetical you are suggesting, as I've repeatedly questioned why you think such people exist, I can comment in general that I believe that we all have sinful natures, and because of this, we are dependent upon a power outside of ourselves to do good. I believe I've stated this several times previously, and also that this is more or less a direct paraphrase from the SOP.

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as an atheist? How do you define an atheist? "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Ellen wrote, "Another class Satan leads on still further, even to deny the existence of God. They can see no consistency in the character of the God of the Bible, if He will torment with horrible tortures a portion of the human family to all eternity. Therefore they deny the Bible and its Author, and regard death as an eternal sleep. {BEcho, August 10, 1896 par. 8}


Yes.


You wrote, "we all have sinful natures, and because of this, we are dependent upon a power outside of ourselves to do good." Does this include unbelievers? That is, is the origin and source of their good works (i.e. feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy) identical to that of believers performing the exact same good works?

What is an atheist? What is a person who knows there is a God, but hates Him? Hates Him for torturing people who disagree with Him.

If one knows and sees Jesus personally as a representation of God, could they believe God would torture people, thereby justifying their view of His non-existence?

What is the difference between the following groups named in the following passages:

1. Atheist
2. Infidel
3. Idolater
4. Blasphemer
5. Skeptic
6. Unbeliever
7. Universalist


You also asked, "If one knows and sees Jesus personally as a representation of God, could they believe God would torture people, thereby justifying their view of His non-existence?" Tell a lie often enough it eventually becomes the truth.

The passage doesn't tell what the difference is, but by listing them separate, indicates there is a difference.

Saying that someone doesn't know if there is a God or not is different than someone who knows there is a God and hates Him.

If one believes a lie about Jesus' representation of God, would you say they know and see Jesus personally?

There are people who have sincerely weighed the evidence and have chosen to "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong." When such people work alongside the best of believers to help feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy what is the origin and source of their good works? Ellen wrote, "A selfish heart may perform generous actions." {SC 58.1}

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as an atheist? How do you define an atheist? "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Ellen wrote, "Another class Satan leads on still further, even to deny the existence of God. They can see no consistency in the character of the God of the Bible, if He will torment with horrible tortures a portion of the human family to all eternity. Therefore they deny the Bible and its Author, and regard death as an eternal sleep. {BEcho, August 10, 1896 par. 8}


Yes.


You wrote, "we all have sinful natures, and because of this, we are dependent upon a power outside of ourselves to do good." Does this include unbelievers? That is, is the origin and source of their good works (i.e. feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy) identical to that of believers performing the exact same good works?

I've asked you several times about Romans 1, but don't recall getting a response. The text says:

1.All are without excuse.
2.They are without excuse because that which may be know of God has been manifest to them.
3.Because God Himself manifest it to them.
4.They should give thanks to God.

Now if God Himself has manifest Himself to all, so they are without excuse, I don't see how this corresponds with the concept of not knowing that God exists. Would you explain this please?



Why? The reverse seems to be the case to me. That is, seeing Jesus Christ would be the most positive evidence of God's existence, especially with the Holy Spirit's influence.



Yes. It is not only believers that have sinful natures. Unbelievers also have sinful natures. Our natures do not become sinful when we become a believer.



If any person does anything good, then they have been influence by God. As Jesus said, "there is no one good but God alone." Whenever good is done, God is involved. Also whenever evil is done, Satan is involved (not necessarily personally, but he is the author of sin and all its results).

Yes, everyone has at one point believed in God. They are without excuse. However, sometime thereafter they talked themselves out of it. Now they "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong." {RH, May 4, 1886 par. 4}


The day Jesus died on the cross only the thief on the cross and one Roman soldier believed Jesus was the Son of God.


I assume you meant to say, "Our natures do not become sinless when we become a believer." I agree.


I don't understand how your answer addresses my question. Are you saying the origin and source of the good works named above is identical for believers and unbelievers? By unbelievers I have in mind people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong."

Even Satan helps people in order to further his plans. He does some good in order to do more evil. The end justifies the means. Ellen wrote:


Ellen also wrote, "A selfish heart may perform generous actions." {SC 58.1}

Saying that someone doesn't know if there is a God or not is different than someone who knows there is a God and hates Him.

And saying they believe Jesus was the Son of God is not the same as saying He exists. Do you suggest the others thought He didn't exist?

Kland, rejecting the messianic claims of Jesus and denying the existence of God is entirely possible then and now.

Ah, I misread it. You are separating Jesus and God. Some atheists say, show me God and I'll believe. Which they know can't be done, but it wouldn't make any difference anyway. They also say Jesus was a good man, but ignore the idea of "good" being a fraud as He claiming to be God.

This doesn't work. Here's Romans 1:



If what you were saying were true, then they wouldn't be without excuse. Their not being without excuse consists of:

1.Knowing what can be known of God because God has manifested it to them.
2.In spite of this, not glorifying God, nor being thankful to Him.

This doesn't allow for the idea that "at one point" they knew about God.

Also, just from a logical standpoint, it doesn't work. If you know what can be known of God because He has manifested it to you, that's not the sort of thing you can forget. You continue to know that. But you can still deny it. And this agrees with the SOP quote. They deny something that they know, which is why they are without excuse.



But this doesn't address your claim. You're claim had to do with God's existence. Specifically, your claim is that one could know Jesus Christ personally, and yet conclude that God did not exist. Where is there evidence of this? Also, why would you think such a thing would be the case? Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. What better evidence of the existence of God could there be than this? (i.e., actually having God standing in front of you, with the Holy Spirit revealing to you the import of what you're seeing).



No, I meant sinful. You asked if having sinful natures includes unbelievers. The only way your question could be answered "yes" would be if unbelievers have sinless natures, but become sinful when they believe.



You asked if the origin and source of good deeds is the same for unbelievers and believers. I answered that if anyone does anything good, then God is involved. That answers the question you asked.



Satan doesn't do any good. He doesn't actually heal anyone, but stops doing some of the evil he was doing to them. That's not the same as doing good. The quote you cited speaks of all sorts of evil things Satan does.



