Are we born again with uncrucified sinful habits?

Imported from another thread:

The following is an excerpt from a manuscript I'm working on:

-------

There is a radical difference in people before and after they are born again. “True conversion is a radical change.” (4T 17) Rebirth is nothing less than a miracle, therefore, it must necessarily resemble one. “This change is in itself the miracle of miracles.” (AA 476) There is nothing cheap or common about it. As you read the following quotations, please pay particular attention to the before and after principle Sister White employs. In other words, watch for the cause and consequence relationships.



Okay, what happens first? What is the cause, and what is the consequence? I’m sure you couldn’t help noticing that Sister White clearly taught people must first cooperate with the influence of the Holy Spirit to confess their old man habits of sin before they can experience the miracle of rebirth, before they can receive the sinless mind of the new man.

Please understand that nowhere in the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy is it taught that people must be born again before they begin a gradual process of outgrowing or overcoming their moral defective traits of character. The following quote reiterates the before and after sequence described above:



This quote, and others like it, makes it clear that people must first confess and then crucify their old man habits of sin before they can experience the miracle of rebirth. Again, this only makes sense. We cannot choose to be born again until we know exactly which traits we are required to give up and what ones we are required to keep.

Mike,

I hope this excerpt is not representative of the book you are writing, because it looks very much like a commented Ellen compilation. Please don't add to the scourge of adventism.

Mountain Man,

Here are two statements from your last post:

Then responding to an EGW quote, you say this:

I will give you room to stop and think of what you said, because I believe that you are quite knowledgeable on righteousness by faith. To restate what you said in my words, you are saying in your first statement that a person must overcome moral defects before he can be born again! Your second statement is similar, you are again saying that a person must first confess and be cleansed before he can be born again.

Shall I stop here? No, I will continue with some observations for the sake of others who are lurking and will want more explanation.

Jesus is the “Author and the finisher of our faith;” (Hebrews 12:2). That sounds to me that after he “authors” our faith, He goes on to “finish” it. Second Peter 1:4-8 describes a process in partaking of the divine nature. At what point is the person born again? I would say that he is born again before the process starts. God takes people where they are and makes of them what they ought to be.

Was Abram “born again” when he obeyed the call of God to go to Canaan? I believe he was. He was a commandment keeper (Genesis 18:19; 26:5). He obeyed the commands of God (Genesis 12:1). Was he perfect? No! Did he have defects (sins) to overcome? Yes!

You remember his story: failure to trust God regarding his safety in Egypt. Failure to trust God in offering Eliezer as his heir, and later in taking Hagar as a wife. He also had successes: obeyed the call to Canaan, rescued Lot from the four kings, believed God (finally) in the promise of a son, believed God (finally) regarding the covenant, obeyed God in offering to sacrifice Isaac.

This is in line with what EGW says about the testing process. A person (a born again Christian?) is tested on a certain point. If he overcomes and trusts God, he will go on to the next point he needs to overcome. If he fails, he will be led around to being tested again on the same point. The test is closer each time. With persistent failure to overcome, the sin or defect becomes an obsession (my word) and the person is lost.
------------------------------------------
Hubert F. Sturges

I'm familiar with this thought (about God's coming back to a certain point, to test it), but don't know where it's found. Can someone produce this quote?

Tom, the process of salvation has been an interest of mine. I will post several pages that I collected on this:

CHARACTER TESTING

"And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
"MANY SHALL BE PURIFIED, and MADE WHITE, and TRIED; but the wicked shall do wickedly: . ." Daniel 12:9-10

"He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
"Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
"And he answering said unto him, Lord, LET IT ALONE THIS YEAR also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
"And IF IT BEAR FRUIT, WELL: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." Luke 13:6-9

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is LONGSUFFERING to us-ward, NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

"GOD LEADS HIS PEOPLE on, STEP BY STEP. He brings them up to different points calculated to manifest what is in the heart. Some endure at one point, but fall off at the next. AT EVERY ADVANCED POINT THE HEART IS TESTED AND TRIED A LITTLE CLOSER. If the professed people of God find their hearts opposed to this straight work, it should convince them that they have a work to do to overcome, if they would not be spewed out of the mouth of the Lord.
"Said the angel, 'GOD WILL BRING HIS WORK CLOSER AND CLOSER TO TEST AND PROVE EVERY ONE OF HIS PEOPLE.' Some are willing to receive one point; but when God brings them to another testing point, they shrink from it and stand back, because they find that it strikes directly at some cherished idol. Here they have opportunity to see what is in their hearts that shuts out Jesus. They prize something higher than the truth, and their hearts are not prepared to receive Jesus.
"Individuals are TESTED AND PROVED A LENGTH OF TIME TO SEE IF THEY WILL SACRIFICE THEIR IDOLS AND HEED THE COUNSEL of the True Witness. If any will not be purified through obeying the truth, and overcome their selfishness, their pride, and evil passions, the angels of God have the charge, 'They are joined to their idols, let them alone,' and they pass on to their work, leaving these with their sinful traits unsubdued, to the control of evil angels.
"Those who come up to every point, and stand every test, and overcome, be the price what it may, have heeded the counsel of the True Witness, and they will receive the latter rain, and thus be fitted for translation." Testimony for the Church, vol. 1, p. 187

"It is by small things that our characters are formed to habits of integrity. Nothing with which we have to do is really small. Every action is of some account, either on the side of right, or on the side of wrong. In the varied circumstances of life WE ARE TESTED AND PROVED, AND THEREBY WE ACQUIRE A POWER TO STAND THE GREATER AND MORE IMPORTANT TESTS that we are called to endure, and are qualified to fill still more important positions." Testimony for the Church, vol. 3, p. 22

"And yet I knew that you would be BROUGHT OVER THE GROUND AGAIN, AND TESTED ON THE VERY POINTS WHERE YOU HAD FAILED BEFORE. Thus the Lord did for the children of Israel; thus he has done with his people in all ages. He will prove them where they have formerly failed; he will try them, and IF THEY FAIL UNDER THE TRIAL THE SECOND TIME, he will BRING THEM AROUND TO THE SAME TEST AGAIN." Testimony for the Church, vol. 5, p. 623

"The STRENGTH OF NATIONS, as of INDIVIDUALS, is not found in the opportunities or facilities that appear to make them invincible; it is not found in their boasted greatness. It IS MEASURED BY THE FIDELITY WITH WHICH THEY FULFILL GOD'S PURPOSE."
Prophets and Kings, p. 502

"GOD HAS ALWAYS TRIED HIS PEOPLE IN THE FURNACE OF AFFLICTION. It is in the heat of the furnace that the dross is separated from the true gold of the Christian character. JESUS WATCHES THE TEST; he knows what is needed to purify the precious metal, that it may reflect the radiance of his love. It is by close, testing trials that God disciplines his servants. He sees that some have powers which may be used in the advancement of his work, and he puts these persons upon trial; in his providence he brings them into positions that test their character, and reveal defects and weaknesses that have been hidden from their own knowledge. He gives them opportunity to correct these defects, and to fit themselves for his service. He shows them their own weakness, and teaches them to lean upon him; for he is their only help and safeguard. Thus his object is attained. They are educated, trained, and disciplined, prepared to fulfill the grand purpose for which their powers were given them. When God calls them to action, they are ready, and heavenly angels can unite with them in the work to be accomplished on the earth." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 129-130

"So long as we choose the easy path of self-indulgence, and are frightened at self-denial, our faith will never become firm, and we cannot know the peace of Jesus, nor the joy that comes through CONSCIOUS VICTORY." Testimony for the Church, vol. 5, p. 215

". Those who have a zeal for God's honor and a love for souls, will not hold their peace to obtain favor of any. . They mourn before God to see religion despised in the very homes of those who have had great light. . The class who do not feel grieved over their own spiritual declension, nor mourn over the sins of others, will be left without the seal of God." Testimony for the Church, vol. 5, p. 210-211

"'These things I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.' John 16:33. The life of Christ's disciples is to be like His, a SERIES OF UNINTERRUPTED VICTORIES, not seen to be such here, but recognized as such in the great hereafter." Testimony for the Church, vol. 6, p. 307


"Upon this word Jesus rested, and He gave Satan no advantage. . With prophetic eye Christ traced the scenes to take place in His last great conflict. He knew that when He should exclaim, 'It is finished,' all heaven would triumph. . He knew that truth, armed with the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit, would conquer in the contest with evil; and that the bloodstained banner would wave triumphantly over His followers. He knew that the life of His trusting disciples WOULD BE LIKE HIS, a SERIES OF UNINTERRUPTED VICTORIES, not seen to be such here, but recognized as such in the great hereafter." Desire of Ages, p. 678,679
-----------------------
Hubert F. Sturges
More to follow ......

EXPERIMENTS OF GRACE

"The world is a workshop in which, through the co-operation of human and divine agencies, JESUS IS MAKING EXPERIMENTS BY HIS GRACE AND DIVINE MERCY UPON HUMAN HEARTS. Angels are amazed as they behold the transformation of character brought about in those who yield themselves to God, and they express their joy in songs of rapturous praise to God and to the Lamb. They see those who are by nature the children of wrath, converted and becoming LABORERS TOGETHER WITH CHRIST IN DRAWING SOULS TO GOD. They see those who were in darkness becoming LIGHTS TO SHINE AMID THE MORAL NIGHT of this wicked and perverse generation. They see them becoming PREPARED BY A CHRISTLIKE EXPERIENCE TO SUFFER WITH THEIR LORD, and afterward to be partakers with Him in His glory in heaven above." Testimonies to Ministers, p. 49,50

"The Lord Jesus is making experiments on human hearts through the exhibition of His mercy and abundant grace. He is effecting transformations so amazing that Satan, with all his triumphant boasting, with all his confederacy of evil united against God and the laws of His government, stands viewing them as a fortress impregnable to his sophistries and delusions. They are to him an incomprehensible mystery." Testimonies to Ministers, p. 18

TIME NEEDED TO DEVELOP CHARACTER

"I saw that God's people must bring to him a free-will offering; and the responsibility should be left wholly upon the individual, whether he will give much or little. It will be faithfully recorded. Give the people of God TIME TO DEVELOP CHARACTER.

". . The Lord is testing and proving his people. If any have no heart in the work, and fail to bring their offerings to God, he will visit them; and if they continue to cling to their covetousness, he will separate them from his people. . . They (young people) are accountable to God for their strength, and should bring a free-will offering to the Lord. And if they will not do this, his prospering hand will be removed from them." Testimony for the Church, vol. 1, p. 238

"Because the TIME is apparently extended, many have become careless and indifferent in regard to their words and actions. They do not realize their danger, and do not see and understand the mercy of our God in lengthening their probation, that they may have TIME TO FORM CHARACTERS FOR THE FUTURE IMMORTAL LIFE. Every moment is of the highest value. TIME IS GRANTED THEM, not to be employed in studying their own ease and becoming dwellers on the earth, but to be used in the work of overcoming every defect in their own characters, and in helping others, by example and personal effort, to see the beauty of holiness.." Testimony for the Church, vol. 4, p. 306,307

"The gospel net gathers both good and bad. It TAKES TIME FOR CHARACTER TO BE DEVELOPED; there must be time to learn what men really are. . ." Testimony for the Church, vol. 5, p. 618

"COURAGE, FORTITUDE, FAITH, and implicit TRUST in God's power to save, do not come in a moment. These heavenly graces are ACQUIRED BY THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS. . They (the children of God) felt that they had a great work to do, and at any hour they might be called to lay off their armor; and SHOULD THEY COME TO THE CLOSE OF LIFE with their WORK UNDONE, it would be an ETERNAL LOSS. ." Testimony for the Church, vol. 5, p. 213

I will add just these few more lines giving important Bible references:

OVERCOMING, GROWTH

Trials or Chastening . . . Rev 3:19; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:3
Growth in grace . . . 2 Peter 1:4-8; Rom 5:1-5; Mark 4:26-29
Growth in doctrine . . . . Heb 6:1-6; 5:10-14

-------------------------
Hubert F. Sturges

Hubert, please comment on the following insight:

The sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on “kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.” (SD 300)

Does it mean we are born again first and then we begin the gradual process of leaving off sinful practices? If so, what about these passages:

1 Peter
1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped [past tense] the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Sounds to me like first we escape corruption and then we partake of the divine nature, which implies the purpose of partaking of the divine nature is to mature in the fruits of the Spirit rather than to gradually leave off sinful practices.

1 John
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Sounds to me like born again people do not and cannot commit a know sin while they are abiding in Jesus, while they are partaking of the divine nature.

Do you see what I mean?

Also, what does it mean to perfect holiness? Isn't holiness holy enough?

2 Corinthians
7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Peter seems to think new born babes, if they have tasted the grace of God, have laid aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings.

1 peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.

Regarding evil speaking, James observed that people who are able to control their tongue are perfect, and able also to control their whole body.

James
3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same [is] a perfect man, [and] able also to bridle the whole body.

Are Peter and James describing new born babes?

Hubert, does character growth and development involve gradually outgrowing our pre-conversion sinful practices?

The sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on “kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.” (SD 300)

Hubert, earlier you wrote - "1 Corinthians 15:51-55 describes the change that occurs at the resurrection. This is not just a physical change. The very nature of man is changed also, and only at that time. (This is a controverted point, and I would appreciate your comments.)"

I agree with your observations. We are stuck with the unholy clamorings of our fallen flesh nature, our internal foes, until the day Jesus returns and rewards us with a sinless body and nature.

