I was going to say no to both questions, but the answer to the first one may be yes. This isn't what Paul said, but I could see how it could be put that way.

Paul said the following:



This says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen." Did Paul mean for this to be understood as "continual"? In looking at this, I don't see how else to take it. I don't see how anyone could read this and think that Paul mean there were times when the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are not clearly seen, nor being understood by the things that are made.

It doesn't look like you read what I wrote. It doesn't seem to me that I should have to repeat it. Please read what I wrote, and ask me questions about that.



That's never happened to me.



If you look at the context of the first portion of Romans, it's clear that Paul has all men in mind. It's also clear from the immediate context of his statement.



Do you understand this to be what Paul is saying? That is, why do you think they would have this understanding? I don't think this is what Paul is saying.



Paul said nothing about carefully examining the things that are made. Again, I'm not understanding why you're adding to and taking away from what Paul said. Paul said, "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." I believe this is true, and applies to all.



What does "converting to obeying everything Jesus commanded" mean?



Where is this said?



Many people are ignorant of this. I don't see on what basis you think this can be asserted. To pick just one thing, many are ignorant of the fact that fornicating is wrong. They think if they are in a committed relationship with someone they love, there's nothing wrong with having sex with the one they love.



I really disagree with this, with the part about what everyone knows naturally is right. *I* didn't know naturally everything that was right. There were things I learned after I was converted, when taught by the Holy Spirit. If I had already known naturally, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have had to teach me.



Why do you think this? Romans 1 contradicts this. It's clearly dealing with subject matter treated by the first four commandments. It says that all are without excuse for not being thankful to God nor glorifying Him. This isn't covered in the last six commandments.



I didn't say this, but I agree with what you wrote here.



No it doesn't. It doesn't at all. Why do you think it does?



I haven't said anything about this. I just said what Ellen White wrote, that if a person does good works, then God was involved. You took exception to this, stating that a selfish heart can perform generous actions. So you look to be contradicting yourself, since you are using the phrase that a selfish heart can perform generous actions to argue against the idea that a person cannot perform good works apart from God's help. You stated that people could do so. Now you're saying that a person who is not born again can't do so. So I don't know which to go with.



I haven't said anything about this. Why do you have this idea?



I don't understand why you're thinking this. I haven't said anything like this. I've just said what she said, that a person cannot do good works without a power outside of himself. I don't understand how you're getting from what I said to what you say I seem to be saying. Please explain your reasoning.



Do you think that's what I'm saying? If so, why? I don't see anything in what I wrote which would suggest this.



I believe that no person can do good works apart from God's help. This is what I've been asserting. If anybody does good works, it's because God helped that person to do so.

Do you think unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate sinners are capable of reading "the creation of the world" aright and conclude, based solely on their observations of nature, that God is real and then end up "holding the truth in unrighteousness" and "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death"? Ellen wrote:

You said, yes, anyone who performs “good works” are able to do so through a combination of human and divine powers. Then you reject the idea that God works through unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate human faculties “to will and to do of his good pleasure." Please explain how you can believe the one and reject the other?

PS - I don't feel impressed to continue the dialog regarding the other points you made above. However, if you feel strongly about certain points please let me know which ones and I'll address them.

MM, we started discussing a couple of things, and you haven't addressed the points I made, and now you're starting down another path, for some reason I don't know why. My preference would be to come to some sort of understanding regarding what we were discussing before, and then I'd be happy to discuss any new things you wish to discuss.

I see that we have had two main disagreements. One has to do with Romans 1, the other with good works.

Regarding the good works on, I stated, earlier in the thread, that one can only do good works with the help of God. You disagreed with this, citing EGW's quote that a selfish heart can perform generous actions.

Afterward you cited a quote from EGW stating the same thing I had been saying, that one can only do good works by means of power outside of oneself. In you most recent emails you've been expressing the idea that an unsanctified person cannot perform good works. Previously you were saying such a person *could* do good works, and could to them without God's help.

I find this confusing. I don't know what you think, nor what you're taking issue with. So this is one thing I'd like resolved.

Regarding Romans 1, I think our disagreement is easier to understand. I believe Paul, in saying that all are without excuse, because what can be known of God is known by the invisible things He has created, and because He has shown it to them, so that they should glorify him and give him thanks, is a general statement. You have the idea that it means that everyone, at some point in the life, has had this experience. But neither the grammar nor the immediate context nor the larger context supports their idea. There's no hint that Paul had such a limitation in mind when he wrote what he wrote.

I have no idea why you think such a limitation should be imposed. I've asked you repeatedly to explain why you think there should be such a limitation, but you have given any reason. I'd like you to explain your thinking here.