Actions which appear to be generous to others, is the intent. A selfish heart brings forth selfish actions. James explains this:



EGW was not saying that an evil person can do good things without the involvement of God, which seems to be your interpretation of the phrase that a selfish heart can produce generous actions.

If you read what she said in context, it agrees with what I've been saying:



Notice, "affection in an outward manner." The whole paragraph is speaking of appearance. A person, without being converted, may *appear* to be a certain way. But this is an appearance, not reality, because of "being destitute of the principles of pure love." Also "the actions that flow from such a heart may be destitute of the savor of life." Such actions are not good, unless you conceive of good as being in harmony with being "destitute of the savor of life."

I've been thinking the reason I misread it was that the line of thought hasn't been along what you just said. It seems to me that your previous comments have not been about this.

From time to time certain people believed Jesus was the Messiah, but eventually they despised themselves for believing it. In the end they were just as convinced He was not the Messiah as they had been sure He was. I believe the same dynamics play out in the hearts and minds of those who believe in God and then chose not to believe in Him.


Of the Jews who rejected Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, most of them, despite this, believed in the existence of God. Of the Romans who rejected Jesus' claim to be the Son of God, most of them, at best, believed in false gods. There is very little evidence, while hanging on the cross, anyone believed in the existence of God because of having known Jesus personally.


How do you define "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags"? Ellen wrote:


In the quotes above Ellen makes it clear there is a huge difference between good works performed by believers and unbelievers. "All our righteousnesses [good works]" do not always "involve God". The answer you gave above to my question seems to imply you believe there is no difference. Did I misunderstand it?


In the case of believers and unbelievers working side-by-side feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy, how do you apply the principles delineated above? Do the good works of these unbelievers "involve God"? Or, are they "destitute of the savor of life"?

Can people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong" perform good works which "involve God" and are not "destitute of the principles of pure love"?

I spoke of people believing in God because God manifested Himself to them. What does this have to do with that?

Also, who are you talking about? That is, who are these people?



What do you mean by "believe in God"? What I was addressing was believing in God's existence. Is this what you mean?

If a person believes in God, because God manifested Himself to that person, so that that person is without excuse, in not glorifying God nor giving Him thanks, how could such a person not know that God exists? Bad memory? What?



This has nothing to do with the question. The question is, what evidence is there that a person would know Jesus Christ personally and conclude that God does not exists. Your answer, it should be clear to see, has nothing to do with this. That is, "There is very little evidence, while hanging on the cross, anyone believed in the existence of God because of having known Jesus personally." in no way addresses your claim that a person knowing Jesus Christ personally would conclude that God did not exist.



This has been exactly my point! Pretty much what I've said, word for word.



No, this isn't the point.



Yes. Notice she said, "All our good works are dependent on a power outside of ourselves." This was my point. I said that if anyone does something good, it was because of God. That's the same thing she said.



She said that all good works depend upon a power outside of ourselves. That power is the power of God. Your question is answered by asking if the works performed are good works. If they are good works, then they were dependent upon God, as EGW said.



In this case they wouldn't be good works, right?



Haven't you been making this claim? I've made no statement either for or against this idea. I've made the point that if any person does something good, God was involved, which agrees with the quote from EGW that all good works are dependent upon a power outsider of oneself.

1. No. I've been saying the people specified above can perform generous actions without the power of Jesus, without God being "involved".
2. I know. I've been trying hard to get you to speak to this point.
3. I know. But do you think people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong" and who work alongside the best of believers feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy are able to do so because "God was involved"? If so, please explain what you think God does to empower them to perform said good works. Also, please explain how it differs from what God does to empower the best of believers to perform the exact same good works (named above).

If, as you seem to think, "God is involved" when the unbelievers I specified above perform the good works I specified above, is it fair to assume you also believe they are able to perform them for the exact same reasons the best of believers are able to perform them? Ellen wrote:


In the quote above, Ellen describes the origin and source of the good works performed by the best of believers. Do you think this is the same origin and source of the good works (specified above) performed by unbelievers who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong"?

PS - How do you define "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags"? Please give an example. Thank you.

Of all the people who knew Jesus personally I cannot say with certainty who ended up believing God does not exist. What I can say is the day Jesus died very few people believed He was the Messiah, and knowing Him would have, therefore, made very little difference in whether or not they believed in the existence of God.


I'm beginning to suspect you believe the description of people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong" must be interpreted to mean they actually do believe in the existence of God. Am I misunderstanding you?

I wasn't speaking about "generous actions." I spoke about doing good.



Why? We haven't resolved the issue? Why go jumping to a new issue when the original one has been dealt with?



Then why have you been recalcitrant? Why not just say from the beginning, "You're right!" or "Good point!" or "Agree!" or "Amen!" instead of proceeding in a way indicating you're disputing what I'm saying?



Let's establish I was correct on the point I've been making first. Then we'll go to new areas.



"All our righteousness" includes deeds which may appear to be good deeds to the outside eye which are done without God's involvement.

Or even not with certainty. You couldn't even hazard a guess. So there is no evidence to support your claim.



You are saying:

1.Few peopled believed Christ was the Messiah when He died.
2.Therefore knowing Christ would make very little different in whether or not they believed in God's existence.

Why do you think statement 2 depends upon statement 1? For one thing, it could be the very reason didn't believe He was the Messiah was *because* they didn't know Him. Then knowing Him would fix both problems (not believing He was the Messiah, and not believing that God existed).

However, Romans 1 tells us that all are without excuse, because what can be know of God is known by them, because God Himself has shown them. So why would the existence of God part even be an issue?




According to Romans 1, what can be know of God is known by all (which is why they are without excuse). They should glorify God and give Him thanks because of this. You seem to believe that this applies to all only at some point in time, but after that point in time, they forget, or something like that.

There are a couple of problems with this idea. One is that the reason they are without excuse is because what can be know of God is known by them. Take away that, and they are no longer without excuse, which contradicts the assertion that all are without excuse.

