MM, I have no idea why you are asking this. It seems like you just have a list of ways that God can communicate with us, and when I think of something you left out, you add that to your list. What's the use of this list? What's the point? Why can't we just stipulate like Scripture does that "God, at sundry times and in divers manners" speaks to us?

I guess another item that comes to mind is one can be instructed by ones parents, or by whomever one is raised. Or one can be influenced by another person whom one holds in respect.

Regarding the P.S. just because one cannot read nature completely correctly (i.e. "read it aright") without a saving knowledge of Christ does not mean that God does not use nature to communicate to men, or that men can learning nothing at all from nature. The point of her quote is that nature is not, of itself, sufficient. But its not being sufficient of itself does not mean it has no effect at all. I took this into account when including it.

Because you seem to believe people can read nature aright and at arrive at the truths contained in the first half of the law. I am not as convinced as you seem to be that this has ever happened. It goes to prove my point, which is - It is impossible to live in harmony with the first half of the law without learning about it first through one or more of the means and methods I listed above. Not only is nature not "of itself sufficient" it is impossible.

However, the fact people know instinctively, without ever having learned about it through the means and methods I listed above, it makes them miserable when they do things contrary to the last half of the law. IOW, they know dishonoring their parents, murdering someone, cheating on their spouse, stealing, lying, and coveting makes them miserable.

TE: Abraham ... was a heathen.

MM: Are you sticking to your story? I ask because she wrote, "Faithful among the faithless, uncorrupted by the prevailing apostasy, he steadfastly adhered to the worship of the one true God." Does this sound like a heathen to you?

...

MM: I believe God communicates truth to people through the oral Bible, through the written Bible, through religious tracts, pamphlets, and books, through missionaries, through angels, and through visions and dreams.

TE: Another thought that comes to mind are things written which are not Scripture.

MM: I already listed that one.

...

TE: If so, it looks like you left off God communicating through nature, and also the Holy Spirit communicating directly without a dream or vision.

MM: Ellen made it clear that people cannot read nature aright without a knowledge of the plan of salvation. They end up worshiping the creature rather than they Creator. Or, do you know of people who arrived at the truths contained in the first half of the law solely through nature without previous knowledge of the plan of salvation?

Also, what is an example of the Holy Spirit communicating directly rather than through dreams and visions? What doe she mean, "Ever since Adam's sin, the human race had been cut off from direct communion with God ..." {DA 116.2}

...

TE: You've suggested in the past that those in Romans 1 (around vs. 20) knew Scripture, but this goes contrary to Paul's argument, which is that all, without exception, are guilty.

MM: Here's what she wrote about the people Paul describes in Romans 1:

The children of Seth went "in the way of Cain" (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of the Lord. Men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge;" they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:21. Therefore "God gave them over to a mind void of judgment." Verse 28, margin. Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy. {PP 81.2}

And as men became bolder in sin, the knowledge and the love of God faded from their minds and hearts. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God," they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." {5T 738.2}

Solomon had great learning; but his wisdom was foolishness; for he did not know how to stand in moral independence, free from sin, in the strength of a character molded after the divine similitude. Solomon has told us the result of his research, his painstaking efforts, his persevering inquiry. He pronounces his wisdom altogether vanity. . . "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" (Rom. 1:22, 23). {1SM 249.2}

[Rom 1:25, 21 quoted] So in Israel, man's teaching had been put in the place of God's. Not only the things of nature, but the sacrificial service and the Scriptures themselves--all given to reveal God--were so perverted that they became the means of concealing Him. {COL 18.2}

I don't remember what the context is here (of our discussion). Anyone before being converted is technically a heathen:





I addressed this. Nature is not sufficient of itself, but nature is certainly used by God to communicate to man. You're not disputing this, are you?



I made very clear I wasn't speaking of "solely through".







She means God does not communion with man as He did with Adam, where they walked each day.