GC 469
The Christian will feel the promptings of sin, but he will maintain a constant warfare against it. Here is where Christ's help is needed. Human weakness becomes united to divine strength, and faith exclaims: "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57. {GC 469.3}

2T 74
Some have a much better organization than others. While some are continually harassed, afflicted, and in trouble because of their unhappy traits of character, having to war with internal foes and the corruption of their nature, others have not half so much to battle against. They pass along almost free from the difficulties which their brethren and sisters who are not so favorably organized are laboring under. In very many cases they do not labor half so hard to overcome and live the life of a Christian as do some of those unfortunate ones I have mentioned. The latter appear to disadvantage almost every time, while the former appear much better because it is natural for them so to do. {2T 74.1}

2T 507
If we make God our trust, we have it in our power to control the mind in these things. Through continued exercise it will become strong to battle with internal foes and to subdue self, until there is a complete transformation, and the passions, appetites, and will are brought into perfect subjection. Then there will be daily piety at home and abroad, and when we engage in labor for souls, a power will attend our efforts. The humble Christian will have seasons of devotion which are not spasmodic, fitful, or superstitious, but calm and tranquil, deep, constant, and earnest. The love of God, the practice of holiness, will be pleasant when there is a perfect surrender to God. {2T 507.1}

Here are sseveral more well worded passages that speak to this issue:


It is important to realize she doesn't equate resisting our sinful traits and tendencies, which strive for the mastery, which continually tempt and harass us from within, with sinning. It is not a sin to be tempted, even when those temptations originate from within. Resisting such sinful internal promptings to sin will never result in their extermination. Again, we are stuck with them until Jesus returns.

Mountain Man

Let me respond to these:


What happens at conversion? From your comments you propose that all sins are overcome before conversion. At the same time, common observation is that there are a LOT of imperfect saints in the church. And I am not talking about bad breath, I would have to say that too many of us still have real sins in our lives.

I have heard it said that no man is ever 100% aware of himself. Each person has a "growing edge" to his personality where he is aware, active, and learning. When, within this growing edge, a person becomes aware of a sin, he must confess, seek forgiveness and cleansing (1 John 1:9).

At the same time there are large areas in one's personality that are "silent." These silent areas still affect daily life, but probably on a habitual level. And within this silent area are sins that a person is not aware of. It is by the grace of God that these sins are brought to our attention so that we can confess, seek forgiveness and be cleansed (Heb. 12:2). Many, if not most of our sins are in this category, and must be dealt with after we are converted.

As an aside, during the day of Atonement, the people of Israel were called on to "afflict themselves." I would propose that this was a process whereby a person actively sought for any hidden sin in his life, and sought forgiveness and cleansing. This is the process that the 144,000 must go through before the close of probation.

2 Peter 1:4-8 is an excellent passage describing the growth in grace of the Christian after he has been born again. It has been said that the closer we come to Christ, the more sinful we realize that we are. I suspect that we all regard the problem of sin altogether too lightly. It is only in the light of the cross that we see the hideousness of sin, and learn to hate any contact with sin.

The gap that is formed when the mature Christian recognizes the sinfulness of his nature is bridged only by the cross.
----------------------
Hubert F. Sturges

"growing edge" is a nice phrase.

Nice post, Hubert. It's a difficult subject to describe precisely, and I think you did a good job here.

HS: At the same time there are large areas in one's personality that are "silent." These silent areas still affect daily life, but probably on a habitual level. And within this silent area are sins that a person is not aware of. It is by the grace of God that these sins are brought to our attention so that we can confess, seek forgiveness and be cleansed (Heb. 12:2). Many, if not most of our sins are in this category, and must be dealt with after we are converted.

MM: I realize this is the most popular theory regarding growth in grace, character development, sanctification. However, I have been unable to support it from the Bible or the SOP. Again, nowhere does it say we are born again ignorant of certain sinful practices, certain defects and imperfections we are blind to because the Holy Spirit has chosen not to reveal them to us yet. Why would the Holy Spirit do such a thing?

I would like to ask you, as I have asked others who hold to this theory - can you name a sinful practice born again believers do unwittingly, blindly, ignorantly; that is, behaviors that offend people around them, that cause them to despise the Gospel, that lead them to conclude Christianity is a joke, defects and imperfections the Holy Spirit is waiting to reveal to them until the time is right?

Your last sentence here has some false logic built into it. It's a challenge discussing things with you because so much of what you write has these false premises buried into what you present. That is, you ask yes or no questions, or make black and white statements, that can't be dealt with on a "yes" or "no" basis because they assume false premises.

Here, for example, a false premise is in the part that says "because the Holy Spirit has chosen not to reveal them to us yet." This is a false premise, because it assumes causation where none exists.

For example, let's consider some other area of ignorance, in some other area of study, say Mathematics. Suppose you are learning Calculus, but there are certain integrals you don't know how to do. Now one could say, "Nowhere is it written that we don't know how to do certain integrals because God hasn't revealed their solutions to us."

Now it is certainly true that God knows how to do any integral we wish to perform, and it is also true that if God were to reveal their solution to us, we would no longer be ignorant of how to do them. However, it does not follow that the reason we don't know how to do the integrals is *because* God chooses not to reveal their solution to us.



You construct a false theory, that nobody holds to, and then ask people to defend it. Why not look at what people are actually saying, and respond to that?

Mountain Man;

We'll start here:

Sins that are hidden? Are you kidding? Don't you sometimes use the term "blind spot" to describe offending habits of some people, where those people do not realize that they are offending?

I would propose that the basic sins deeply embedded in the sinful nature are pride and selfishness. There are some common sins -- criticism, gossiping, anger, stubbornness, failure to listen to others, being stingy with offerings, choosing fiction over Bible study ... (You add to the list). These are "white collar sins" that it is often easy to excuse, and even hide from ourselves. Can you think of any good church members who suffer from any of these sins? Will the 144,000 need to overcome these sins before they are sealed? If you say "no" to either question, I have a good deal on shares in the Brooklyn Bridge I would like to sell you!

Does the Holy Spirit "wait" to bring sins to our attention? YES! Of course! 1 Corinthians 10:13 indicates that our temptations, tests, and trials are measured according to what we are able to withstand. If God showed us all our sins at one time, we would be overwhelmed. He is patient and works with us as we are able.
----------------------------
Hubert F. Sturges

Hubert, thank you for answering my questions. I take it your answer is - Yes.

I hear you saying "criticism, gossiping, anger, stubbornness, failure to listen to others, being stingy with offerings, choosing fiction over Bible study ... (You add to the list)" are examples of sinful habits and practices born again believers, who are abiding in Jesus, commit unwittingly because the Holy Spirit hasn't reveal it to them yet, and who are ignorant of the fact they are causing people around them to conclude Christianity is joke.

I must confess, though, that I find it hard to believe this is what Jesus had in mind when He promised - "go, and sin no more", "whosoever abideth in him sinneth not".

Do you have any Scripture or SOP support to back up your thoughts?

Tom, thank you for the math lesson. But I don't see the correlation.

The math was irrelevant. I was giving you an example of the logic you were using.

MM, you're not listening. You say, "I hear you saying ..." but what you are hearing is not at all what is being said. HS said nothing about "causing people around them to conclude Christianity is a joke." It's unkind of you to keep introducing this element.

Phrasing your thought this way would be far less offensive:



If you want to, you could add:



Please think about how what you write will sound to the person reading your post.

Tom, Hubert named specific sins people commit unwittingly. The he wrote: "Does the Holy Spirit "wait" to bring sins to our attention? YES! Of course!" From this I gather he believes the Holy Spirit waits to reveal these types of offfending sinful behaviors.

What do you think? Does the Holy Spirit wink at sinful behaviors in born again believers that cause people around them to conclude Christianity is a joke?

PS - You may have noticed by now that this is what concerns me. Thank you for being understanding.

Like polygamy? What did you have in mind?

Tom, I don’t remember saying anything here about polygamy. Here’s what I posted:


Here’s the list Hubert posted:

“I would propose that the basic sins deeply embedded in the sinful nature are pride and selfishness. There are some common sins -- criticism, gossiping, anger, stubbornness, failure to listen to others, being stingy with offerings, choosing fiction over Bible study ... (You add to the list).”

Tom and Hubert, the following quote clearly teaches we are born again without practicing our former old man habits of sin. Her bottom line is - "Pride and self-sufficiency must be crucified. Are we willing to pay the price required of us? Are we willing to have our will brought into perfect conformity to the will of God? Until we are willing, the transforming grace of God cannot be manifest upon us."


Her insights apply with equal force to the thief on the cross and the apostle Paul. No one can inherit heaven if they haven't crucified self, their old man habits of sin. The thief will be in heaven; thus, it is clear he did not retain any of his sinful old man habits when he experienced rebirth. No sinful habits were overlooked to be revealed at a later date. He confessed and crucified every one of them. He was born again without them.

He was also born again with everyone of the righteous traits, fruits, and attributes of God's character. Not one was missing. True, he didn't have much time to nurture and develop them; nevertheless, he possessed everyone of them. The only difference between the thief and Paul is the amount of time each had to nurture and develop the godly traits and fruits and attributes they received when they we reborn. These truths are spelled out in the following quotes:

DA 676
The life of the vine will be manifest in fragrant fruit on the branches. "He that abideth in Me," said Jesus, "and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing." When we live by faith on the Son of God, the fruits of the Spirit will be seen in our lives; not one will be missing. {DA 676.4}

COL 330
God will accept only those who are determined to aim high. He places every human agent under obligation to do his best. Moral perfection is required of all. Never should we lower the standard of righteousness in order to accommodate inherited or cultivated tendencies to wrong-doing. We need to understand that imperfection of character is sin. All righteous attributes of character dwell in God as a perfect, harmonious whole, and every one who receives Christ as a personal Saviour is privileged to possess these attributes. {COL 330.2}

MM, when we come to Christ, our pride and selfishness is crucified to the extent to which that is possible at the time. But do you think that means we have nothing to learn regarding ourselves in relation to pride and selfishness? Are we instantly as unselfish and humble as Christ was? Or do we begin a life in which humility and self-sacrificing love begins to blossom until the day dawn (pardon the mixed metaphor).

According to the Bible and the SOP people are born again dead to sin and awake to righteousness. Admittedly, rebirth is rare. Most people are buried alive. Self is not dead. They have not risen to newness of life in Jesus. Here is how it is described in the SOP:


The fact many, so many, who assume the name of Christ are unsanctified and unholy causes people to question the validity of Christianity. It leads some unbeliever to reason, They're no better off than worldlings, no better off than they were before they started claiming to be a Christian. But not every Christian is a born again Christian. They have not experienced genuine, biblical rebirth. Again, here is how it is described:


Genuine, biblical rebirth is the greatest miracle of all. The old man dies; they rise to newness of life. Jesus implants new thoughts, new feelings, new motives. Their faculties of mind and body are changed, sanctified, transformed. The natural inclinations are softened and subdued, but not eliminated. Like internal foes, their inherited traits and tendencies (sinful inclinations, propensities) remain to tempt and harass. It is described here:


But just because they are forced to war against inherited traits and tendencies, it does not mean they are sinning or defective or imperfect. Possessing defective traits and tendencies is not the same thing as acting them out in thought, word, deed. So long as they abide in Jesus and resist the internal foes that strive for the mastery, that seek to ensnare and enslave them, they are no worse for the wear, they are not sinning. It is described here:


So, yes, people are born again with their sinful, defective traits and tendencies in tact. But this is not the same thing as saying they are sinning. Yes, they are tempted from within to sin, but, so long as they resist, they are not sinning. And, they are stuck with these traits and tendencies that strive for the mastery until the day Jesus returns and rewards them with a sinless body and nature.

I address these types of concerns in my last post. People who experience genuine rebirth are fully aware of the sinful habits they practiced before they were born again. During the process of conversion, before they were born again, the Holy Spirit revealed their sinful habits to them in light of the cross. They confronted them, confessed them, and crucified them. Nothing was overlooked to be dealt with later on.

The moment they experienced the miracle of rebirth their old man habits of sin died, and they rose again to newness of life. Yes, their inherited traits and tendencies continue to tempt and harass them from within, but if and when they abide in Jesus they are empowered from within to use their faculties of mind and body to recognize and resist them unto the honor and glory of God.

Yes, there are new things to learn about their inherited traits and tendencies after they are born again. But these things do not constitute sinful habits or behaviors the Holy Spirit has not revealed to them yet. Instead, it constitutes dormant defective traits and tendencies they have not yet encountered, things that surface when they experience new situations and circumstances. No, they do not have to sin first before they can recognize and resist it the next time. The Holy Spirit empowers them to see their dormant defects and resist them the first time they become aware of it.

Are they born again as humble and unselfish as Jesus is? No, of course not. They are born again with all of the righteous traits and fruits of God's character. Then, they spend the rest of this life and the next life growing and maturing. Eternity isn't long enough to equal the level of maturation Jesus attained. But the difference is not measured in terms of sin; rather, the difference has to do with depth and degree of righteousness.

As far as known sin is concerned, I agree with what you have written.

Here's something from E. J. Waggoner which deals with this subject:



This is from one of Waggoner's lesser known works, but one of my favorites. I underlined a couple of the important points.

Waggoner brings out that God does not ask us to confess every sin we have committed, as that would be impossible to do. He brings to our mind the representative sins of our lives.

TE: As far as known sin is concerned, I agree with what you have written.

MM: That's good to know. Thank you. Now, I guess the next thing we need to do is determine what constitutes an unknown sin. We haven't had much success agreeing on this point. I alluded to it in my last two posts where I described and explained dormant traits and tendencies. Do you agree with that part of my posts?

---

TE: Waggoner brings out that God does not ask us to confess every sin we have committed, as that would be impossible to do. He brings to our mind the representative sins of our lives.

MM: Amen!

You agreed with what Waggoner said, yet you said this:



I took this to mean that you believed that God revealed every sin. Is that not true? Do you really agree with what Waggoner said? If so, that's great.

Regarding what unknown sin is, that's sin we commit without being unaware of it. What this is differs from person to person, because what we know differs, for many reasons, including what culture we live in, and our experience, to name just two.

Regarding defective traits and tendencies, I think I agree with the concept you are trying to express, but I would express things a bit differently. I would say that our fallen, sinful nature prompts us to do things which are wrong, as it did Christ, but by faith we can overcome these temptations, as Christ did.

TE: I took this to mean that you believed that God revealed every sin. Is that not true? Do you really agree with what Waggoner said? If so, that's great.

MM: During the process that leads to rebirth, the Holy Spirit reveals representative sins, not every single sin they ever committed from birth. No sinful habits are overlooked to be confronted and confessed and crucified later on, after they experience the miracle of rebirth. I am, of course, applying this to known sins.