Secondly, it says that the reason what can be known of God is known because God Himself as manifest Himself to them. This being the case, assuming we don't question God's ability to manifest Himself to others, we would have to conclude that God was able to successfully manifest Himself to them, so that what the verse says is true (that they should glorify God, and give thanks to Him). This suggests more than simply knowing that God exists, but knowing something about Him (otherwise, why would they be without excuse for not glorifying Him or giving Him thanks?)

Thirdly, knowing of God, because God has manifested Himself, is not something one forgets.

One can choose not to think on these things, or believe them, hence they "deny" these things, and even make audacious challenges, but the points made in Romans 1 still hold.

...because I thought the line of thought was about Jesus coming to make known God's character, fully and completely.

Please name a "generous action" that does not qualify as "doing something good". Ellen wrote, "The record of kindly deeds and generous actions will reach into eternity. {4T 490.2}

Also, since this is specifically what we've been discussing, do you think the good works named above (helping feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy) performed by the people named above (who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong") qualify as "kindly deeds and generous actions"?

If not, why not?


Above you objected to my use of the word "generous actions" as opposed to your use of the word "doing something good". For example, below you wrote, "If any person does something good, God was involved." I've been working hard ever since you first made this claim to get you to say whether or not you believe "any person" includes the people I specified above. So, again, does "any person" include people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong"?


I'm sorry it isn't clear to you that I am trying to ascertain whether or not I agree with you. You wrote, "If any person does something good, God was involved." From what I've read in the Bible and the SOP, it seems clear to me the people I specified above can perform the good, generous works I named above without God being involved.

If you are saying, yes, the people I specified above are able to do the good, generous works I named above because God is involved - then the other questions I asked above come into play. If so, please answer those questions. Thank you.

In addition to those question, what do you mean by "God is involved"? What does "God is involved" mean as it applies to the best of believers performing the good, generous works I named above? And, what does "God is involved" mean as it applies to the unbelievers I specified above performing the exact same good, generous works I named above?


Would you say the good, generous works I named above, performed by the unbelievers I specified above, qualify as "our righteousnesses"? If not, why not? And, please cite an example you feel does qualify. Thank you.

Do you know of anyone who knew Jesus personally that changed their belief about the existence of God because of Jesus?


How many people do you think, on the day Jesus died, were convinced beyond doubt He was the Messiah? How many were unsure? And, how many were absolutely certain He wasn't? Of all the people you name in each category, how many do you think, on the day Jesus died, changed their mind about the existence of God? I suspect none of them changed their minds.


Good point. Knowing Jesus personally, therefore, would not have, on the day He died, changed their belief about the existence of God. However, I also happen to believe people can, even though they have no excuse, "deny the existence of God." Ellen makes this point very clear. I understand, of course, you believe there is no such thing as people who truly believe God does not exist. You believe everyone is convinced beyond no doubt God does indeed exist. I disagree.


As I suspected, you believe there is no such thing as people who truly believe God does not exist. According to you, all their claims to the contrary are simply lies. When Ellen wrote about people who "deny the existence of God" you take it to mean they do indeed believe God is real and exists.

In the 1SG 116 quote posted above, how do you explain the difference between the class who "deny the existence of God" and the other classes highlighted below:

Of all the people who knew Jesus personally, how many do you think changed their belief about the existence of God? There are three options - 1) Did anyone change their mind and end up believing God does exist, 2) Did anyone change their mind and end up believing God does not exist, and 3) Did anyone continue to believe as they did before getting to know Jesus?

Any "generous action" performed by a selfish heart would not qualify. To qualify as something good, there would need to be a dependency upon a power from above, as the quote states.



There are deeds which are actually good, not just outwardly so. Remember the context of the quote (that a selfish heart can produce generous actions) deals with outward appearance.



If they are genuinely good deeds, then there was a dependency upon God, a power from outside oneself, as the quote you brought out previously states.

You made the claim. I didn't. I was disagreeing with your claim. There's no need to question me about a claim I didn't make.



This utterly didn't address my question at all. You made a statement, the logic of which I didn't see, so I asked you to support that logic. You just asked me questions.

I don't see that what you said before makes any sense. Could you please explain why you think it makes sense?

That is, you said this:



It's the "therefore" I'm questioning. "Therefore" means that thing 2 depends upon thing 1. I outlined this in my question to you.



Ok, so you're taking back what you said before.



Clearly. We don't need Ellen White for this. That people deny the existence of God is common knowledge.



That's what Romans 1 says.



I didn't say this. I said what Paul said, that all are without excuse because that which can be known of God was manifested to them by God, and that they know enough of God that they are not without excuse if they are not thankful to Him or glorify Him.



I agree with Paul.



I agree with Paul.



Paul.



If they disagree with what Paul said, I go with Paul.



I take it to mean that they deny God's existence. However, I still agree with what Paul said.



I understand this as saying that Satan misrepresents God's character, to such an extent that rather than believe in such a God, they deny His existence. However, I don't see this as contradicting what Paul said. I believe these people, as Paul said, know of God because God Himself has manifest Himself to them, so that they are without excuse in not glorifying Him or giving Him thanks.

MM, are you aware of some people who say, God does not exist because I hate Him. Try and resolve that. What people say is not necessarily what they believe. Satan believes in God, but that doesn't mean he's a Christian nor changed his life for the better.

My statement still stands.

The fact you say "if" suggests you believe it is possible for people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong" to cooperate with God and perform "genuinely good deeds." Do you believe this is possible?

In your opinion, considering the kinds of quotes I posted, do you feel Ellen taught there is no such thing as a true atheist, that deep down everybody believes in the existence of the one and only true God?

I never intended for you think I was claiming there were people who knew Jesus personally and ended up concluding God does not exist. Anything is possible. However, I strongly doubt anyone who personally knew Jesus changed their mind about the existence of the one and only true God. Please accept this as what I believe (disregard whatever else I said that led you to think otherwise).


All I'm saying is I don't think knowing Jesus caused anyone to change their mind about the existence of the one and only true God. I may be wrong. There have may been people who didn't know of, or didn't believe in, the existence of the one and only true God (as opposed to pagan gods) and changed their mind after meeting Jesus. Do you know of such a person?