Regarding Romans 1, we don't need Ellen White to interpret what Paul wrote! Paul told us himself!



Just who would be left out by this? If the wrath of God is revealed against "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men," this covers everyone. That should be clear.

So when Paul explain why:



This includes everyone as well.

Now if that weren't enough, Paul says:



Paul's argument is universal. He starts in Romans 1 and continues through Romans 3 to show the universal need for Christ.

Back to Ellen White, your argument appears to be that because Ellen White applied Romans 1 to some specific person that what Paul wrote should be limited to the example Ellen White provided. A little thought should show this is not the case. For example, Ellen White applied "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," to Nicodemus. Should we conclude from this that this only applies to him? Or that it only applies to people who have access to the Bible?

1. Do you believe Abraham was ever a heathen? If so, when and why?

2. Can people who nothing of Christ and Him crucified read nature aright and arrive at the truths contained in the first half of the law?

3. Since the fall of A&E, has the Holy Spirit ever directly communicated the truths contained in the first half of the law to someone who knows nothing of God?

4. Do the following descriptions in Romans 1 apply to people who nothing of God and the truths contained in the first half of the law: "who hold the truth in unrighteousness", "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God", "who changed the truth of God into a lie", "they did not like to retain God in their knowledge", and "who knowing the judgment of God".

I addressed this in the post you are responding to.



I addressed this too, in the same post.



Why do you think there are people who know nothing of God? There are many Scriptures that contradict this idea. For example, Romans 1, John 1, Psalm 19. Everyone knows something of God. (In the John 1 reference, I have in mind that Jesus Christ is the light that enlightens everyone).



No, it applies to people who know something of God, "because He has shown it to them."

I don't very often get involved with the discussions that you two have, but father Abraham a "heathen"? Isn't a "heathen someone who isn't a descendent of Abraham or "an heir according to the promise"? a non Jew, Christian, or Muslim.

dictionary.com Gives the following definition for heathen, used as a noun.



Did Abraham ever not acknowledge the Creator God? Most people of Abrahams time would have had some awareness of the Creator God, but this knowlege became perverted in close parrell with moral decline.

You are wise beyond your years.

In Scripture, Abraham is presented as the son of an idol-worshiper, although MM presented additional information from the SOP, not in Scripture, which indicates that Abraham did not follow his father in this.

Part of your definition has "an unconverted individual," which is correct, from a Biblical standpoint. That is, any unconverted person, from a Biblical standpoint, is a gentile, or heathen ("heathen" = "gentile" in Scripture).

The quote I provided from Waggoner goes into this in detail.

Tom, I asked the questions above for the simple reason your previous answers were unclear to me. Asking me to reread them isn't helpful.

Also, if you truly believe everyone knows something about God you should be able to post proof. I can testify that I knew zero about God until I was 15 years old - unless you think knowing about God in the way I knew about the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and the boogie man count as knowing something about God. Like the others, God was a fictional thing.

Again, I maintain everyone must learn about the truths contained in the first half of law through means and methods which do not include studying the natural world alone. Nothing you have said so far has proven otherwise.

And, it is crystal clear to me that everyone knows instinctively it makes them miserable to dishonor their parents, to murder someone, to cheat on their spouse, to steal, to lie, and to covet. True, they may harden their hearts and lose the ability over time to feel miserable, but this does not disprove the point.

The purpose in sharing these insights is to say - People are not born again with uncrucified sinful habits and the related traits of character. All of these habits and traits are confessed and crucified during the long, patient, protracted process that ends in rebirth. Not one of them is overlooked to be dealt with later on sometime after they are born again and baptized.

If I write several paragraphs answering a question, and you simply ask it again, it seems my referring you to what I wrote is a reasonable response. If you didn't understand something, please specify what it is, and I'll explain in more detail.



I did. I cited Ps. 19 which says "there is no place where their voice is not heard," speaking of nature testifying of God. I quoted Romans 1, and explained how this was a part of an argument from God that all are guilty.