---

TE: Regarding defective traits and tendencies, I think I agree with the concept you are trying to express, but I would express things a bit differently. I would say that our fallen, sinful nature prompts us to do things which are wrong, as it did Christ, but by faith we can overcome these temptations, as Christ did.

MM: Great. By the way, Sister White uses traits and tendencies that strive for the mastery interchangeably with fallen, sinful nature that tempts us from within to be unlike Jesus.

---

TE: Regarding what unknown sin is, that's sin we commit without being unaware of it. What this is differs from person to person, because what we know differs, for many reasons, including what culture we live in, and our experience, to name just two.

MM: This is where the rubber meets the road, isn't it. What a person believes about unknown sins determines what he believes about the state of born again believers the moment they experience the miracle of rebirth.

For example, if we list certain sinful behaviors, which cause people to despise the Gospel, as unknown sins, then it is possible a person can be abiding in Jesus while at the same time unwittingly behaving in a way that causes people to conclude Christianity is a joke.

If we conclude, however, that no genuinely born again believer can unwittingly behave in a such way as to cause people to despise the Gospel or to conclude Christianity is a joke, then we seriously limit what can be listed as an unknown sin.

Of course, we cannot add to the list certain behaviors that cause people to despise the Gospel if they are indeed consistent with what the Gospel deems righteousness and true holiness. Even Jesus was condemned as a blasphemer.

So, which behaviors remain that can be added to the list of sins that -

1) born again believers,

2) who are abiding in Jesus,

3) who understand and appreciate the character of God,

4) who are experiencing faith that works by love, and

5) who are obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded,

- can commit unwittingly, that is, behaviors the Holy Spirit can wait to reveal to them until the time is right, sins that if they die before they are discovered and crucified will not prevent them from entering the Pearly Gates?

Are you saying every sinful habit, or representative sinful habits?



I think "trait" is a vaguer term than the way I expressed it. Webster's defines "trait" as a distinguishing quality. That could easily be taken to mean something having to do with our character, and, indeed, "trait" can have that meaning. However, no matter what phrase or terms one uses, fault can be found by one wishing to do so.



This is rather an unfortunate choice of words. Of course, no matter how one acts, it can cause some people to conclude that Christianity is a joke.

Here's an example. Let's say a person says "Gee!" not realizing this is short for "Jesus!" or "Darn!" no realizing this means "Damn!" This is a sinful habit, isn't it? But should we conclude that one is not born again because one says, "Gee!"

A construction worker, for example, who is born again would not necessarily be instantly cured of course language instantaneously. However, in time, one's speech will become like Jesus'.

A good friend of mine, a former sailor, tells a story of getting his hand caught in some machinery and having it ground. When he got his hand out, he said, to the amazement of those who witnessed it, "My that hurt!" This is a great testament to the power of God to heal, but this healing need not be instantaneous. One can be born again, and learn things in relation to their speech and acts, which is to say their behavior. However, there will be a Christ-like bearing about anyone who is Christ's. It will be evident that there is "something different."

Regarding your statement, "sins that if they die before they are discovered and crucified will not prevent them from entering the Pearly Gates?" I think this is another FOTAP thing. If a person is born again, he is ready to go to heaven, by definition. So there are no sins that need to be discovered that would prevent them from going to heaven.

This isn't even looking at things the right way. We don't get to heaven by discovering sins but by faith in Christ.

Sin estranges us from God. When we respond to God's love, especially as revealed at the cross, our hearts are melted by the Holy Spirit. We experience the miracle of being born again. The law is written in our heart. It becomes our will to do God's will. We desire to be like God, and live according to the principles of His kingdom.

Having views of God's character which would make Him Satan-like rather than Christ-like is as likely to make others conclude that "Christianity is a joke" as much some given sinful habit or behavior.

Things that make people conclude that Christianity is a joke;

The idea that dying on a cross would have anything to do with forgiveness,
The idea that God as Father would sacrafice His Son to provide forgiveness,
The fact that the church has split into umpteen different groups who all claim to have the truth and love one another but not those of that other group of christians,
The thought that Christians acctually would believe in a god at all...

Thomas, do you have a list that includes sinful behaviors the Holy Spirit waits to reveal until born again believers are ready to confess and crucify them?

Thank you for providing an example of a sinful habit the Holy Spirit can wait to reveal to the born again believers described above until the time is right without jeopardizing their salvation.

TE: If a person is born again, he is ready to go to heaven, by definition. So there are no sins that need to be discovered that would prevent them from going to heaven. This isn't even looking at things the right way. We don't get to heaven by discovering sins but by faith in Christ.

MM: I agree. There are no unconfessed, uncrucified sins that will prevent born again believers from going to heaven. Why? Because they were revealed, confessed, and crucified in light of the cross during the process that led to rebirth.

The path to heaven includes confessing and crucifying sinful behaviors that will prevent people from entering the gates of heaven. Indeed, no one experiences genuine rebirth until these types of sins are confessed and crucified. Paul names some of them in the following passage:

Galatians
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

John has this to say about sin:

1 John
5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

There are certain sins that prevent people from entering heaven, and there are certain sins that do not lead to death. How do we determine which is which?

You're assuming that unconfessed, uncrucified sins are what prevent people from going to heaven. It's much simpler than that. What prevents people from going to heaven is not being right with God. If we're not right with God, we will have no desire to be in heaven. The exclusion from heaven of the wicked is voluntary with themselves.

Unconfessed, uncrucified sins are a symptom, not a cause.



The path to heaven includes being right with God. If there are things in our lives which are a stumbling block to us, preventing us from being right with Him, He will make us aware of these things.



We don't need to. This isn't the main issue. The main issue is being right with God. God knows what a person needs to know in order to be right with Him, and will bring the things to mind that a person needs to know.

The goodness of God leads to repentance. If we want to lead people to repentance, it behooves us to make known His goodness.

Why would I have such a list? Spending enough time meditatin on sin to write that list cannot be healthy...

I've had the same type of thought in response this request, but not so eloquent.

The fact is, though, such a list does not exist, right! If it did exist, then it would be wise to follow Paul's counsel in the following passage:

2 Corinthians
13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

FE 214
In order to understand your condition, it is necessary to study the Bible, and to watch unto prayer. The apostle says, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" Let not those who are ignorant remain in ignorance. They cannot remain in ignorance, and meet the mind of God. {FE 214.1}

HP 131
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5). Some conscientious souls, on reading this, immediately begin to criticize their every feeling and emotion. But this is not correct self-examination. It is not the petty feelings and emotions that are to be examined. The life, the character, is to be measured by the only standard of character, God's holy law. The fruit testifies to the character of the tree. Our works, not our feelings, bear witness of us. {HP 131.2}

OHC 336
We do well to examine ourselves to see what manner of spirit we are cherishing. Let us learn to speak gently, quietly, even under circumstances the most trying. Let us control not only our words, but our thoughts and imaginations. Let us be kind, be courteous. {OHC 336.3}

1SM 89
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves" (2 Cor. 13:5). Closely criticize the temper, the disposition, the thoughts, words, inclinations, purposes, and deeds. How can we ask intelligently for the things we need unless we prove by the Scriptures the condition of our spiritual health? {1SM 89.1}

Tom, you are the one who has been saying the Holy Spirit doesn't reveal all of "the sins that were practiced before conversion", that He waits to reveal some of them until after they have experienced the miracle of rebirth. But that isn't what I hear the Bible or the SOP teaching. Instead, Peter describes newborn babes as those who, like Jesus, do not sin. They laid aside their former sinful habits and practices.

They put off the old man habits of sin and put on the new man of righteousness and true holiness. They are dead to sin. In Christ they are perfecting holiness. Of course, these truths are only true while they are abiding in Jesus. They are free to stop abiding in Jesus and revert back to their former sins. But so long as they are abiding in Jesus they do not and cannot commit a known sin. Here is how it is described:

1 Peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.

1 Peter
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

SD 300
Great responsibility comes to those who have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Strive to understand the meaning of the words, "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." In the new life upon which you have entered, you are pledged to represent the life of Christ.

Having put on the new man, "which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him," "put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful." {SD 300.2}

The old sinful life is dead; the new life entered into with Christ by the pledge of baptism. Practise the virtues of the Saviour's character. Let His wisdom dwell in you richly in all wisdom; "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." . . .

The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." {SD 300.3}

Tom, you wrote, "If a person is born again, he is ready to go to heaven, by definition. So there are no sins that need to be discovered that would prevent them from going to heaven." I am simply agreeing with you. The Holy Spirit revealed to them, in light of the cross, during the process that leads to rebirth, every sinful habit that would prevent them from going to heaven, sinful habits that indicate their heart isn't right with God.

They experienced rebirth because they confessed and crucified all of the sinful habits the Holy Spirit revealed to them. They did not refuse to confess and crucify them. They did not choose to retain them. For these reasons, therefore, they experienced the miracle of rebirth. Their hearts were right with God. It was their desire to die to self and awake to newness of life.

The reason the Holy Spirit was able to reveal all of their sinful habits, in light of the cross, during the process of converting from sinfulness to holiness, is because they were truly desirous of being like Jesus. They were sick and tired of being unholy. They craved to be loving and kind and patient like Jesus.

They were rewarded with the desires of their heart the moment they experienced the miracle of rebirth, the instant Jesus implanted within them all of the righteous fruits and attributes of God's character. Not one fruit or attribute was missing. They were filled with all the fullness of God's righteous traits of character. They were born again complete.

No, they weren't born again perfect beyond room to grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit. But neither was Jesus born beyond room to grow in grace and mature in the fruits of Spirit. They were born again with all of the righteous traits of God's character, but now begins the lifelong process of nurturing and developing those righteous traits of character. Jesus did the same thing while He was here in th flesh.


Amen!


True, the Holy Spirit will reveal the things that need to be confessed and crucified so that they can experience the miracle of rebirth. No one can die to self and awake to righteousness and true holiness until they confess and crucify all the sinful habits and practices that will keep them out of heaven.

No one can begin abiding in Jesus until self is dead, until their old man habits of sin have been crucified, until they have put on the new man. This is the goodness of God that leads to repentance and rebirth. This is what people need to hear and know before they can be reborn, before they can begin the lifelong process of becoming more and more lovely like Jesus.

One might ask here, whom does Peter adress? Does he write to the church? (Why would he encourage born again people to lay off hypocricy and evil speaking if born again people by definition already have done so?) Or is he adressing the general Joe on the street?

You wrote this a few days ago:



It sounds like you are disagreeing with yourself.

TE: It sounds like you are disagreeing with yourself.

MM: How so?

Tom, you wrote, "If a person is born again, he is ready to go to heaven, by definition. So there are no sins that need to be discovered that would prevent them from going to heaven." I am simply agreeing with you. The Holy Spirit revealed to them, in light of the cross, during the process that leads to rebirth, every sinful habit that would prevent them from going to heaven, sinful habits that indicate their heart isn't right with God.

They experienced rebirth because they confessed and crucified all of the sinful habits the Holy Spirit revealed to them. They did not refuse to confess and crucify them. They did not choose to retain them. For these reasons, therefore, they experienced the miracle of rebirth. Their hearts were right with God. It was their desire to die to self and awake to newness of life.

The reason the Holy Spirit was able to reveal all of their sinful habits, in light of the cross, during the process of converting from sinfulness to holiness, is because they were truly desirous of being like Jesus. They were sick and tired of being unholy. They craved to be loving and kind and patient like Jesus.

They were rewarded with the desires of their heart the moment they experienced the miracle of rebirth, the instant Jesus implanted within them all of the righteous fruits and attributes of God's character. Not one fruit or attribute was missing. They were filled with all the fullness of God's righteous traits of character. They were born again complete.

No, they weren't born again perfect beyond room to grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit. But neither was Jesus born beyond room to grow in grace and mature in the fruits of Spirit. They were born again with all of the righteous traits of God's character, but now begins the lifelong process of nurturing and developing those righteous traits of character. Jesus did the same thing while He was here in th flesh.


Amen!


True, the Holy Spirit will reveal the things that need to be confessed and crucified so that they can experience the miracle of rebirth. No one can die to self and awake to righteousness and true holiness until they confess and crucify all the sinful habits and practices that will keep them out of heaven.

No one can begin abiding in Jesus until self is dead, until their old man habits of sin have been crucified, until they have put on the new man. This is the goodness of God that leads to repentance and rebirth. This is what people need to hear and know before they can be reborn, before they can begin the lifelong process of becoming more and more lovely like Jesus.

He is addressing newborn babes in Christ who have laid aside their pre-conversion sinful habits. The same past tense wording is used in the following passage:

2 Peter
1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

In other words, they are able to partake of the divine nature because they have escaped their former sinful habits. The purpose of partaking of the divine nature is to empower them to grow in grace and to mature in the fruits of the Spirit. It does not help them gradually overcome known sins.

The two quotes I cited are contradictory. The first one say that every sin is revealed by the Holy Spirit. The second says not every one is.

They are not contradictory. Here's why. They confessed and crucified every sinful habit the Holy Spirit revealed to them during the process that led to rebrith. But, we both the Holy Spirit, in many cases, waits to reveal certain sins of ignorance until after they have experienced rebrith.

The question is - What qualifies as a sin of ignorance? And, what does not fall into the category of sins of ignorance?

I have suggested Sabbath-keeping as an example of a sin of ignorance the Holy Spirit waits to reveal, in many cases, until after people have experienced rebirth. I also include diet and dress reform and certain doctrines (i.e., soul sleep, prophecy, etc). I suspect you agree with these examples.

You seem to have also suggested polygamy as modern day example. But I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

We also seem to agree that certain sinful habits are not considered sins of ignorance, sins the Holy Spirit does not wait to reveal until after they are born again. For example, being impatient, short tempered, unlovely, etc.

What else do you think about it?

Of course every sinful habit revealed is repented of. But that's not the same thing as every sinful habit. You wrote:



This contradicts your statement here:

Tom, I'm the one who wrote these two statements, and I'm telling they do not contradict one another. I explained what I was trying to communicate.

Let me explain further. By "representative sins" I mean the subcategory. By "every single sin" I am referring to the many hundreds of individual sins that fall under the same subcategory.