Not sure. However, I believe at some point everyone believes in the existence of God. Some people go on thereafter to "deny the existence of God." You seem to think no one is truly successful at believing God does not exist. I disagree.


I suspect your definition of "deny the existence of God" is different than mine. I think it means they believe God is no more real than the tooth fairy. What do you believe it means?


Do you agree with me, then, that in spite of what they once believed about God that some people go on to conclude God is no more real than the tooth fairy?


Do you agree with me, then, that in spite of what they once believed about God that some people go on to conclude God is no more real than the tooth fairy?


Do you agree with me, then, that in spite of what they once believed about God that some people go on to conclude God is no more real than the tooth fairy?

Also, you didn't answer my question. Of the four classes of people Ellen named in the passage above, how do the other three differ from those who "deny the existence of God"?

No it doesn't. That is, "if" does not have this implication.



If a person hasn't committed the unpardonable sin, the person should be able to respond to the Holy Spirit. That would give them access to the power outside of themselves that they need.

Why did you make this claim then, if you didn't want me to understanding you were making it?



Ok.



This is different than what you were saying before, which is fine.



Fred.



Why do you believe this?



Some people always, their whole life, made such a denial.



I agree with what Paul said.



From Romans 1, we know they know what can be know of God, because God has manifest it to them, as well as the fact that they are without excuse if they do not glorify Him nor give Him thanks. This does not apply to the tooth fairy, so we do look to disagree on this point.

I understand to deny the existence of God to mean just what it says; to deny that God exists. Or, to state it in a different way, to assert that God does not exist.



Where is this "once believed about God" coming from? Romans 1 doesn't say that people "once knew of God" because He "at some point" manifest Himself to them. It's in the present tense:



This is present tense. It's always true.



They don't deny the existence of God.

Do you think this one: Sounds much like what I asked about what some people say? What does "deny" mean?

Do people who "assert that God does not exist" also believe He is no more real than the tooth fairy?

PS - Say, Hi, to Fred for me.

Still not sure what your answer is to my question. Do you believe it is possible for people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong" to cooperate with God and perform "genuinely good deeds"?

Referring to the Opening Post:


Nowhere in the SOP where the phrase "God destroys no man" is used (6 places) does it refer to God killing someone or God withdrawing His protection and permitting someone or something else to kill them. The phrase always pertains to hardening one's own heart beyond hope.

Some people, however, quote this phrase and use it mean God does not kill sinners. The fact is, tough, that God does indeed kill sinners. There are many examples of it in the Bible. The stories of Nadab and Abihu and the two bands of fifty who were burned alive speak rather forcibly to the point.

God has manifest to them, which is why they know of God. That's what Romans 1 says, isn't it? Has the tooth fairy done this?



Fred says hello.



I think my answer does answer your question. In your hypothetical question, is the person you have in mind responding to the Holy Spirit?



She speaks of Pharaoh in these quotes, right? So, if what you say is true, then God did not kill or destroy Pharaoh.



Indeed. God kill Saul, for example. Also here it speaks of God's killing sinners in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem:



What happened in these incidents? The principles are spelled out in GC 35-37, in "The Destruction of Jerusalem."



Yes, and they all are governed by the same principles. "What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants ..." This is the same language used as in these other stories.



As does this: ""What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants ..."

Above you wrote, "I understand to deny the existence of God to mean just what it says; to deny that God exists. Or, to state it in a different way, to assert that God does not exist." We both deny the existence of the tooth fairy. As a child, though, I believed she did exist. Of course, later on I figured out it was my grandmother who left the coin under my pillow.

What I'm saying is - At some point in time everyone believes in the existence of God. Romans 1 makes it clear. But some people go on to deny the existence of God, that is, they no longer believe He exists. In my mind, to deny the existence of God is to conclude there is no such thing as God or gods. Like belief in the tooth fairy, they grow up and conclude God never was real. He is just the figment of our imagination.

You seem to have a different definition for the phrase "deny the existence of God." You seem to think nobody ever really comes to the conclusion that God never really existed, that to "deny the existence of God" means they believe He is more than just an imaginary person.


Didn't mean to leave out Wilma.


You asked, "Is the person you have in mind responding to the Holy Spirit?" What I'm asking you, "Is it even possible for them to respond to the Holy Spirit (assuming they haven't committed the unpardonable sin)?"

Are you saying, Yes, people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong", and haven't committed the unpardonable sin, are more than capable of responding to the Holy Spirit and more than capable of receiving divine power to perform "genuinely good deeds"? If so, how do their works differ from that of the best of believers doing the same thing (feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy)?

Also, what about people who "deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong", and who have committed the unpardonable sin, and who work beside the best of believers feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy - How would you describe their works (evil, selfish, good, holy, etc)? And, in practical terms (plopping food on the plates of the poor and needy as they rush by the assembly line), how do their smiles and works differ from that of the best of believers doing the same thing?

Of course, this topic is off-topic. The phrase "God destroys no man" isn't referring to God withdrawing His protection and giving evil angels permission to influence enemy soldiers to kill people. Her point in particular pertains to sinners hardening (destroying) their hearts beyond hope.

Do you agree? If not, please demonstrate why you believe otherwise. Thank you.

Bump.

This isn't what Romans 1 says, Mike, as I've been pointing out. It doesn't say, "At some point in time everyone believes in God." It says that all are without excuse because what can be known of God is known by them because God has shown it to them, so that they should be thankful to Him and glorify Him. Everything is present tense. It's not aorist.



This isn't what Romans 1 says.



This contradicts Romans 1, which says that what can be known of God is known because God has manifest it to them. Here's what it says:



Note that what is known of God is known because God has shown it to them.

If God shows you something, you can deny it, but you know it's true. If this weren't the case, then those being judged would have an excuse.



Primarily, it appears to me that we differ in regards to Romans 1, which you look to be interpreting to mean something it doesn't say.