I also mentioned John 1:



From the SOP:





I was raised in a secular home, so I can relate to this, but God's word tells us that everyone knows something of God. I've related a few passages which tell us this, and can remember my own experience that before being converted, I knew that God existed.



Obviously if we are to know something of God, it must be God Himself who communicates it to us. No man can of himself find God. However, what's I've been disagreeing with you about does not have to do with this, but with certain distinctions you make between the first and second tables of the law. For example, you claim that no sin of ignorance can be committed which involves the second table of the law. This to me seems an utterly fantastic claim, of which I know of no one, outside of yourself, who believes this, and of which you have presented no evidence.

I believe that both tables of the law involve things which are learned from various sources. We learn about right and wrong, in part from instinct, in part from our parents, in part from other influences (I'm thinking of peers and friends here, not other non-human influences), in part from things we study, and in part from God, through His communications with us by way of the Holy Spirit, inspired works, or other methods He uses. It's not such a simple thing that we can say "this table is 100% instinct; this table isn't instinct."



What about "white lies"? Is it clear everyone knows this is wrong? What about if your parents want you to do something contrary to your conscience? Is it even 100% clear what one should do in such a circumstance? What if one is raised by someone other than one's parents? It is clear by instinct that one owes allegiance to one's parents in this circumstance? What about Paul, who said he would not have known coveting was wrong if not for the law? Should one tithe on one's pre-tax earnings, or post-tax? Would it be stealing if one tithed on one's post-tax earnings? Is this instinctive? What about polygamy? Or living together with someone without being married? Is it instinctive that these things are wrong?

I've brought up polygamy many times, and I recall your responding one time that it is instinctive that polygamy is wrong when it is unlawful. It should be self-evidence that this is impossible. Instinct can't cover situations which may or may not be unlawful. Clearly this is learned behavior.

What about killing someone in a war? Is this known instinctively to be wrong?

A thousand similar questions could be asked. There are many ethical questions involving the second table of the law which have taxed great minds for centuries. It's quite clear that these involve many things which are learned.



Given your definition of terms, a "sinful habit" is a habit that one does, knowing it to be wrong. So you're just asserting that one cannot be born again while doing things one knows to be wrong. We've been agreeing about this from the beginning.



It looks from this statement that you are still confusing the wooing process of the Holy Spirit with the conversion process. The conversion process is not protracted; the wooing process is. Conversion often happens quickly. The Holy Spirit makes an appeal to the heart, and the soul gives itself to Christ.



The long protracted process refers to the work of the Holy Spirit to get the soul to the point to where it is ready to respond to an appeal. It's not referring to a process in which cultivated sinful habits are crucified one by one until there aren't any left, which seems to be your idea. (is it? or have I misunderstood?)



All of them are overlooked that are unknown.

When I was converted, a teen-age girl presented the Gospel to me. I was like you, what you shared in a recent post, in terms of being ignorant about God. I knew He existed, but little else. But when the Gospel was presented to me, the Holy Spirit appealed to my heart. I knew it was true that Jesus Christ had died for me, and that the Holy Spirit was appealing for me to accept Him as My Savior.

I didn't have to give up any sinful habits to get to this point. The Holy Spirit didn't even bring them to my mind. I was aware of my need for Christ, and that I needed Him as my Savior.

This corresponds to what I just quoted above:



This is what conversion is, MM. Here's another SOP reference:



The love of God draws us to the foot of the cross in repentance for our sins. We respond to that love, answering the knock of the door to our heart of Jesus Christ to come sup with us.

Back to my conversion experience. Immediately upon becoming converted, I saw things in a completely different way. It seemed God was everywhere and speaking to me though everything. I had never read the Bible, or had any interest in doing so, but immediately became interested in Scripture and started reading the New Testament. It was as if God Himself were speaking to me. The words seemed alive.

Did you accept Christ as your personal Savior? Assuming yes, wasn't your experience something like this?