For example, impatience is a subcategory. There are dozens of different ways and thousands of times we are impatient, but all of them fall under the subcategory of impatience. During the process that leads people to rebirth, the Holy Spirit may have referred them to 10 or 20 specific acts of impatience in order to help them understand impatience is a sinful habit that must be confessed and crucified before they can experience the miracle of rebirth.

Do you see what I mean?

TE: Of course every sinful habit revealed is repented of. But that's not the same thing as every sinful habit.

MM: What is the difference between sinful habits that are revealed and sinful habits that are not revealed? In other words, why does the Holy Spirit reveal some sinful habits during the process that leads to rebirth, and not all of them? Why does He wait to reveal certain sinful habits until after they are born again? What criteria does He use to reveal some subcategories of sinful habits during the process of rebirth and not the rest until after they are born again?

Or, does it really matter? Does it matter if the Holy Spirit waits to reveal certain subcategories of sinful habits (e.g. representative sins) until they are born again? Does it even matter if He never reveals them, if He allows them to sin in ignorance until they die or are translated? If so, can you name such a sinful habit?

In the past you have avoided these questions by saying, All that really matters is that we learn the truth about God's character, that we learn that He is loving and trustworthy, that He has never killed sinners in the past, that Jesus never killed sinners while here in the flesh, and that God is not the one who kills sinners in the lake of fire - if people learn these things about God they will learn not to sin, they will learn to be like Jesus.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume what you believe, whatever it is, is 100% correct. With this in mind, with what you believe is right, please answer the questions I posted above. Please do not disregard them and tell me why you think I've got it wrong, or that my questions do not focus on what you think is right. Thank you.

PS - Why do I have this sneaky suspicion you are not going to address my questions, that you are going to post something that doesn't deal with the content or intent of my questions? I hope I'm wrong.

The Holy Spirit reveals things to us as we are willing and able to deal with them.

MM, you said you agreed that the Holy Spirit does not reveal every sin, but only representative ones. So I'm not understanding your questions. Anything that would keep us from coming to Him, He reveals. Let's see if we agree on this, and we can go on from there.

I am reposting the following:

TE: Let's see if we agree on this, and we can go on from there.

MM: Do you agree with what I posted in the last two posts?

TE: The Holy Spirit reveals things to us as we are willing and able to deal with them.

MM: Does He not reveal certain sinful habits because we are not willing to deal with them? In what way are we "able" to deal with them if we were willing?

Why do you make this distinction? Where does Scripture talk about subcategories?



Why couldn't selfishness be a category, and lump everything under that?



I understand the concept of subcategories, but don't see where you came up with this idea.

But let's go with it. A person does not have to confess every single sin which falls under a category. So there may be dozens or hundreds of ways in which they are impatient, some of which they are aware of, and some of which they aren't. Doesn't your theory say that they need to be made aware of all of these? If not, what is an example of a sin of impatience that a person does not need to be made aware of?

I see a post of mine which is in between. One of the two posts looks like questions. If you wish a specific answer to something regarding if I agree with it, perhaps you could state the point you're thinking of? (or perhaps this isn't necessary, because of the other posts we have going)

I'm thinking of the EGW quote which says that God brings us around on certain points if we are not willing to deal with them at a certain time. It's the same one Hakim mentioned. I asked if someone would post it, but I don't recall seeing it. I think I'd like to see what she wrote, and then comment further. I don't remember her wording.

We are able to deal with things by God's grace.

I phrased my comment the way I did because I recall her saying something very similar in regards to truth, and the parallel seemed appropriate.

I feel constrained to comment that I think your whole focus here is off base. If you look at Jesus' life, for example, I don't see Him spending time parsing the fine differences between categories of sinful behavior, or teaching that every sin had to be confessed, or anything like that. He spoke of His heavenly Father, and said, "If anyone thirst, let him come to Me and drink."

He told the following story:



According to the story, the publican asked for mercy with the words, "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" and received it. David says:



This is what I see in the publican. It seems to me that God is interested in one with a broken spirit, and a contrite heart; not someone concerned with lists (this looks like what the Pharisee was doing).

TE: I understand the concept of subcategories, but don't see where you came up with this idea. But let's go with it. A person does not have to confess every single sin which falls under a category. So there may be dozens or hundreds of ways in which they are impatient, some of which they are aware of, and some of which they aren't. Doesn't your theory say that they need to be made aware of all of these? If not, what is an example of a sin of impatience that a person does not need to be made aware of?

MM: The ten commandments creates subcategories. Also, Sister White was shown the concept. All sins fall under Selfishness. Impatience is a subcategory. All forms of impatience falls under the subcategory of impatience. The specific ways we experience impatience is "representative" of the subcategory of impatience. During the process that leads to rebirth, the Holy Spirit reveals specific, representative acts of impatience to confess and forsake and crucfiy. He need not go back and reveal the hundreds of specific acts of impatience.

Impatience is impatience. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit we cannot experience any one of the many forms of impatience without realizing it is morally wrong. No act of impatience goes unknown. Before we act impatient, we are tempted to act impatient. When tempted to act impatient we have a choice - to be impatient or not to be impatient. We are not ignorant of the choices. There is no such as being impatient without realizing it. The Holy Spirit is on hand to make us fully aware of our choices.

Thus it is with all forms of sin, that is, all forms of sin as defined by the last six commandments.

TE: Of course every sinful habit revealed is repented of. But that's not the same thing as every sinful habit.

MM: What is the difference between sinful habits that are revealed and sinful habits that are not revealed? What makes them different?

Why does the Holy Spirit reveal some sinful habits during the process that leads to rebirth, but not all of them? What is it about some sinful habits that allows Him to wait until they after they are born again to reveal them? How are they different?

Or, does it really matter? Does it matter if the Holy Spirit waits to reveal certain subcategories of sinful habits (e.g. representative sins) until they are born again?

Does it even matter if He never reveals them, if He allows them to sin in ignorance until they die or are translated? If so, can you name such a sinful habit?

I think this is where your theory is off. There are different forms of impatience, some more subtle than others. When you come to Christ, the Holy Spirit reveals the more gross examples, but there can be subtle examples that there would be no point in Him revealing because you wouldn't understand it to be sin. You might mistake what is really impatience to be something else. So time is needed for you to recognize the truth about yourself.

The main difference is whether or not they are revealed. God reveals to us that which we know to begin the process of healing. We don't need to know everything, and, indeed, we can't. There's just too much.



Because He wants to heal us, not overwhelm us. Would you show a child Calculus? Or do you start with the basics, and work your way up?



Again, God wants to heal us. Not overwhelm us. If God revealed all our sin to us at once, it would blow us away. So He reveals what is necessary for us to start the process of healing.



I know nothing in Scripture which talks about God's revealing certain categories or subcategories of sins when one is born again. I think your over-complicating things.

God wants us to be right with Him, so He reveals to us what is necessary for this to happen.



Before being translated, I think all sin is revealed, which I think is communicated by the fact that the 144,000 stand before God without a mediator.

This is where I get confused. You say there are all sorts of subtle forms of impatience the Holy Spirit waits to reveal until after a person experiences rebirth, but you never cite examples. When I beg for examples, you tell me it isn't important, that my focus is all wrong.

I can tell you it matters very much to those of us who have to be around someone who is impatient. Being around someone who is impatient, who doesn't know they are being impatient, can be less than lovely, especially if they claim to be a Christain. Few things are more offensive than being around a clueless, impatient, "Christian".

It is easier to conclude, based on their fruits, that they are a Christian in name only. The rest of us are convinced they are not a Christian in reality. We're not being hypersensitive or judgmental. It's just that they are the furthest thing from being like Jesus when they are being impatient, especially if they happen to be your boss or spouse or parent.

It is very difficult, well nigh impossible, to blame it on the Holy Spirit, to conclude He simply hasn't revealed what is obvious to the rest of us to the person who claims to be a Christian. To what advantage is it to the Holy Spirit to sit back and wait for a better day to reveal to him how unChristlike his impatience is? It cetainly doesn't speak well of God if this is indeed what the Holy Spirit is doing. Why would He wait?

Do you see what I mean?

You ask why He would wait. As I said, it's because He doesn't want to overwhelm us. God shows us representative sins, what's needed in order to heal our relationship.

It's very easy for us to misdiagnose a behavior we have as something other than it is. It's not that the Holy Spirit necessarily decides not to reveal something to us, but that we are not able to understand the truth at a given point. The Holy Spirit could reveal whatever He wanted, and we still wouldn't get it.

It seems to me that you are vastly underestimating how deeply we need healing, or, rather, how deep the healing that we need is.

If the impatient man in your example Mike would be in a situation like this: having an infected wound on his leg which would cause terminal illness within days if untreated (here: impatience) but also hanging by one branch above the Grand Canyon, which would mean death within minutes if the branch breaks or his fingers run out of strenght to hold on (here: lacking knowledge of Jesus unto salvation, ie not being born again), would you blame the Spirit for not treating the legg wound first? Or would you say that it matters less if he falls to his death if only the legg wound is healed first as he would die without any active sin in his life although he would also die without having accepted Jesus and a rebirth experience?

Thomas, thanx for the colorful, creative parable. But does it have to be either or? Seems to me rebirth cures both problems - the nasty leg and the brittle branch. Jesus would not leave the guy hanging and only cure the leg, nor would He only place him on solid ground and leave the leg untreated. In the past, Jesus healed people and then told them to go and sin no more.

Tom, what about the impatient Christian whose impatience leads people around him to conclude his profession is nothing more than hot air. Is this the type of sinful beavhiors the Holy Spirit waits to reveal until after they are born again? What is it about such habits that makes the Holy Spirit wait?

God has to start the healing process somewhere. So He reveals to us what is needed in order to heal our relationship to Him. Perfection of character is not instantaneous.

Consider the publican in Jesus' story as an example. He smote his breast, not so much as looking to heaven, and prayed, "God, be merciful to me a sinner" and was justified.

Tom, Sister White wrote that many, so many who claim to be a Christian were buried alive, self did not die, they did not rise to newness of life. She says they have the same untamed tempers and ungodly dispositions they possessed before they were baptized. She gos on to say they are not truly born again. People who experience genuine rebirth manifest the fruits of the Spirit. There is a decided difference before and after they complete the process of converting from being unlike Jesus to being like Him. People around them marvel at the transformation and give glory to God. This is what it means to be born again. The impatient guy you are defending is not born again.

The poor publican you referred to is not the kind of guy who has impatient means and manners that offfend people around him or cause them to conclude his profession is hypocritical. He is too mindful of his need of grace to be grumpy or short tempered. This kind of healing happens during the process that leads to rebirth. The Holy Spirit does not wait until after they are born again to heal them of sinful behaviors that make people around them think theie rebirth is incomplete or faulty. I don't see how you can say otherwise.

I believe everything you wrote here is true, except the last sentence. The impatient guy I'm speaking of is unaware of some impatient behavior he has. Born again does not mean infallible or perfect. One still has things to learn.



This is a straw man argument, MM. Nobody claimed this to be the case, and you know this.



All I can think of to say is to repeat that it appears to me that you are vastly underestimating how deep the healing we need is. It simply isn't something that can be done in a moment or an hour. The process begins when we are born again. It doesn't end there.

TE: I believe everything you wrote here is true, except the last sentence. The impatient guy I'm speaking of is unaware of some impatient behavior he has. Born again does not mean infallible or perfect. One still has things to learn.

MM: You're right, Tom, born again believers have plenty of room to grow and mature. But the growth they experience does not include outgrowing impatient behaviors that make people around them question the validity of Christianity.

This is not a straw man, Tom, it should be something we can readily agree on. Something you haven't done yet is provide an example of sinful behaviors born again believers are unaware of until the Holy Spirit reveals it to them. Your theory is without foundation without tangible proof.

Please give me an example of sinful behaviors that people who are abiding in Jesus can manifest without realizing they are sinning. Thank you. Also, please resist the temptation to ignore my plea and repeat your assertion that we need to focus on God's character and not on human behavior.

I've given you a number of examples, MM. I gave you the example of someone who says "gee" or "darn" not recognizing that this is a sin. I've pointed out that a person might not recognize an impatient behavior as such, but in his mind view it as something else (of course, this isn't limited to impatience; many sinful behaviors may not be recognized by the one guilty of them as such; impatience can be mistaken for righteous indignation, for example). I've also spoken of those who may have been abused, so that certain memories are very painful, and healing will take some time. There are people who live together without realizing that is sin, or that have multiple wives.

Another example I've given to you is that of spiritual pride. Before one becomes a Christian and starts going to church, this isn't even an issue that one may have even ever encountered.

Of course, the Sabbath is another example.

Also, viewing God's character incorrectly is a type of idolatry.



This last one seems to me to be by far the most difficult one for one to perceive in oneself.

I think if you consider the problem that man has as one of being healed from the damage which sin has done as opposed to a list of different categories of sinful behaviors, that would help. Our healing begins when we are born again. It's not completed in a moment.



If I say that I believe what is important is in understanding of God's character, and that this is what the Great Controversy is all about, and that this is what we should be talking about, I'm not understanding why you feel that we should only talk about what you want to talk about, but not talk about what I think is important.

Here's something I came across:

Tom, I have one concern with your anonymous quote - It never mentions Jesus. I also disagree with the notion that unknown sin is what we are, not what we do. "... unknown sin: it is what we are, and not what we do."

---

"Remember that all sin must go beforehand to judgment, and thus be in the sanctuary and not in us when the final investigation is made."

Amen! Although I would qualify by saying "all known sin" must be confessed and crucified before we meet them again in judgment. In the case of the 144,000 all sins will be known sins, there is no such thing as an unknown sin in the case of the 144,000.

Tom, thank you for providing examples. I agree there are people who were baptized before they learned how to obey and observe everything Jesus commanded. In such cases, yes, they might be ignorant of some of the things you listed above.

But I thought we were talking specifically about people who learned from a qualified SDA teacher or pastor how to obey and observe everything Jesus commanded. In such cases, no, they would not be ignorant of everything you named above.

