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: