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?