Rergarding #2. Does the Holy Spirit wait to reveal whatever sinful impatient behavior you have in mind until they are willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify it? Also, are you talking about a sinful impatient behavior that offends people around them, that causes them to despise the gospel, that causes them to conclude Christianity is a joke? If not, then please specify the sinful impatient behavior you have in mind. Thank you.

I wasn't. However, even here, as soon as one is presented Christ by the Holy Spirit, and accepts Him as one's personal Savior, then one is saved. Say this comes up before the lessons on coffee or jewelry, or whatever. The fact that these things are presented by a well-qualified SDA teacher or pastor doesn't really matter to our discussion, because it will still be the case that there will be sins of ignorance involved, unless the teacher waited to present Christ until after he had presented everything else, correct?



If we are unable to recognize some truth, then it makes sense to me that the Holy Spirit would wait to present it to us until we are able to recognize it.



No.



I'm thinking of some behavior you manifest towards your wife while in bed alone with her (not you personally). She's talking to you, and you cut her off because you know what she's going to say. You think you're saving time, but she thinks you're being impatient.

What about this?

Why did he cut her off? What was his motive? What was the underlying attitude at the time?

Also, assuming the best (i.e. good motives and intentions, etc), is this type of communication considered a sinful behavior the Holy Spirit is waiting to reveal until he is willing and able to confront, confess, and crucify it?

Do mean "saved" as in they experienced the miracle of rebirth? Do people experience rebirth before they crucify self, before they crucify the sins that stand in the way of rebirth and salvation?

PS - I do not list coffee and inappropriate jewelry as sins that stand in the way of rebirth and salvation. A person can experience rebirth before they learn the truth about such things. But they have not completed the process of converting to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded. There is a difference between experiencing rebirth and completing the process of conversion. Do you agree?

Something he wasn't aware of and wasn't able to recognize at the time.



I'm not understanding why you're asking this.

The "What about this?" was in reference to the following:

Yes.



This is an illogical question, isn't it? You ask if people experience rebirth before they "crucify the sins that stand in the way of rebirth." How could this be answered "yes"? If there is something that stands in the way of rebirth, how could the rebirth happen before the thing which is standing in its way is dealt with?

"Do people experience rebirth before they crucify self, before they crucify the sins that stand in the way of rebirth and salvation?"

Oops! I meant to ask - Do people experience rebirth before they crucify self, before they crucify the sins that stand in the way of salvation?

---

A person can experience rebirth before they learn the truth about such things (coffee, jewelry, sabbath keeping, etc). But they have not completed the process of converting to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded. There is a difference between experiencing rebirth and completing the process of conversion. Do you agree?

1. Was he guilty of sinning? If so, what was his sin?

2. Does this type of communication count as sinning? If so, why is the Holy Spirit waiting to reveal it to him? What if his wife leaves him over it?

3. Both topics are important. There is time for both. They are interrelated. I was simply asking you not to ignore what I asked by stating it isn't as important as focusing on the truth about God's character. The following quote is insightful:

SC 19
It is not enough to perceive the loving-kindness of God, to see the benevolence, the fatherly tenderness, of His character. It is not enough to discern the wisdom and justice of His law, to see that it is founded upon the eternal principle of love. {SC 19.1}

Tom, the following quote makes it clear that people who are abiding in Jesus do not unwittingly misrepresent Him in these ways:

1. By having a spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ.

2. By evilspeaking.

3. By foolish talking.

4. By words that are untruthful or unkind.

5. By shunning life's burdens.

6. By the pursuit of sinful pleasure.

7. By conforming to the world.

8. By uncourteous behavior.

9. By the love of their own opinions.

10. By justifying self.

11. By cherishing doubt.

12. By borrowing trouble.

13. By dwelling in darkness.


Do you agree that a newborn babe does not manifest these sinful habits while they are abiding in Jesus? The following quote reiterates the fact that people who are abiding in Jesus do not vent the clamorings of their fallen flesh nature.

I think you are misapprehending her intent. She says that Christ may be denied by any of a number of behaviors. She says "may." She doesn't say "must be."

She says that Christ may be denied by (list of behaviors), and you are understanding this to mean, no Christian, even a new-born babe in Christ, ever does any of these things.

"Shunning life's burdens." What does that mean? It's hard to believe a person would think they never missed on this one.

Here's another one:



You don't think this applies to you, even a little bit? You can't see that you've done either of these things, to even a small degree, in the years we've been discussing things on TWSFKAMSDAOL? (the web site formerly known as Maritime SDA online)

TE: TWSFKAMSDAOL

MM: Very funny.

Tom, there are several questions I've posted in the last few posts which I would like you to address. I will list them here again for your convenience:

1. Do people experience rebirth before they crucify self, before they crucify the sins that stand in the way of salvation?

2. A person can experience rebirth before they learn the truth about things like coffee, jewelry, sabbath keeping, etc. But they have not completed the process of converting to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded. There is a difference between experiencing rebirth and completing the process of conversion. Do you agree?

3. Was he guilty of sinning? If so, what was his sin?

4. Does this type of communication count as sinning? If so, why is the Holy Spirit waiting to reveal it to him? What if his wife leaves him because it is offensive to her?

5. Both topics are important. There is time for both. They are interrelated. I was simply asking you not to ignore what I asked by stating it isn't as important as focusing on the truth about God's character. The following quote is insightful. What do you think it means?

SC 19
It is not enough to perceive the loving-kindness of God, to see the benevolence, the fatherly tenderness, of His character. It is not enough to discern the wisdom and justice of His law, to see that it is founded upon the eternal principle of love. {SC 19.1}

TE: She says that Christ may be denied by (list of behaviors), and you are understanding this to mean, no Christian, even a new-born babe in Christ, ever does any of these things.

MM: This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Please know that I am not saying Christians are never guilty of neglecting to abide in Jesus and reverting back to these types of sinful behaviors. What I am saying, which is what I think Sister White is saying, is that Christians, even newborn babes in Christ, do not and cannot commit these types of sins while they are actively and aggressively abiding in Jesus.

Do you agree? If not, which listed sinful behavior do you believe newborn babes in Christ might still commit unwittingly because the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed it to them?

No, I disagree. She says on a number of occasions that the character is not revealed by the occasional misdeed or good deed, but by the trend. If our goal is to know more of God, to behold Him, to be like Him, then we will grow in grace, and that will happen. That doesn't mean that we can't occasionally sin. Moses is an example of this. How many people have known God as well as Moses did? But when he sinned, his repentance was quick, and deep.

Regarding newborn babes in Christ, the sin upon which Moses fell would certainly serve as an example. An "occasional misdeed" could cover just about anything, couldn't it?

Well, some sins are very premeditated, so it's hard to see how a Christian could do one of those while abiding in Jesus, assuming they knew what they were doing was wrong.

It seems to me that there are all sorts of things where a person is not convicted that something is wrong, and later on changes their mind, and becomes convicted that what they were doing indeed was wrong. For example, certain activities one does during Sabbath hours, or dealing with an immigration issue, or a complicated tax issue to name a couple that come to mind.

An even better example is coming to understand more fully what God is like. Having a false view of God can be a form of idolatry.

TE: That doesn't mean that we can't occasionally sin.

MM: While we are abiding in Jesus? Which one of the sins listed below will we commit unwittingly if we are abiding in Jesus?

1. By having a spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ.

2. By evilspeaking.

3. By foolish talking.

4. By words that are untruthful or unkind.

5. By shunning life's burdens.

6. By the pursuit of sinful pleasure.

7. By conforming to the world.

8. By uncourteous behavior.

9. By the love of their own opinions.

10. By justifying self.

11. By cherishing doubt.

12. By borrowing trouble.

13. By dwelling in darkness.

Tom, before you answer, please bear in mind this list comes from the following quote, in which she says, "In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them." In other words, they cannot commit these sins while Christ is in them.

Tom, there are several questions I've posted recently which I would like you to address. I will list them here again for your convenience:

1. Do people experience rebirth before they crucify self, before they crucify the sins that stand in the way of salvation?

2. A person can experience rebirth before they learn the truth about things like coffee, jewelry, sabbath keeping, etc. But they have not completed the process of converting to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded. There is a difference between experiencing rebirth and completing the process of conversion. Do you agree?

3. Was he guilty of sinning? If so, what was his sin?

4. Does this type of communication count as sinning? If so, why is the Holy Spirit waiting to reveal it to him? What if his wife leaves him because it is offensive to her?

5. Both topics are important. There is time for both. They are interrelated. I was simply asking you not to ignore what I asked by stating it isn't as important as focusing on the truth about God's character. The following quote is insightful. What do you think it means?

SC 19
It is not enough to perceive the loving-kindness of God, to see the benevolence, the fatherly tenderness, of His character. It is not enough to discern the wisdom and justice of His law, to see that it is founded upon the eternal principle of love. {SC 19.1}

I addressed this. Your questions asks if a person can experience rebirth before doing something which stands in the way of experiencing it. How could that be answered yes?



Not in common parlance. If you give some special meaning to the terms you're using, then it's possible there's a difference.



I haven't been ignoring it. I've been answering these questions on thread after thread, over and over again.

I've pointed out that there are sins that we do not recognize as sins. We are not capable of doing so at a given time. So the Holy Spirit leads us in a process of discovery. Before we can learn D, we must learn A, B and C. So the Holy Spirit teaches us A. When we learn A, He leads us to B, and so forth.

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us (as I recall) that God reveals truth to us as fast as we are willing and able to receive it. It's not that God withholds any good thing from us, but we, because of our obtuseness or whatever do not pick up on what we're being told.

TE: That doesn't mean that we can't occasionally sin.

MM: While we are abiding in Jesus? Which one of the sins listed below will we commit unwittingly if we are abiding in Jesus?

1. By having a spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ.

2. By evilspeaking.

3. By foolish talking.

4. By words that are untruthful or unkind.

5. By shunning life's burdens.

6. By the pursuit of sinful pleasure.

7. By conforming to the world.

8. By uncourteous behavior.

9. By the love of their own opinions.

10. By justifying self.

11. By cherishing doubt.

12. By borrowing trouble.

13. By dwelling in darkness.

Tom, before you answer, please bear in mind this list comes from the following quote, in which she says, "In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them." In other words, they cannot commit these sins while Christ is in them.

Any of them probably. Moses is an example.

Are you saying Moses sinned while he was abiding in Jesus? If so, why, then, did Sister White say, "In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them."

No, MM, I didn't say anything one way or the other about Moses abiding in Christ.

Please note in the quote you cited, EGW said that one *may* deny Christ in any number of ways. She did not say that one doing any of these things was of necessity denying Christ. Also, she prefaced her statement here by speaking of one's not being of the right spirit. She's saying that one not of the right spirit can deny Christ in many different ways.

TE: No, MM, I didn't say anything one way or the other about Moses abiding in Christ.

MM: Which one of the things she listed above was Moses guilty of doing? Was he abiding in Jesus when he did it?

---

TE: She did not say that one doing any of these things was of necessity denying Christ.

MM: Which one of them can a professing believer be guilty of without denying Jesus? "A spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ would deny Him, whatever the profession." Then she lists the different ways professing believers can deny Him.

Moses lost his patience. I don't know what your theory is regarding the timing of abiding in Jesus and sinning. I'm guessing your theory is:

a.Moses was abiding in Jesus.
b.While doing so, he didn't sin.
c.He quit abiding in Jesus.
d.Then he sinned.
e.Then he repented.
f.Then he started abiding in Jesus again.

Is that right?



She doesn't say. She says any one of them may deny Christ. She makes no comment as to which might not deny Christ.



Right! The wrong spirit, of necessity, denies Christ. This wrong spirit *may* be revealed by (a list follows).

This doesn't mean the things in the list must of necessity deny Christ.

Tom, the word "may" in the quote means "can" not "might". In other words, people who do not have the spirit of Christ can deny Him in the ways she named, which, by the way, includes all ways. It is equivalent to Paul's "and such like" in Galatians 5:21.

Also, you're sequence formula is pretty close to what I believe. Here's how I express it, though.

1. Moses did not and could not commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus.

2. When he neglected to abide in Jesus he sinned. An example of this is when he smote the rock instead of speaking to it to bring forth water.

3. When he received the gift of repentance, it empowered him to confess and forsake his sin, which also gave God the legal right to pardon him and to restore the relationship his sin severed.

How does your formula differ from this one?

Are you saying that neglecting to abide in Jesus is itself a sin, or that after he neglected to abide in Jesus he sinned?

There is no neutrality, no moment when we are neither sinning nor being righteous. Therefore, the moment we neglect to abide in Jesus we are sinning. Although neglecting to abide in Jesus and sinning are two separate things, they happen simultaneously.

By the way, the word "may" in the quote we've been examining means "can" not "might". In other words, people who do not have the spirit of Christ will deny Him in one or more of the ways she named, which, by the way, includes all ways. It is equivalent to Paul's "and such like" in Galatians 5:21.

Again, there is no neutrality. We are either all of His and free of sin or none of His and full of sin. As it is written, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:6)

I still don't know the answer to my question. Is neglecting to abide in Jesus itself a sin?



Can is fine. It is something that can happen (as opposed to something that must happen).



This is an incorrect inference. Her statement is existential, not universal. That is, she used an existential qualifier, meaning that some of A are B, as opposed to a universal qualifier, meaning that all A are B. "May," "might," "can," are examples of an existential quantifier. "Will," "must," "shall" are examples of universal quantifiers.

Her point was that those with a wrong spirit deny Christ, which they may do in a number of ways (which is, indeed, what she said). Her point was not that anyone who does one of the following things is, of necessity, denying Christ. It's a good thing she didn't make a statement like this, because it would contradict statements she made elsewhere (e.g. the statement saying that where there is no light, there is no sin).

I should add that even if she had said that one having the wrong spirit *will* deny Christ (instead of may), it *still* wouldn't mean what you are saying. That one can deny Christ in any of a number of ways does not imply that anytime one does one of these things, one is denying Christ. That's incorrect reasoning.

For example, one can arrive downtown in one of the following ways: take a ferry, take a train, take a bus, drive a car. It does not follow from this that anytime one takes a bus, one is going downtown.