"Deny the existence of God" means what it says: to deny that God exists, or to assert that He does not exist. You seem to have a different definition of the phrase, as if it meant "to believe that God is as much a figment of one's imagination as the tooth fairy," but this isn't what "deny" means.



Again, to deny the existence of God means just what it says. Deny (from Webster's) means:





My understanding is that anyone who has not committed the unpardonable sin can respond to the Holy Spirit. Indeed, that's what committing the unpardonable sin means, to so harden one's heart that one cannot respond to the Holy Spirit.



I haven't said anything about "more than capable" anywhere.

I don't know if the hypothetical people you're speaking of have committed the unpardonable sin or not. Assuming they haven't, then they should be able to respond to the Holy Spirit.

They point I had been making is that they can't do good works apart from God, without a power outside of themselves, which is what the SOP quote says.



If they are doing good works because they are responding to the Holy Spirit, I don't see why their works would differ.



Since to do good works, one needs a power outside of ones (from the SOP quote), if they are not depending upon a power outside of themselves, then it would follow they are not doing good works, right?



Let's see if we agree on the previous point. Here's the previous point.

1.The SOP quote says that to do good works, one needs a power outside of oneself.
2.In your hypothetical question, the people have committed the unpardonable sin, so are not depending upon a power outside of themselves.
3.Therefore they are not doing good works, as per the SOP quote.

Assuming we agree on this, you're now asking for detail as to how their works are different? This is your question? And you think it may have something to do with their smiles?

I agree that she is saying that sinners destroy themselves because they harden their hearts beyond hope.



The hardening of the heart cannot be disconnected from the destruction that is inflicted by Satan/sin when one removes oneself from the protection of God. Note: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;"

Yes, hardening of the heart is involved, it's the first step, but what Satan does is certainly involved. It's certainly not saying that "God destroys no man" means "God doesn't harden the heart, but after the heart is hardened, then God destroys."

I agree. The point is "God destroys no man" refers exclusively to sinners hardening their hearts beyond hope. It does not include the fact there are times when hardened hearts result in God withdrawing His protection and permitting them to suffer and die (which I suspect doesn't happen very often nowadays).

You seem to be saying Ellen’s use of the phrase “deny the existence of God” must be interpreted to mean they believe that God, unlike the tooth fairy, is a real person, that He does indeed exist. Please compare Ellen’s use of the phrase “deny the existence of” in the following passages:


Does “deny the existence of” have the same meaning when she uses it in the context of Eden and Satan as it does when she uses it in the context of God?


Do you disagree with the use of the phrase “more than capable” in the context above? If so, why? Do you agree the people specified above “haven’t committed the unpardonable sin”? By the way, they are not “hypothetical people”. They are real people. I’ve worked with them many times in the past.


What do you mean by “their good works” do not differ? Ellen wrote:


With these insights in mind, do you think the origin and source of their good works is the same? Do think there is no difference between their good works?


So, you describe their works as “not good works”? How does this description differ from “evil works”?


No, we do not agree. I believe they are capable of performing good works. Plopping food on the plates of the poor and needy is doing good works.

I've been saying that EGW's phrase "deny the existence of God" means just what it says. I'm not saying it needs to be interpreted in some other way, but have been arguing against interpretations that would have it say something else.

Please look at my comments. I've said nothing other than her statement should be interpreted to mean what it says.



These passages look to echo what I've been asserting, that by "deny the existence of God" what Ellen White means "deny the existence of God."



We need to take into account that, according to Romans 1, all know of God because what can be know of God was shown to them by God. This doesn't apply to Eden or Satan or the tooth fairy.



Why not just "capable."? Why add "more than"?



I've been clear in what I've been saying. I don't see why the need to rephrase what I'm saying to say different things.



You can make up your assumptions, and I'll comment accordingly.



People that have denied that God exists and challenged God to strike them dead if not?



I meant if they are doing good works because they are responding to the Holy Spirit, I don't see why their works would differ.



I said "if they are doing good works because they are responding to the Holy Spirit ..." which means the origin of their works is the Holy Spirit. So how could the origin and source be different if the origin and source is the Holy Spirit?



As I said, if they are doing good works because they are responding to the Holy Spirit, I don't see why their works would differ.



Please answer my questions. You often just skip over them, and ask me more questions. Please answer my questions, and then ask your own.



According to the SOP, we cannot do good works without a power outside of ourselves. So if they are doing good works, it is because they are dependent upon God (in context, the power outside of themselves is the power of God).

In the passages I posted, Ellen used the phrases “deny the existence of Eden” and “deny the existence of Satan”. Do these phrases mean something different than “deny the existence of God”? If so, why?

Above you said, “To ‘deny the existence of God’ means ‘to declare untrue.’” It also means “to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of.” What exactly do you think Ellen meant when she implied there are people who declare the existence of God to be untrue, who refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of God?


The people I specified “haven’t committed the unpardonable sin”. Do you agree that’s how I described them above?


In the case of (1) people who “deny the existence of the Creator, and challenge the God of heaven to strike them dead on the spot if their position is wrong” and the (2) people Ellen described in the passages above working side-by-side feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy, it sounds like you’re saying there is no difference between the two kinds of people so far as the origin and source of their good works.

However, what about the fact the second (2) group of people have experienced the miracle of rebirth and are partaking of the divine nature? “The working of the Holy Spirit in his life shows that he is a partaker of the divine nature. Every soul thus worked by the Spirit of Christ . . . is controlled and sustained by divine power, and is led to glorify God.” Here Ellen is describing the origin and source of their good works (born again heart + Holy Spirit = good works). Do you think she believed the same thing is true of the first (1) group of people?

In both Uriah Smith and Ellen White, they quote where in the French revolution one made a very similar comment. Do you think they "denied" God, meaning know for sure God does not exist, or "denied" God, meaning deny the claims of and know they want nothing to do with the God they saw portrayed?


By the way, if Jesus came to the earth for the purpose of demonstrating who God was and you say people may still not know if God exists, then following the same line of thought, how could anyone know if God exists?