Here's what I posted earlier on this thread about this point:


You said, yes, anyone who performs “good works” are able to do so through a combination of human and divine powers. But you reject the idea that God works through unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate human faculties “to will and to do of his good pleasure." I don’t understand how you can agree with the one and not the other.

The reason I say group 1 perform good works is because it doesn’t make sense to me to say feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor and needy is evil. Nevertheless, I believe the reason God says their “righteousnesses are as filthy rags” is because the origin (unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate human faculties) and source (self) of their good works is sinful and because they do not give God the honor and glory. Also, it is important to note God referred to their works as "righteousnesses" and not evil.


You seem to think unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate sinners are capable of reading "the creation of the world" aright and conclude, based solely on their observations of nature, that God is real and then end up "holding the truth in unrighteousness" and "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.” However, Ellen wrote:


I agree with Ellen. I believe you are misinterpreting what Paul said in Romans 1.

This isn't what I actually said, although I don't disagree with this. What I actually said is that if anyone does good works, it is by the help of God.



I don't recall making any comment on this. Why do you think I have?



Again, I don't believe I've made any comment along the lines you're suggesting.



You were asserting they were doing good works, contrary to what I was asserting. Then you cited an EGW quote agreeing with what I was asserting. This is what has been confusing to me.

So are you retracting what you said before? I don't know what's going on here.

What I said was that if anyone does good works, it is because God was helping them. You disagreed with this, and said they could do good works apart from God's help. Then you quoted a statement from the SOP saying that man cannot do good works apart from an outside power. So what are you saying now? Can a person do good works without the help of God?



I don't know why you think I think this. I don't recall making any comment regarding this.



I've just been repeating what Paul said. I haven't changed his words in any way. I haven't interpreted him. Again, just repeated his words.

Do you think Ellen White disagrees with Paul's words? Or do you think Paul's words mean something different than what they say?

I still don't understand why you think what Paul says means that a person, at some point in their life, believed that God existed. I've pointed out several times that the grammar does not agree with this.

I've also pointed out that the immediate context does not agree, nor does the more general context.

I've asked you to support your point of view. To date, you've made no attempt to do so. Please do. Please explain why you think that when Paul said:



means



Please respond to this question.

Tom, does God work through unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate human faculties “to will and to do of his good pleasure"?

Are unholy, unsanctified, unregenerate sinners capable of reading "the creation of the world" aright, and, based solely on their observations of nature, arrive at the "truth", including believing God is real, and then end up "holding the truth in unrighteousness" and "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death"?

You wrote, "I still don't understand why you think what Paul says means that a person, at some point in their life, believed that God existed. I've pointed out several times that the grammar does not agree with this."

Here's the context of Paul's comment:


Paul is talking about the following specific people:

1) the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth
2) to the Jew first, and also to the Greek
3) for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith
4) the just shall live by faith
5) who hold the truth in unrighteousness
6) that which may be known of God is manifest in them
7) for God hath showed it unto them
8) for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen
9) being understood by the things that are made
10) even his eternal power and Godhead
11) they are without excuse
12) they knew God
13) they glorified him not as God
14) neither were thankful
15) changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things
16) they did not like to retain God in their knowledge
17) who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator
18) who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them
19) wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness and unrighteousness

I hear you saying this describes everyone everywhere. I disagree.

I haven't said anything about this. I've been wanting to deal with the two issues I mentioned first. I said after that I'd be happy to come back to this question.



According to Romans 1, all are without excuse, because the things of God are known, His invisible power being displayed, etc., because God has shown them. I think the emphasis needs to be put on God here. God is known to all because of what God has done. It has to be that way. Nobody, whether sanctified or not, can know of God by their own actions. It has to be God revealing Himself to others.



You still haven't addressed my question.

First I'll restate my position. Then I'll restate my question, again.

My position is that according to Romans 1, all are without excuse because what can be known of God is known by all, because of what it says in Romans 1. I won't repeat it, as it's right there.

My question is why you think Paul meant "at some point in their life" when he didn't say this, nor imply it. Well, your seeing an implication somewhere, you must be, to say what you're saying, but I don't see it. Why do you think Paul's thinking was "at some point in their life," as opposed to meaning in a general sense, as he wrote?

Please respond to the other issue as well. I'll repeat it for your convenience.

You were asserting they were doing good works, contrary to what I was asserting. Then you cited an EGW quote agreeing with what I was asserting. This is what has been confusing to me.

So are you retracting what you said before? I don't know what's going on here.

What I said was that if anyone does good works, it is because God was helping them. You disagreed with this, and said they could do good works apart from God's help. Then you quoted a statement from the SOP saying that man cannot do good works apart from an outside power. So what are you saying now? Can a person do good works without the help of God?