There is no neutrality, no moment when we are neither sinning nor being righteous. Therefore, the moment we neglect to abide in Jesus we are sinning. Although neglecting to abide in Jesus and sinning are two separate things, they happen simultaneously. Thus, neglecting to abide in Jesus is a sin of omission. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Again, there is no neutrality. We are either all of His and free of sin or none of His and full of sin. As it is written, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:6) Our sinless or sinful standing before God depends upon whether or not we are abiding in Jesus.


Here's the quote again:

DA 357
He who would confess Christ must have Christ abiding in him. He cannot communicate that which he has not received. The disciples might speak fluently on doctrines, they might repeat the words of Christ Himself; but unless they possessed Christlike meekness and love, they were not confessing Him. A spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ would deny Him, whatever the profession. Men may deny Christ by evilspeaking, by foolish talking, by words that are untruthful or unkind. They may deny Him by shunning life's burdens, by the pursuit of sinful pleasure. They may deny Him by conforming to the world, by uncourteous behavior, by the love of their own opinions, by justifying self, by cherishing doubt, borrowing trouble, and dwelling in darkness. In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them. And "whosoever shall deny Me before men," He says, "him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." {DA 357.2}

Here she says, "He who would confess Christ must have Christ abiding in him. He cannot communicate that which he has not received." She uses what you call universal quantifiers - "must" and "cannot". In this context she lists several different ways people can and have denied Christ.

At the head of her list of denials is a catch-all principle, which is not having the spirit of Christ. "A spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ would deny Him, whatever the profession." Again, she uses what you call a universal quantifier. She doesn't say it "might" deny Jesus. To have a spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ is to deny Him before men.

In other words, people who profess to be Christians, but who do not have the spirit of Christ, are misrepresenting Him before men. To misrepresent the character of Jesus in any way is to deny Him before men. They are guilty of breaking the third commandment of the law of God. Not might be guilty, but are guilty. There is no neutrality.

"In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them." Please notice she doesn't say "might not be in them". When Jesus is not abiding in people who are professing to be Christians, they are misrepresenting Him before men, they are denying Him before men. She concludes by saying, "And 'whosoever shall deny Me before men,' He says, 'him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.'"

Again, she uses what you call universal quantifiers. In other words, whoever is professing to be a Christian, but who is guilty of one or more of the specific things she names, is denying Jesus before men. Not might be guilty of denying Him before men, but are guilty of denying Him before men. Jesus is not abiding in them, therefore, they cannot not deny Him. No matter what they do it will deny Him.

MM, the universal qualifiers tell us that it is certain that one who has not the spirit of Christ is denying Him. The existential quantifier tells us how this may happen. But your inference that one who does the things on the list is necessarily denying Christ is unsound. Please reconsider the example I gave you. I'll restate it here for your convenience.

One can arrive downtown in one of the following ways: take a ferry, take a train, take a bus, drive a car. It does not follow from this that anytime one takes a bus, one is going downtown.

Similarly one may deny Christ in a number of ways (the list EGW gives). It does not follow that anytime one does one of these things, one is denying Christ.

Regarding neglecting to abide in Christ being a sin, is this a sin that one knowingly does?

Neglecting to abide in Jesus is a sin of omission, which is a known sin. No truly born again believer can neglect to abide in Jesus and not know it. We cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus. Sinning, therefore, is the surest sign we are not abiding in Jesus. We are not left to own devices to sort it out. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Through the eyes of spiritual discernment we know whether we are abiding in Jesus or not. It is not left to guess work.

Again, regarding the SOP quote we've been examining, she says, "A spirit contrary to the spirit of Christ would deny Him, whatever the profession." She clearly does not say it "might" deny Him. Concerning her list of denials, she says, "In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them."

You seem to be suggesting she got it wrong, that a person professing to be a Christian, whose spirit is contrary to the spirit of Christ, who is guilty of one or more of the sins she listed, in whom Christ is not dwelling - that this person is not necessarily denying Jesus. It is amazing to me you can draw this conclusion based on what she wrote about it.

1.Neglecting to abide in Jesus is a known sin.
2.We cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus.

Do you see a problem here?



No, MM, I'm not suggesting she got it wrong. I'm pointing out a logical error of inference you are making. She says that a person with a wrong spirit definitely denies Christ, that part's correct. She also say this is done by doing one of the items on the list. That's correct too. However, it's an incorrect inference to conclude that any item on the list of necessity denies Christ. Please consider the analogy:

One can arrive downtown in one of the following ways: take a ferry, take a train, take a bus, drive a car. It does not follow from this that anytime one takes a bus, one is going downtown.

Similarly one may deny Christ in a number of ways (the list EGW gives). It does not follow that anytime one does one of these things, one is denying Christ.

TE: Similarly one may deny Christ in a number of ways (the list EGW gives). It does not follow that anytime one does one of these things, one is denying Christ.

MM: Do you agree with her that it means Jesus is not in them? Again, referring to her list of denials, she says, "In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them." If you agree with her, how, then, can you say doing something without Jesus being in us does not necessarily deny Him? Isn't it denying Him that causes Him to not be in people who profess to be Christians?

"All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin. It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith, that can make us holy." {SC 59.4} If we profess to be a Christian, and Jesus is not in us, then whatever we do apart from Him is tainted with sin, which is denial of Him, right?

---

1. Neglecting to abide in Jesus is a known sin.
2. We cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus.

Neglecting to abide in Jesus is a sin of omission. Born again believers commit sins of commission when they neglect to abide in Jesus. Sins of omission and commission are both known sins. They do not count as sins of ignorance.

What is your point?

Those who do not have the Spirit of Christ may deny Christ in a number of ways. She gives a list. However, because someone does something on the list does not mean that they are denying Christ.

One may go to the city in a number of ways; take a ferry, a train, a bus, a tax, drive. Just because one is driving, does not mean one is going to the city.

You're making an unwarranted inference. The example I'm giving is an example of the unwarranted inference you are making. You are concluding the equivalent of that because someone is driving, they must be going to the city.

She says that one denying Christ may do so in a number of ways (list cited). She does not say anyone doing something on the list is of necessity denying Christ.



If neglecting to abide in Jesus is a known sin, and one cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Christ, then one abiding in Christ cannot neglect to abide in Christ.

hello,i would like to ask a question,i was brought up a sda but done all in my life that was contrary to Gods law,but not so long ago ,please do not ask how it happened i just went to bed really and truely broken up,i just could not stop crying and telling God all my past life and sins it seems something was going on,i asked for his[Gods]forgiveness.the next morning all i seemed to be doing was praising the Lord God and going to church every sabbath and keeping the sabbath has it should be kept,i believe that God answered my prayer.am i really and truely forgiven.for even if i awake i seem to be praying and praising our Lord.what is your reply.i just want to serve God .brian

sorry but i also seem to be paying my tithe and giving offerings also.something is going on i know it is but what

Tom, she clearly says, "In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them." If Jesus is not dwelling in us, then all our thoughts, words, and deeds are tainted with sin, right?

"All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin. It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith, that can make us holy." {SC 59.4}

So, are you suggesting born again believers, in whom Jesus is *not* dwelling, can do one or more of the things Sister White listed without denying Jesus? Since what they're doing is polluted with selfishness and sin, how is it not denying Jesus?


Tom, sin is the only thing that can separate us from God. The only known sin we can commit, therefore, while abiding in Jesus is the sin of omission, the sin of neglecting to abide in Jesus. Free will assumes it. It is also assumed in the following passages:

Galatians
5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

1 Peter
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

1 John
3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Lindax, your testimony is awesome. Thank you, Jesus. If you are living in harmony with your conscience and convictions, living up to the light you have received, there is no reason for you to doubt God's forgiveness and acceptance of you. Praise the Lord.

She says that those who have not the Spirit of Christ deny Christ may deny Christ in a number of ways (the list she cites). She does not say that someone doing something on the list is of necessity denying Christ. The logic goes in one direction, not the other.

For example, one can take a ferry, a train, or drive a car to get to work. Anyone going to work does one of these things. It does not follow that someone doing one of these things is going to work.



MM, your positions are self-contradicting. As I stated before:



It cannot be the case that both the following are true:

1.Neglecting to abide in Jesus is a known sin.
2.No one who abides in Jesus commits a known sin.

unless you believe that once someone abides in Jesus, they can never discontinue doing so.

After the list of denials she concludes, "In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them." Please notice what she didn't say. She didn't say, In *some* of these ways they declare that Christ is not in them.

In other words, in every one of the ways and works she named people who profess to be Christians are declaring that Jesus is not dwelling in their hearts. In all of these ways they deny Jesus. Here's how it is described in the Bible:

Titus
1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Tom, I am surprised you are arguing against this point. Nothing could be plainer in the Bible. People who profess to know God deny Jesus when their works do not correspond to their profession. Please name one or more of the ways and works Sister White listed that do not deny Jesus in cases involving people who profess to be Christians. For your convenience, I posted the list earlier on this thread.


Correct. But this analogy does not take into consideration what Sister White wrote about the list of ways and works she named. She said, "In all these ways they declare that Christ is not in them." Whether or not a person is on a ferry, a train, or in a car it does not change the fact Jesus is not in their heart if they are guilty of anyone one of the ways and works on the list.


You're right, I sit corrected. The only known sin we can commit while abiding in Jesus is the sin of omitting or neglecting to abide in Jesus.

You're still applying the logic in the wrong direction.

Consider the analogy again. I go to work by ferry, train, or car. "In all these ways, I go to work." Just because I'm on a ferry, train, or car, does not mean I'm going to work. Notice I didn't say that in some of these ways I go to work. In *all* of these ways I go to work, but because I'm doing one of these things, does not mean I'm going to work!



But after committing this known sin, one can commit any other. So saying one cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus (other than stopping to abide in Jesus) isn't really saying much, is it? It's pretty much saying "As long as one is not committing a known sin, one cannot commit a known sin," isn't it?

Tom, how do you explain 1 John 3:6, 9?

John is not describing the process of being born again in this passage. He does so in John chapter 3. He discusses a characteristic of one who is born again, which is that such a one does not practice sin. It's the same idea that EGW discusses in saying that the character is not determined by the occasional good deed or the occasional misdeed. John allows for the possibility of one sinning by saying that "if anyone sin, we have an advocated with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Where in 1 John 3:6,9 does it imply "if any man sin"? The text says the exact opposite, does it not?

Sorry, I thought you were familiar with this.

Okay, but where in 1 John 3:6,9 does it imply "if any man sin"? The text says the exact opposite, does it not?

Here's what I said:



This is in 1 John 2:1.

Please note I did not say "1 John 3:6,9 says 'if anyone sin,' etc."

Thank you, Tom, but what I'm asking is based on the idea that "John allows for the possibility of one sinning by saying that "if anyone sin, we have an advocated with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Did John expect us to interpret 1 John 3:6,9 in light of what he wrote in 1 John 2:1,2? In other words, does "doth not and cannot commit sin" include the possibility of sinning while actively "abiding in Jesus"?

John was writing a letter. He certainly intended what he had written earlier in the letter would be kept in mind.



Your idea was originally that no one can commit any known sin while abiding in Jesus. But you saw that can't be, and reworked the idea to be that no one can commit a known sin, except the one sin of neglecting to abide in Jesus, while abiding in Jesus. I don't see John saying this.

1 John 3:9 says that no one born of God sins. But people born of God commit sins. We see this all the time. So he can't be meaning that a person born of God never commits any sin. That should be clear.

I think John's thought is in harmony with the following:

TE: 1 John 3:9 says that no one born of God sins. But people born of God commit sins. We see this all the time. So he can't be meaning that a person born of God never commits any sin. That should be clear.

MM: What? Are you citing sinning as proof sinning cannot be avoided? In other words, are you saying the fact born again believers sin occasionally is proof John did not mean what he plainly said? Since when do we cite sinning as proof sinning cannot be avoided?

---

TE: Your idea was originally that no one can commit any known sin while abiding in Jesus. But you saw that can't be, and reworked the idea to be that no one can commit a known sin, except the one sin of neglecting to abide in Jesus, while abiding in Jesus.

MM: Even in heaven, the only sin we will be able to commit initially is the sin of neglecting to abide in Jesus. Because we will be endowed with free moral agency, we will always possess the ability to sin by neglecting to abide in Jesus. Of course we will never exercise our right to sin.

Let's look at it from another perspective. The Bible says, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

"There is none that seeketh after God." Thus, if we use your logic, it should be impossible for God to save us. Obviously, these types of passages imply certain conditions. That is, if sinners refuse to respond to the ever pleading presence of the Holy Spirit they will fail of salvation. The inherent, unstated condition in passages like these is - If you continually reject the Holy Spirit's pleas to accept Jesus you will be unable to seek or desire a relationship with Him.

Now, what about 1 John 3:6,9? Is there an inherent, unstated condition? If so, what is it? Might the promise mean exactly what it says if the condition is met? Well, the condition is actually plainly stated. Here it is: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." The condition is - If we are abiding in Jesus we will not sin.

Of course, promises like these are not implying we are born again incapable of sinning. In fact, we are not free to sin until we are free from sin. We are free from sin the instant we are born again and die to sin. "He that is dead is freed from sin." It was even possible for Jesus to sin. Nevertheless, so long as we continually choose to consciously abide in Jesus we will not exercise our right to sin. However, the condition is - If we abide in Jesus. If we neglect to abide in Jesus we are guilty of committing a sin of omission.

The only thing we can do to be saved is not neglect to abide in Jesus; and the only thing we can do to be lost is neglect to abide in Jesus. These are the eternal conditions of life and death.

Where did I say anything about "sinning cannot be avoided"? Let's take a look at one of your questions here:



Let's look at what John "plainly said."



Here John "plainly states" that one who is born of God "cannot sin." Yet you state that a born again person can sin! In this very post you write:



So John "plainly states" that one born of God "cannot sin," yet you say he is not "implying" what he plainly states!

So why don't you believe what John "plainly states"?

In case the point of my question is not clear, the point is that you are not being consistent with your methodology. You are making up an elaborate theory based on a couple of verses John wrote, which are clearly not what he intended to say. Even you see this by writing that John is not "implying" what the plainly states, that one who is born of God "cannot sin."