Kland, Romans 1 makes it clear no one can excuse "denying the existence of God."

Sorry, I must have missed where you agreed with that. Glad to hear it!

Romans 1 actually says that people are without excuse for their unrighteous behavior. They are under obligation to glorify God and give Him thanks. This is because what can be know of God was manifest to them by God.

It doesn't directly deal with denying God's existence, although one could infer what you are saying (but, by the same token, one could infer that any other unrighteous behavior is without excuse).

I addressed this. Right above what you wrote. This explains why there's a difference involved.



I said that Webster said this is a definition of "deny," that that “To ‘deny the existence of God’ means ‘to declare untrue.’”



This is another definition of "deny."



We don't need Ellen White to know that there are people who deny the existence of God. What this means is to deny that God exists; to declare that untrue; to refuse to accept the truth of validity of that statement. It's not the truth or validity of God that's being denied, but the truth or validity of the statement that God exists that's being denied.



I don't care how you describe them. I have no disagreement with you on this point.



I made no comment regarding this. I said that if (whatever) people were doing good works, since we know (from the SOP statement) that good works are only possible by the assistance of God, then their good works were done with God's assistance.



She didn't say born again heart + Holy Spirit = good works. That would imply that no one born again could do good works. That doesn't agree with what you've been saying, though, right? At least, I've been understanding you to say that people who don't believe in God can do good works of themselves, without God's assistance. So there are three positions here:

1.Anyone can do good works, whether believing in God or not, and they can do so without God's assistance.

2.Anyone who responds to the Holy Spirit can do good works.

3.Born again + Holy Spirit = good works. This means to do good works one must be born again, and God's assistance must be involved.

I've understood you to be asserting 1. It sounds like you believe EGW was asserting 3. I've been asserting 2.

Also, I asked you some questions in my previous post, to which you responded with questions. I asked you to answer my question. You didn't do so. You've asked me a lot of questions here, and I've answered them. Please answer my questions as well.

In particular, here's the question I asked you to answer:



TIA (thanks in advance)

The statement we're discussing was made by Ellen. It was she who said there are people who deny the existence of God. We're not discussing atheists who deny statements made by others regarding the existence of God. Ellen wrote:


Apparently the 1828 Webster's dictionary reflects the meaning of words used by Ellen White. The word "atheism", according to the 1828 Webster's dictionary, means "the disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being." The word "deny" means "to reject; to disown; not to receive or embrace." And, the word "infidelity" means "disbelief of the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the divine origin of Christianity; unbelief."

Using these definitions, it is clear to me Ellen believed there are people who do not believe God exists. She also made it clear there are people who do not believe Satan exists. In the quote above, she did not, as you seem to think, say there are people who reject statements claiming God exists. Which seems to imply you believe there is a significant difference between rejecting all such claims and actually believing God does not exist. Have I misunderstood your point? Also, why do you think atheists publicly reject claims that God exists, if, as you seem to think, they secretly in their heart know He does exist?


I keep hoping you will make a comment. That’s why I’ve been repeating this point over and over. Would you mind explaining your thoughts on this point?


Let’s use my example to discuss this point – “feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy.” I believe group 1 and group 2 are both performing good works. The difference between the two groups is that group 2 are born-again, Spirit-filled believers who give God the honor and glory whereas group 1 are people who do not believe God exists and give no one and nothing credit for their good works. If I’m hearing what you’re saying, you believe the Holy Spirit empowered them to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy because otherwise they are incapable of performing such good works. Whereas I believe they are perfectly capable of performing such good works without the assistance of the Holy Spirit.


I believe the difference between the good works performed by group 1 and group 2 has to do with the origin and source of their good works and whether or not they give God the honor and glory. I believe the origin and source of the good works performed by group 2 is a born-again heart and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the origin and source of the same good works performed by group 1 is self. “A selfish heart may perform generous actions.” {SC 58} Technically speaking, from God’s point of view, all such “righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” But practically speaking, from the view point of the poor and needy, the food, clothing, and shelter provided at the hands of atheists satisfies their physical needs the same as when provided by the best of believers. I realize you disagree with me, but please accept this as my answer. It’s what I believe.

Perhaps we understand Romans 1 differently? I believe it means that everyone at some point in time believes God is real. However, some people go on thereafter to reject what they once believed and conclude God does not exist. In judgment, however, they will be without excuse since at one point they truly believed.

PTI, but here's the passage in Romans 1:



How do you get from what Romans 1 says here to what you said?

The "however" above addresses points not dealt with in Romans 1:18-20. By the way, does Romans 1:18-20 assume once a believer always a believer? By "believer" I mean believe God exists.

Tom, please address 132074.

Romans one simply says that what is known of God is known to all because God has manifested Himself to them. I don't know how you're getting the idea that this doesn't universally apply. You have the idea that it only applies at some point in a person's life, but this isn't at all what Paul is saying.

Again, here's Paul:



Here's you:



These are very different thingst. What I'm asking is, how do you get from what Paul said to what you say? There must be some process of logic involved to get from point A (what Paul said) to point B (what you said). What's the logic?

Another text that comes to mind is in John where he says that Jesus Christ is the light the lightens everyone in the world. He *is* that light which *lightens*. Jesus Christ doesn't stop lighting, and God does not stop manifesting Himself to all. All are without excuse because of this (i.e. because the manifesting of Himself is constant, so that what can be known of God continues to be known).

We don't need Ellen White to know that there are people who deny God's existence. That people deny God's existence does not contradict Romans 1. This is the point I've been making all along, before Ellen White entered into the conversation.



You wrote of those "who refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of God." This is a misstatement. They don't deny the truth or validity of God, but the truth or validity of the statement (i.e. assertion; statement of a fact) that God exists.



Romans 1 says that all are without excuse because what can be know of God is known to them because God Himself has shown them of Himself. I'm sure Ellen White believed this to be true.



Satan has not manifest himself to others in the way God has. He could if he wanted to, but it serves his purposes to have people think he does not exist. This isn't the case for God.



??? Why do you think I think this?



??? Same question.



