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.