According to the SOP, the most detailed explanation of how being saved works that was given by Jesus Christ was given to Nicodemus. She writes:



The pitfall I see in your definition of being saved by not neglecting to abide in Jesus is that it's too easy to make this into a works trip. How does one abide in Jesus? Probably by such things as prayer, Bible study, and so forth. This would make salvation a matter of works. But salvation is by faith, not by works.



Let's establish this point in our minds! Salvation is through faith. Following the suggestion of giving due weight to Jesus' Christ's description of being saved will keep us away from the error of making salvation a matter of works. To be saved one need but respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit, who reveals the love of God shining from the cross. To be lost, one need but resist this wooing.

TE: To be saved one need but respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit, who reveals the love of God shining from the cross. To be lost, one need but resist this wooing.

MM: In so saying are you not contradicting yourself? Isn't responding to the wooing of the Holy Spirit a form of works? Are we not required to respond to be saved? "While good works will not save even one soul, yet it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works." (1SM 377)

"While we are to be in harmony with God’s law, we are not saved by the works of the law, yet we cannot be saved without obedience. The law is the standard by which character is measured. But we cannot possibly keep the commandments of God without the regenerating grace of Christ. Jesus alone can cleanse us from all sin. He does not save us by law, neither will He save us in disobedience to law." (FW 95)

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” (Ephesians 2:8–10)

We are not saved because “of” our good works. Instead we are saved “unto” good works. In other words, we are saved not because we experience righteousness; rather, we are able to experience righteousness because we are saved. Jesus is the root of our salvation, and the fruit of our salvation is “righteousness and true holiness.” (Ephesians 4:24) True, we cannot work our way to heaven, but we can and must allow heaven to work its way in us!

Are you saying the fact born again believers sin occasionally is proof John did not mean what he plainly said in 1 John 3:6,9?


Actually, Tom, the ability to sin and the ability not to sin are two different realities, right? Both were true of Jesus. Both are true of unfallen beings. Both are true, according to 1 John 3:6 and 9, of born again believers who are actively abiding in Jesus. So, what I posted above is in complete harmony with what John wrote in 1 John 3:6,9.

True, salvation is a free gift. But Jesus doesn't force it on us. We must accept it. But there are conditions to receiving the free gift, namely, we must respond to the wooing, winning influence of the Holy Spirit, which motivates us to confess and crucify our cultivated old man habits of sin. We must repent and be baptized to get saved.

But getting saved is only part of it; we must also stay saved. And there are conditions to staying saved. We must continually choose to consciously abide in Jesus. As we do this we are empowered to use our sanctified faculties of mind and body, our higher and lower powers, to imitate the example of Jesus in resisting temptation and maturing in the fruits of the Spirit.

Hmm. I though I responded to this. Maybe I didn't post it.

Ok, well, practice makes perfect.

No, responding to the Holy Spirit is not a form of works. When certain Jews went to Jesus and asked Him, "What must we do to work the works of God?" He responded, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." Believing in Jesus Christ is the work of God.



Not in an arbitrary sense. We are required in the sense that if there is only one road that goes into town, you are required to take that road to get there.



This is pretty eloquent, MM. It sounds like you're pretty much saying the same thing I am, that we're not saved by works, but by faith, but saving faith works. The only thing I would question here is you say, "We are to experience righteousness because we are saved." This makes it sound like being saved and experiencing righteousness may be two different things. I would say that being saved and experiencing righteousness are one and the same thing.



No, I'm saying you're not consistent in your interpretation of what John "plainly states." You say that John is not implying that one who is born of God is incapable of sinning, in spite of the fact that John "plainly states" that one born of God "cannot sin."



You said before that a person who is abiding in Jesus cannot sin. I disagree with this. Now you are saying that it is possible for a person abiding in Jesus to sin. I agree with this.



Agreed, but not as an arbitrary requirement, but as in this is the only road that goes into town.



The repent part is correct. Water baptism is simply a public acknowledgment. It's analogous to the circumcision of Abraham, for whom circumcision was a sign of the righteousness which he had obtained by faith. It's similar for baptism.



It's the same. We "get saved" and stay saved by way of Christ. Salvation is from "faith to faith," as Paul puts it. We begin by faith, and continue by faith.



Right. Faith is the condition. The same as for becoming saved. Here's what Paul has to say:





If this means "we must continually exercise faith," then this is true. If it means something other than this, then it's false. As Paul explains, otherwise grace is no more grace.

Yes, believing and behaving are blended in those who are being saved. Faith and works are inseparable. Nevertheless, we are not saved based on our works.


The existence of a road that leads to town and walking on that road to arrive in town are two different realities, right? If we hope to be in town we must choose to walk there. We cannot arrive in town by sitting down on the road. Jesus isn’t going to tote us to town on His back. He will walk with us to arrive in town, but He won’t carry us there. So, what do these two different realities symbolize – 1) the road that leads to town, and 2) walking on the road to arrive in town?


No, I’m not saying it is possible to sin while abiding in Jesus. I agree with 1 John 3:6,9. Neglecting to abide in Jesus is a sin of omission, which is a sin we commit while not abiding in Jesus. We sin by default if we neglect to abide in Jesus. We do not have to choose to sin, we need only to neglect to abide in Jesus.


Grace is unmerited favor. But what is the favor? It is twofold – 1) Pardon for sin, and 2) Power to obey. “Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” We must choose to abide in Jesus to have power from on High to obey the law, to imitate the example of Jesus in growing in grace, in maturing in the fruits of the Spirit. Yes, by faith we believe God will empower us to be like Jesus if we continually choose to consciously abide in Jesus.

My point regarding the road that leads to town is that God is not making an arbitrary requirement that one must do certain things in order to be saved. God is pointing to the road of life, the "via dolorosa" one might say, the way of Christ. Jesus Christ is "the way." The way to walk the road is by faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is necessary, being the only alternative to the road of serving self, which is death.

Regarding 1 John 3, you previously corrected yourself. You said something like "You're right. I stand corrected." You had previously said that one abiding in Jesus cannot commit a known sin, but you reversed yourself in recognizing that neglecting to abide in Jesus is a known sin. So that's good. I agree.

However, John did not only say that one abiding in Jesus does not sin, he also said one who is born of God does not sin, in fact, cannot sin. But you say that John was not implying that one is not capable of sinning, even though John "plainly states" that one who is born of God "cannot sin."

Your methodology isn't working. It leads to contradictions. You complain that I do not accept what John "plainly states," but then you declare that John was not teaching that a born again person is capable of sinning. Your own question returns to you: "Do you not believe what John plainly states?"

The whole problem is that you are trying to apply to lonely verses to a subject that these verses are not addressing. If you wish to know the conditions of being saved, please consider Jesus' words to Nicodemus. Paul also goes to great lengths to explain how one is saved. We have whole chunks of Romans, several chapters, and the entire book of Galatians dedicated to this theme.



Again, if "continually choose to consciously abide in Jesus" means "continually exercise faith in Jesus" then I agree. If it means something else, then we have the problem Paul points out in Romans 11.

Tom, there are other passages which clearly say we do not sin while abiding in Jesus. Again, we do not and cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus. Such promises, however, in no way imply we lose the freedom or ability to choose to sin. You're saying so doesn't make it so. The same thing applied to Jesus while He was here in the flesh. He couldn't sin while abiding in the Father. But He would have sinned if He had neglected to abide in the Father.

The promises simply say - You will not and cannot commit a know sin while abiding in Jesus. That's the point. That's the truth. The fact we can neglect to abide in Jesus and be in sin again does not in the least diminish the promises. Neglecting to sin is not committing a sin, but apart from Jesus we cannot prevent ourselves from sinning. Neglecting to abide in Jesus and being in sin are separate but simultaneous things.

Considering the title of this thread, the problem I see here is that you seem to believe people are born again with certain uncrucified sinful traits and habits. You've named things like saying "jeez" as an example of a sinful habit someone could be born again with. But where in the Bible or the SOP is this example supported?

Also, here are a few more promises which agree with 1 John 3:6,9:

Romans
6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Galatians
5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

1 Peter
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

2 Peter
1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make [you that ye shall] neither [be] barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

1 John
3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

You just recently said that we can commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus. You said that neglecting to abide in Jesus is such a sin.



Previously you said it was. You said it was a known sin.



This whole subject is not treated explicitly in Scripture. No Scripture writer thought about things in these terms, so there won't be any examples treating this one way or the other. What we can find are general principles that we can reason from.

Regarding the "jeez" example, what exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that no born again person will say, "Jeez"?

I don't know what you're point is in the passages you quoted. I wish to make clear that I certainly agree with idea of victory over sin. I just don't see the particular theory that you are espousing in Scripture. I think you put things in an unnecessarily forced fashion.

Here's a passage from EGW:



Continuing a bit later:



This is dealing with the same subject manner you are. I find these descriptions to be very uplifting and positive. For example:

1. Jesus has been describing to His hearers the unfailing mercy and love of God, and He bids them therefore to be perfect.
2.In every command or injunction that God gives there is a promise, the most positive, underlying the command.
3.God has made provision that we may become like unto Him, and He will accomplish this for all who do not interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace.
4.With untold love our God has loved us, and our love awakens toward Him as we comprehend something of the length and breadth and depth and height of this love that passeth knowledge.
5.By the revelation of the attractive loveliness of Christ, by the knowledge of His love expressed to us while we were yet sinners, the stubborn heart is melted and subdued, and the sinner is transformed and becomes a child of heaven.
6. If you are the children of God you are partakers of His nature, and you cannot but be like Him.
7.That life in you will produce the same character and manifest the same works as it did in Him.

Seven is a nice number, so I'll stop here. These are all wonderfully uplifting thoughts, all in the context of "Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Tom, neglecting to abide in Jesus results in abiding in sin. They are not, however, one and same things. True, they happen simultaneously, but neglecting to abide in Jesus is not a sin. Yes, I allowed myself to be influenced in saying it is a sin of omission, but I am now retracting it. Again, the instant we neglect to abide in Jesus we revert back to abiding in sin, self, and Satan. There is no neutral place; we are either abiding in Jesus or abiding in sin.

DA 324
But unless we do yield ourselves to the control of Christ, we shall be dominated by the wicked one. We must inevitably be under the control of the one or the other of the two great powers that are contending for the supremacy of the world. (DA 324)

TE: Regarding the "jeez" example, what exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that no born again person will say, "Jeez"?

MM: Actually, I place the "jeez example" in the sins of ignorance category. The Holy Spirit may or may not reveal it to them before they experience the miracle of rebirth. But it doesn't address my question to you - Are we born again with the sins we practiced before we embarked upon the process of converting to Christ?

SD 300
The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." {SD 300.3}

Also, words evolve and change meanings over time. Very few people view the word "jeez" as slang for Jesus. Golly, gosh, gee whiz, shoot, crud, dang, darn, etc are other words that have evolved and don't mean what they used to. Thus, it may not be necessary to stop using them. But if they offend someone, then they shouldn't be used. Personally, I don't use them; thus, I avoid inadvertently offending someone.

---

TE: I don't know what you're point is in the passages you quoted. I wish to make clear that I certainly agree with idea of victory over sin. I just don't see the particular theory that you are espousing in Scripture. I think you put things in an unnecessarily forced fashion.

MM: How so? I am simply taking God at His word. Instead of assuming the promises of perfection mean something other than what they plainly say, I take them at face value. "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not" means exactly what it says. All the other promises I posted above say the exact same thing. You seem to be saying something different.

---

TE: Seven is a nice number, so I'll stop here. These are all wonderfully uplifting thoughts, all in the context of "Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."

MM: I agree with them, too. Surprise, surprise. So, I am terribly confused as to how you can go on to say some people are born again with unrevealed, unconfessed, uncrucified cultivated traits and habits of sin. I am pleased, though, that you have been unable to cite a legitimate example to support this theory, which leads me to believe you actually do not believe it.

Wouldn't the "jeez" example apply here?

The "process" of converting to Christ may be long on God's part, but on our part it's not. It's simply when we choose to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit and accept Christ as our personal Savior.



Jesus said "let your yay be yay, and your nay be nay." The words you cited haven't "evolved." They mean what they always have, although people using the words may be ignorant as to their meaning.

For example:



It's interesting that they have a date for this.



But you don't do this, or rather, you do this selectively in an arbitrary fashion. For example, John says that one who is born again does not sin, and "cannot sin." But when it comes to this you do not simply take God at His word. Instead, you assume the promise means something different than what it plainly says.



Why doesn't, "Whosoever is born of God ... cannot sin" mean exactly what it says?



I agree they say the same thing as each other, if that's what you mean. They say that victory of sin is possible.



Of course you would say that you agree with these statements, but you give them no emphasis. That is, you don't talk about these things. Instead you talk about your theory in regards to having to confess and crucify every known sin, etc.

My point is that the statement I quoted deals with the same theme of perfection, but does to in a heartwarming, uplifting way.



Where do I say this? I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. I don't recall every saying this. I recall you're making statements along these lines and my having issues in regards to your theory, but that's not the same thing as my saying the converse of what you say. I don't believe I've ever said these words you are attributing to me, let alone "go on" saying them.



I never claimed to believe what you have ascribed to me.

Actually you said it was a known sin.



I think God may have a more nuanced view of things than you do. You seem to be very ruled based, yes/no in your thinking. I think more things may be involved than what you are allowing for.

I don't know about Tom, but I believe this is possible. In a previous discussion I've cited the example of Peter in his prejudice against the gentiles.

I don't really care for the classification "unrevealed, unconfessed, uncrucified cultivated traits and habits of sin." but given that you responded to this characterization, which of these do you believe applies to Peter's case?

If he wasn't aware of this sin, he couldn't have confessed or crucified it.

Ok, so you would put it in the "unrevealed" category.

You gave the "jeez example" to prove people are born again with unrevealed, unconfessed, and uncrucified sinful habits, that the Holy Spirit waits to draw their attention to this sin until they are ready to confront it.

That's funny you're accusing me of being black and white. My friends would laugh their heads off if they heard you say that. I guess that's the difference between knowing someone online versus knowing them in person.