Apparently so. My point has been that all are without excuse because what can be known of God is known by them because God Himself has shown them.



Ellen White addresses why in the quotes you cited. One reason is that they hate the God that has been presented to them. They prefer to believe He does not exist than to believe that the God (e.g. one who tortures others with fire for bad deeds committed) presented to them exists.



The point I've been making is that one cannot do good works without the power of God. Therefore if they've been doing good works, it's because God was involved.

You have made statement to the contrary of this, asserting that they can do good works independently of God, despite the quotes from Ellen White which you yourself cited stating that we (human beings) cannot do good works without a power outside of ourselves, the context clearly referring to God.

I've made the following point:

1.If it is true that one cannot do good works apart from a power outside of oneself (which is the power of God).

2.And a person does good works.

3.It follows that such a person, doing good works, did so with the help of God.

You have disagreed with this, although this seems like very simple and straight-forward logic. I have repeatedly asked you to address this, but instead you've simply asked me more questions.

I'm asking you yet again to please address this point.



Group 1 doesn't exist. If one cannot do good works without a power outside of oneself, then the number of people doing good works independently, without God's help, is 0.



The difference is there are no members of group 1.



The SOP quote which you yourself cited says that one cannot do good works without a power outside of oneself, the context speaking of such power being God.



This isn't dealing with my question. Please re-read it.



This cannot be, because one cannot do good works without a power outside of oneself. Self is not a power outside of oneself.



It seems clear you're misapplying this statement. For one thing, you're not considering the context, which deals with how actions appear from the outside. For another, you're not considering the text which you yourself cited stating that one cannot do good works without power from outside of oneself.



If they are as filthy rags, they aren't good works.



Our disagreement involves two points.

1.One cannot do good works without a power outside of oneself.
2.All know of God because God Himself has shown them of Himself.

Just because the existence of God is always evident, it does not mean we always interpret the evidence as proof He is real. People who reject and resist Jesus often enough eventually "harden their heart" and "sear their conscience" beyond hope. They "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" and "changed the truth of God into a lie." Such souls have committed the unpardonable sin. They are incapable of repenting and God is, therefore, unable to pardon them. Nevertheless, they are without excuse.

When an atheists personally tells you, Tom, God does not exist, what do you, Tom, tell him?


Yes, we disagree. I believe there are people, atheists, who do not believe God exists. And, I believe they are doing good works, without help from God, when they feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy.

This isn't responsive to my question.

Paul said one thing. You said another. I'm asking by what logic you get from what Paul said to what you said.

If I believed the person didn't know that God existed, then I would be picking what they said over what Paul said. I believe what Paul said, that what can be know of God *is known by them* because God has manifested it to Him. I understand this is what God is saying. We have:

1."You (anyone) know of Me, because I have shown Myself to you." (this is God speaking)

2."I don't believe God exists" (some person speaking)

Who am I going to believe? I believe God.



The first point contradicts Romans 1, and the second the quote from the SOP you cited saying that one is dependent upon a power outside of oneself in order to good works.

I've been asking you for quite some regarding both of these, and don't know why you believe what you do as opposed to these statements by Paul and the SOP respectively.

I do not agree with your interpretation. I do not believe Paul meant for us to understand him to say, "Everyone knows God exists because God makes it clear to them every day of their life."

When an atheists personally tells you, Tom, God does not exist, what do you, Tom, tell him?


You seem to think your interpretation is correct and that mine is wrong.

Paul said:



This states:

1.The wrath of God is revealed against *all* unrighteousness (so there are no exceptions, no people who forgotten what God has shown them).

2.The reason that all are without excuse for all unrighteousness is because they know of God, because God has shown them.

3.The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.


This is all present tense, MM, and all-encompassing. Paul is in no way limiting what he is saying. The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen. By whom? By all. That's why all are without excuse.

They're not clearly seen some of the time, but all of the time, which is why the are not without excuse some of the time, but all of the time.

God's eternal power and Godhead is clearly seen from the things He has made, so all are without excuse.

What's the context here? If it's someone searching for truth, it's had to give a definitive answer here, as the Holy Spirit can lead in different ways, but my inclination would be to share the Plan of Salvation with such a person. Consider how Jesus dealt with Nicodemus or the woman at the well. Sometimes the objections people raise are not really what's in their heart.

I've been asking you to provide an interpretation.

Here's the Romans 1 passage:



What's your interpretation of this?

When the SOP says that one cannot do good works except there be power from outside oneself, what's your interpretation of this?

Tom, have you ever witnessed to an atheist?

I believe Romans 1:18-21 makes it clear that people "who hold the truth in unrighteousness" are "without excuse."

I believe the SOP makes it clear only people who experience rebirth, receive a new heart, abide in Jesus, and partake of the divine nature can perform good works that honor and glorify God.

MM, how would you imagine Paul saying it if he wanted to mean that what is known of God is known to all because God has manifested Himself to them?

That's what he said.

I went to a secular liberal arts college before becoming an Adventist, so yes.



Yes, but why? According to the passage it's because what can be know of God is known by them because God has shown them. This is why they are obligated to glorify God and give Him thanks.

I don't think the import of this last point is being grasped. It's not simply that people know God exist, but they actually know something about His character. Otherwise they would be under no obligation to glorify Him or give Him thanks.



Well, this is a new point, which hasn't been discussed to this point. I disagree with your assertion, given how you define "experience rebirth," which, as I recall, involves a catch-22 type thing where such a person is already doing everything correctly (i.e., doing "everything that Jesus commanded," as you put it). So now, in our time, according to your definition, no person not keeping Sabbath could do any good work which honors and glorifies God.

I readily admit I may be misunderstanding what you've said, so invite you to clarify. Perhaps you make an exception for Sunday-keepers who have never heard about Sabbath? But if I recall correctly, you don't believe such people have experienced rebirth. I'm pretty sure I'm correctly remembering what you've said.

Anyway, the point I've been making is that no one can do good works without a power outside of themselves.

You're going to have to help me out here. Because, I thought that's what Tom said. Do you agree with Tom?

