How EGW interprets the passage in Romans 1 is how I see it as well. Nature testifies of God, and reveals One "infinite in power, great in goodness, mercy, and love."

Do you eat vegetables? It is clear from Genesis that vegetables were not included in the original diet. Vegetables were intended for the animals, but man was given fruits, nuts, and grains.

• And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Genesis 1:29, KJV)
• And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (Genesis 1:30, KJV)

In other words, the animals could eat spinach, lettuce, cabbage and kale, but we were given the seed-containing fruits (and nuts).

Is it a sin, therefore, to eat vegetables? This is an important point, I feel, because whereas God gave Adam one wife, He gave no specific commandment that there should be one and only one. Here, however, we have God's specific statement that the fruits were given us for food, in addition to the fact that God created the fruit trees for us.

Oh--and on the matter of counting "one," don't forget what Paul writes in the Corinthians about harlots.

• What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. (1 Corinthians 6:16, KJV)

How many "ones" do you suppose she would have? (This is a good math principle for you, right?! One + One = ONE!)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

EGW is not disagreeing with Paul, nor with me. Neither is she saying quite what you have been trying to say.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

My point was nothing different than the following: "Nature testifies of God, and reveals One 'infinite in power, great in goodness, mercy, and love.'"

Well, I can agree with that much. Where I will differ is if we try to take it so far as to say that nature alone teaches such things as the Ten Commandments.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That hasn't been my point.

Here's some background. MM and I have been discussing things here for quite awhile, so it can happen that we say things that someone new might not understand because he and I have a history, and may be assuming some things not in evidence, so to speak (i.e., some things not stated in this thread).

(MM, if I misrepresent your viewpoint in the following synopsis in any way, please correct what I've written)

MM has a theory that no one can break any of the last 6 commandments ignorantly, ever. He believes that everybody knows everything that can be know about them by instinct. He believes the first 4 commandments must be learned, and we know nothing about them by instinct.

I think this is too simplistic in both directions. I believe that some of what the commandments teach, whether the first 4 or last 6 I make no distinction, is known by instinct (except the 4th, which seems clear must be taught). I believe we can break any of the commandments in ignorance.

My point in Rom. 1 was to give an example to disprove MM's assertion that nothing about God can be known apart from being taught by Scripture. What I understand Romans 1 to be saying is that, to use EGW's words (since we are in agreement on this point) "Nature testifies of God, and reveals One 'infinite in power, great in goodness, mercy, and love.'"

I understand Paul to be saying that no one is without excuse in regards to not recognizing God and giving Him thanks because of things He has shown them, things which are testified to by nature. I infer from this that if no one is without excuse, when they do not thank God, that this means that anyone is able to conclude that God should be recognized and thanked, and that some will in fact choose to do so and be saved, even though they have never read Scripture nor heard of Jesus Christ.

Thank you. That does clarify your positions for me, and now I think I understand the conversation better.

I also agree with nearly all of what you have just said. One small caveat: I think it will be necessary for you to accept that the one whom the scripture-less praise and/or thank may be called Buddha, or Lao-tse, or Confucious, or Allah, or Great Spirit, or a host of other names which are used by those who may be in ignorance of God's name. And, yes, I agree that some of these people, who have followed the truth as best they have known it, will be acceptable to God. But we missionaries are sent to fulfill Romans 10, which implies that we are not saved without hearing of the Word of God. I don't suppose even you would think it were quite safe to pray, for example, to Mary or to Fatima and to thank them in place of invoking the name of God. What a privilege we have in knowing the truth through the Scriptures!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

You bring up an interesting point, which I think is easy to address, and of crucial importance to understand for a missionary. The question is, if one can be saved without a missionary, why send one?

First of all, can one be saved without a missionary?



This is clear enough. Yes. One can be saved without a missionary. I understand Paul to be saying the same thing. So why the missionary then?

Two points. One is that although it is *possible* to be saved without the missionary, how likely is that to happen compared to the likelihood of one's being saved who has heard the Gospel, or who knows Jesus Christ? Surely the one who has heard the Gospel has a much, much better chance than one who has not.

Secondly, ignorance abounds in regards to God's character. The more we can teach the truth about our wonderful God, the more:

a.likely a person hearing the truth will be saved.
b.likely that person will tell others the good news he's heard.
c.better off the person will be in their spiritual life, irrespective of the question of being saved.

In regards to c, I have something like the following in mind:



This is the true picture of a follower of Christ. This will be the makeup of the 144,000. They will have a concern for God's honor, for Christ to receive His kingdom in glory, not so they can "go home in glory," but so that He can be crowned King of Kings and Lord of Lords, to receive the honor due Him for so great salvation He has given us at such great cost.

Our commission as Seventh-day Adventists is to prepare the world for the coming of Christ by means of a message God has given us in order to do so. This message cannot be delivered by nature alone.

So there is a great work for missionaries. I think what you are doing there is a tremendous thing.

Tom, you did a good job of representing the view I believe in. People can study nature, without a knowledge of the Bible, and get the feeling a higher power of some sort created it. But, and this is where you and I disagree, it will not occur to them that Jesus is that higher power or god. Besides, no one on earth is totally void of knowledge. Stories have been handed down from generation to generation dating back to Noah.

Also, the law of Moses speaks about polygamy. It also speaks bout stoning people to death. It also speaks about slavery. It speaks about things we no longer practice today. And yet the law of Moses was as binding as the 10Cs. Why do you say certain aspects of it violates the 10Cs?

By the way, I answered your question as to which commandments, under certain circumstances, I believe polygamy violates - the first three. I also gave the reasons why.

Good! I try to be accurate in presenting the views of others. I'm glad to hear you say this.




You said that. I said the reverse, that God wouldn't command that someone do something contrary to His will, something which violates the moral law.



The seventh commandment was given as a protection to marriage. Polygamy is a sin because it is contrary to God's ideal viz a viz marriage. God creates Adam, and gave him one wife. The two were to become one flesh. This is easy to see.

Why would you think that that polygamy does not violate the law protecting marriage, but, rather, takes God's name in vain? This seems to me to be a very odd way of looking at things. I'm curious, can you cite even one other person who see things in this way?