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).