What does the following mean to you:

Would Luther fit that description?

Would "in our time" be relevant?

Did they agree with you when you made it clear to them that they in reality believe God does indeed exist and that they know they are without excuse for refusing to give God thanks and glory?


How does God make Himself known to your atheist friends? Please be specific. Thank you.


I believe people can and do experience the miracle of rebirth, receive a new heart, abide in Jesus, partake of the divine nature, and perform good works before they complete the process of converting to obeying "all things whatsoever" Jesus commanded. For example, most born-again believers break the Sabbath ignorantly. However, no truly born-again believer can violate one of the last six commandments without realizing it.


Ellen wrote:


You seem to be saying atheists, who perform good works, do so by the enabling power of God. Whereas, Ellen clearly says all such people are polished instruments in the hands of Satan. I realize you believe there is distinct, significant difference between the appearance of good works and actual good works. Please explain the practical difference. Thank you. I understand the spiritual difference.

Tom and I do not agree on Rom 1:18-21. He believes everyone is convinced, every minute of every day, that not only does God exist but that they also know they are without excuse for refusing to give Him glory and thanks.


I believe it means God has made it possible for anyone and everyone to know the Father through nature and Jesus. Ellen also wrote:

You asked me how I would witness to an atheist. Did you read what I wrote?



Romans 1 explains this. I haven't said anything other than what Paul said in our discussion.



Why not? This sounds like putting the cart before the horse. I believe is a person is converted first, and then the Holy Spirit brings things to that person's attention that need to be worked on. You're saying a person has to perfectly obey all the last six commandments before they can be converted. How is this possible?



I haven't said anything about atheists performing good works. You seem to keep wanting to put words in my mouth.

What I said is what the EGW quote you cited said, which is that we are dependent upon a power outside of ourselves to good works.

You are the one who has spoken of atheists doing good works.



I made no comment regarding this. I said that EGW quote you cited said, which is that we are dependent upon a power outside of ourselves to good works.



You quoted a snippet from Ellen White which says that a selfish heart can perform generous actions. You argued from this that my assertion that a person cannot perform good works apart from the help of God is incorrect. I disagreed with this, as, for one thing, it would contradict the other quote which says that one cannot do good works apart from a power outside of oneself.

I also pointed out that the context made clear this was dealing with how one's works appear from the outside.

These are what my comments were addressing.

I also said if a person did good works because they were responding to the Holy Spirit, there shouldn't be a difference in the source or origin of the good works, comparing one person responding to the Holy Spirit to another.

Regarding the difference between apparent good works and actual good works, the practical difference is that in one case good works exist, and in the other case they don't.

Where did I say this? I've just been saying what Paul said. Over and over again I've been doing this. I don't understand why you don't just quote what Paul said in reference to what I said. Why change it? I think what Paul said in the Romans 1 passage is fine and clear. I don't see any need to add to it, or take away from it.

This should be addressed to MM. We've discussed this in the past, and I also used Luther as an example to talk about.

My response to your comment above should make it clear I believe people like Luther, who ignorantly violate the law of God, experience rebirth and good works while abiding in Jesus. But we digress. The real question here is - Why do we consider it good works when the best of believers help feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and needy but consider it "filthy rags" when atheists, who have committed the unpardonable sin, perform the exact same good works?

Do you think Paul's comment should be interpreted to mean God continually makes Himself known to everyone at all times so that no one can excuse refusing to honor and glorify Him? Or, do you agree with me?

Your comment wasn’t clear to me. I’m asking for clarification. Clearly you believe they know God is real and that they are obligated to honor and glorify Him. You also believe they are lying when they claim to believe God is not real. Do you point this out to them? If not, why not?

Also, what do you tell them when they pointedly, emphatically tell you God does not exist, that He is just as unreal as the tooth fairy? You didn’t answer this question the last time I asked it.


Paul specifically described people “who hold the truth in unrighteousness . . . knowing the judgment of God . . . did not like to retain God in their knowledge . . . and changed the truth of God into a lie.” Do you believe Paul is here describing the atheists you witnessed to at college? That is, did they “hold the truth in unrighteousness”? Were they aware of the “judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death”? If so, when and how did they obtain such knowledge? Did they, as Paul said, conclude God is real after carefully examining “the things that are made”?


Please bear in mind the difference between experiencing rebirth and converting to obeying everything Jesus commanded. We are conceived and born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments. No one is ignorant of the fact it is terribly wrong to dishonor their parents, murder, fornicate, steal, lie, or ignorant of the fact coveting causes unrest and unhappiness. People who experience rebirth are empowered to live in harmony with what everyone knows naturally is right. Nevertheless, there are specific truths we do not know instinctively, truths we must discover through Bible study and prayer. The first four commandments, for example, are not known naturally.


You have made it abundantly clear you believe anyone who performs “good works” are able to do so through a combination of human and divine powers. If what you believe is true, it implies God works through unholy, unsanctified human faculties to perform “good works.” I believe this is impossible. I believe people must first experience rebirth, which, among many things, results in sanctified human faculties, which, when combined with divine power, enables them to perform sanctified good works which honor and glorify God. Ellen wrote:


“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.“ Again, I believe it is impossible for Jesus to work through unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate human faculties “to will and to do of his good pleasure.” You seem to be saying, Yes, He can and does.


“Many a man of cultured intellect and pleasant manners, who would not stoop to what is commonly regarded as an immoral act, is but a polished instrument in the hands of Satan.” You seem to be saying Ellen intended for us to take her comment (in the quote you’re referring to) to mean unconverted, unbelievers (like people in the quote above) perform good works by combining sinful human faculties and divine power. Is this what you believe?


Do you believe Jesus works through unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate human faculties “to will and to do of his good pleasure”?


Do you believe feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy qualify as “good works” only when performed by people whose human faculties have been renewed and sanctified and through whom Jesus works “to will and to do of his good pleasure”? Or, do you believe the same things performed by people whose human faculties are unholy, unsanctified, and unregenerate also qualify as “good works”?

Are they same good works?