At any rate, the Bible is crystal clear about it - We will not and cannot commit a known sin while actively abiding in Jesus. We are either all of His and free of sin or none of His and full of sin. That's how God views it. The Bible and SOP testify to it over and over again.

Psalms
37:31 The law of his God [is] in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.

Romans
8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

Why don't you like classifying it this way? How do you classify the sinful habits the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to people until after they are born again? If He hasn't revealed it to them, how can they confess and crucify it?

Actually, Peter was aware of his sin. The following passage makes it clear that he was aware of the light and acted in accordance with it. His "weakness" was acting a "double part", not that he didn't know being prejudiced against Gentiles was a sin. He knew dissembling was wrong. God had revealed it to him.

He was aware of this sin "at a later date", after having received "the light given from heaven" in the episode with Cornelius. Before this he obviously wasn't aware of this sin.

"This vision [of the sheet] conveyed to Peter both reproof and instruction. It revealed to him the purpose of God--that by the death of Christ the Gentiles should be made fellow heirs with the Jews to the blessings of salvation. As yet none of the disciples had preached the gospel to the Gentiles. In their minds the middle wall of partition, broken down by the death of Christ, still existed, and their labors had been confined to the Jews, for they had looked upon the Gentiles as excluded from the blessings of the gospel. Now the Lord was seeking to teach Peter the world-wide extent of the divine plan. ... How carefully the Lord worked to overcome the prejudice against the Gentiles that had been so firmly fixed in Peter's mind by his Jewish training! By the vision of the sheet and its contents He sought to divest the apostle's mind of this prejudice and to teach the important truth that in heaven there is no respect of persons; that Jew and Gentile are alike precious in God's sight; that through Christ the heathen may be made partakers of the blessings and privileges of the gospel." {AA 135, 136}

These are your words, not mine. I am pointing out problems I see with your theory. I'm still not seeing what problem you have with this example.



John also "plainly states" that a person born of God "cannot sin," yet you state that John is not teaching that a born again person is incapable of sinning. You're being arbitrary in how you are applying Scripture. In one place you defend your theory because this is what John "plainly states," but in another, just 3 verses removed, you assert the reverse of what John "plainly states."

The difficult comes about in trying to force John into a theory that he doesn't have and doesn't address.

To know how one is born again is simple. Just look at what Jesus said to Nicodemus. As EGW points out, this was Jesus' most complete explanation of this subject.



To be born again one need simply respond to the Holy Spirit, repent, and receive Christ as one's personal Savior. That's it!



Because it's not identifying man's problem in a useful way. Piggybacking on Rosangela's idea, man's problem is that he doesn't love. Man needs to obtain "sanctified affection" for others, as opposed to his love for self. How does this happen? By beholding we become changed.

If one has this frame of mind, one's burden becomes to tell others about Christ, and to learn of Him. If our focus is on the classification of sins, then that becomes what we focus on and talk about.



I would classify these as sinful habits a person is unaware of.



Why is this important?

I see what you mean Rosangela, but are you citing this as example of an unrevealed, confessed, uncrucified sinful habit that people nowadays are born again with? In other words, does the Holy Spirit nowadays wait to reveal this sinful habit until sometime after people are born again?

Tom, are people born again with certain sinful habits in tact? And, does the Holy Spirit wait until after they are born again to bring them to their attention? So far you haven't answered this question plainly. Please do so. Thank you.


You seem to think “doth not sin” and “cannot sin” emphatically means people lose the freedom and ability to sin after they are born of God. Why do you interpret it this way? Upon what precedence do you conclude this way?


What do you mean by “repent”? What does repentance entail, involve, include? What is not involved? What do you think? In the middle of the chapter “Repentance”, in the book Steps to Christ, we find this description:

SC 29
One ray of the glory of God, one gleam of the purity of Christ, penetrating the soul, makes every spot of defilement painfully distinct, and lays bare the deformity and defects of the human character. It makes apparent the unhallowed desires, the infidelity of the heart, the impurity of the lips. The sinner's acts of disloyalty in making void the law of God, are exposed to his sight, and his spirit is stricken and afflicted under the searching influence of the Spirit of God. He loathes himself as he views the pure, spotless character of Christ. {SC 29.1}

You, on the other hand, have been advocating the Holy Spirit does not make “every” defective trait of character painfully distinct. You seem to believe the Holy Spirit waits until after they are born again to lay bare certain defective aspects of their character, that He carefully avoids making it a painful process of revelation for them.


Why, indeed! The answer is as important as the question – Because Jesus will not change our defective traits of character when He returns. So, the Holy Spirit is culpable if He does as you say, namely, that He waits to reveal certain sinful habits until after they are born again - keeping in mind that a person is ready to be translated alive the instant they experience the miracle of rebirth. If they retain certain sinful habits after rebirth - because the Holy Spirit didn’t reveal them - then, indeed, He is culpable. Thankfully, though, the truth is quite the opposite.

Here’s how it is described in the SOP:


Each one of these quotes teach that people who experience genuine conversion, in God's appointed way, are born again without their former sinful habits. The Holy Spirit does not wait until sometime after they are born again to reveal certain sinful practices. Even though it may be "painful" He makes them aware of each sinful trait of character as the hideous thing it is - then they are reborn.

SD 300
The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." {SD 300.3}

If by "certain sinful habits" you mean things like polygamy, saying "jeez" or "darn," or the example Rosangela gave of prejudice, then it's clear these things are not revealed when one is born again, isn't it? The whole concept that you have that it's possible that God could reveal every sinful habit before one is born again I find incomprehensible. We're just not that smart, MM. Our brains do not have this kind of capacity. It seems to me you are vastly underestimating our sinfulness. I'm repeatedly stated this, MM.

When we are born again, we *being* the process of healing. We start a walk with God. It is our desire to please God, and He begins to teach us what things are pleasing to Him.

I've also stated this many times.



What I'm commenting on is your inconsistency, MM. You have a theory in regards to abiding in Jesus which you claim is based on believing what John "plainly states." When people question you on this theory, you defend it by saying that you believe what John "plainly states," yet when John plainly states that a person born of God "does not sin" and "cannot sin" you interpret John's meaning to be other than what he "plainly states."

I'm not offering an interpretation here, MM. Just pointing out that you are not being consistent with your methodology.



"Repentance" comes from the two Greek words, "meta" and "noya" which mean "after" and "mind" resp. The idea is that before you repent, you thought one way. Now, after repenting, you think another way. That's what the concept "after mind" conveys; a change of mind.

Before knowing Christ, we were enemies of God. By Christ, we are brought into harmony with God, and the enmity is set aside. Instead of working at cross purposes with God, we work in harmony with Him.

Regarding the SC quote, immediately before what you cite it says this:



The context is speaking of the sinner recognizing his need for Christ.



I haven't been advocating this. I've been advocating that your views are incorrect. Please states things this way. Like this:



I believe your view of conversion is inaccurate. I think you vastly underestimate the damage that sin has caused to us and how much healing we need. It appears you believe that we are completely healed the moment we are born again. I don't believe this. I believe the healing *starts* when we are born again.

When we are born again, we begin a new path. We start forsaking the road of self, and start to walk to the road of agape. We operate under the guidance of a new Spirit. A new life beings, a new path. Our healing begins. This is how I see things.



I don't even think in these terms, MM. I think in the terms I've been laying out. Our problem is that we have not known God. When we are pardoned, we start a path of knowing God, which is also the beginning of our path to know ourselves. When we know ourselves, we will say, as Paul did, that it is a faithful saying that Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.



I don't think in these terms at all. You speak of the Holy Spirit being culpable, as if our inabilities and difficulties had nothing to do with the matter, as if God could arbitrarily heal us without our having any cooperation in the matter.

A great deal of our difficulties have to do with our misunderstanding of God. Satan has been very successful in presenting God as such a one as himself, one who seeks for His own glory, one who uses force to get His way, etc.; in short, as one who is not trustworthy.

The final message is one of God's character, His character of love. It is when His true character is fully known that full healing can take place. When His character is understood, then the mission of the 144,000 will take place.

When Christ's character is reproduced in His people, then He will come. But how can His character be reproduced if it is not known? It is by beholding that we become changed.

Therefore the emphasis needs to be on God's character; His compassion, His mercy, His kindness, His goodness. It is these things that lead us to repentance and transformation, and to victory over sin.



It's simply not the case that born again people are perfect and never sin. Not all born again people, for example, keep the Sabbath.

I have not read this thread so I have no knowledge of what you have previously said, but I have been reading a story that fits the thread topic. Therefore I post the link: http://darklightstory.wordpress.com/

The story is found in the word/pdf documents linked to at the top of the page.

Mike,

This is what I believe happens:

"Self--the old disobedient nature--must be crucified, and Christ must take up His abode in the heart. Thus the human agent is born again, with a new nature. The newborn child of God begins to have some conception of what God is. To all intents and purposes, truth is truth to him. He has caught a glimpse of God's glory. A sense of his accountability to God quenches the unholy ambition that keeps upon the soul a galling yoke of guilt. The light in which he enters is softened and subdued, tempered to suit his condition. By daily beholding Jesus and striving to practise His virtues, his spiritual perceptions grow clearer and stronger." {ST, July 26, 1905 par. 6}

Just like in Plato's analogy of the cave, it is impossible to come from a dark place where you lived for a long time, and immediately contemplate full light. You first have to accustom your eyes to light. The sun is shining in all his glory, but you are able to open your eyes just partially. This is what happens to us. It's not that the Holy Spirit waits to reveal some sins, but that our minds cannot discern all the sins the Holy Spirit is trying to reveal to us. This is a gradual process. As Ellen White says, as we daily behold Jesus, our spiritual perceptions grow clearer. As we see God more clearly, we also see more clearly the contrast between His ways and ours.

Well said Rosangela. I agreed with all your points. These two I think are especially on point for this discussion.

1.It's not that the Holy Spirit waits to reveal some sins, but that our minds cannot discern all the sins the Holy Spirit is trying to reveal to us.
2.This is a gradual process.

Thank you, Tom, for plainly answering my question. Now I understand what you mean be rebirth. You have in mind someone whom the Holy Spirit waits to reveal certain sins of ignorance, like the ones you named above, until after they are born again.

If they should die before they get the chance to confess and crucify these kinds of sins, will they learn about them en route to heaven? Or, can they be translated alive before they confess and crucify them here?

Rosangela, thank you for sharing what you believe about it. You seem to be saying the following passages contradict one another, that the one says we are born again will all manner sins which must gradually be revealed and crucified, whereas the other one clearly says one ray of the glory of God, one gleam of the purity of Christ, penetrating the soul, makes every spot of defilement painfully distinct, and lays bare the deformity and defects of the human character.

ST 7-26-05
Self--the old disobedient nature--must be crucified, and Christ must take up His abode in the heart. Thus the human agent is born again, with a new nature. The newborn child of God begins to have some conception of what God is. To all intents and purposes, truth is truth to him. He has caught a glimpse of God's glory. A sense of his accountability to God quenches the unholy ambition that keeps upon the soul a galling yoke of guilt. The light in which he enters is softened and subdued, tempered to suit his condition. By daily beholding Jesus and striving to practise His virtues, his spiritual perceptions grow clearer and stronger. {ST, July 26, 1905 par. 6}

SC 29
One ray of the glory of God, one gleam of the purity of Christ, penetrating the soul, makes every spot of defilement painfully distinct, and lays bare the deformity and defects of the human character. It makes apparent the unhallowed desires, the infidelity of the heart, the impurity of the lips. The sinner's acts of disloyalty in making void the law of God, are exposed to his sight, and his spirit is stricken and afflicted under the searching influence of the Spirit of God. He loathes himself as he views the pure, spotless character of Christ. {SC 29.1}

Let's take a closer look at the quote Rosangela posted:

1. "Self--the old disobedient nature--must be crucified, and Christ must take up His abode in the heart. Thus the human agent is born again, with a new nature." Does this mean we are born again ignorantly disobedient? Does it mean are born again with certain known sins uncrucified?

2. "The newborn child of God begins to have some conception of what God is. To all intents and purposes, truth is truth to him. He has caught a glimpse of God's glory." Does this mean we are born again committing some of the same sins we committed before rebirth?

3. "A sense of his accountability to God quenches the unholy ambition that keeps upon the soul a galling yoke of guilt." Does mean we are born again ignorant of certain unholy ambitions?

4. "The light in which he enters is softened and subdued, tempered to suit his condition." Does this mean we are born again ignorant of certain truths which might prevent us from committing some of the same sins we committed before rebirth?

5. "By daily beholding Jesus and striving to practice His virtues, his spiritual perceptions grow clearer and stronger." Does this mean we are born again committing some of the same sins we committed before rebirth?

Finally, in light of the questions posted above, how should we interpret the following passages:

SD 300
The sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." {SD 300.3}

COL 99
Often the question arises, Why, then, are there so many, claiming to believe God's word, in whom there is not seen a reformation in words, in spirit, and in character? Why are there so many who cannot bear opposition to their purposes and plans, who manifest an unholy temper, and whose words are harsh, overbearing, and passionate? There is seen in their lives the same love of self, the same selfish indulgence, the same temper and hasty speech, that is seen in the life of the worldling. There is the same sensitive pride, the same yielding to natural inclination, the same perversity of character, as if the truth were wholly unknown to them. The reason is that they are not converted. They have not hidden the leaven of truth in the heart. It has not had opportunity to do its work. Their natural and cultivated tendencies to evil have not been submitted to its transforming power. Their lives reveal the absence of the grace of Christ, an unbelief in His power to transform the character. {COL 99.1}

3T 345
I lift my voice of warning to all who name the name of Christ to depart from all iniquity. Purify your souls by obeying the truth. Cleanse yourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. You to whom this applies know what I mean. (3T 345)

OHC 336
Many are sensible of their great deficiency, and they read, and pray, and resolve, and yet make no progress. They seem to be powerless to resist temptation. The reason is, they do not go deep enough. They do not seek for a thorough conversion of the soul, that the streams which issue from it may be pure, and the deportment may testify that Christ reigns within. All defects of character originate in the heart. Pride, vanity, evil temper, and covetousness proceed from the carnal heart unrenewed by the grace of Christ. If the heart is refined, softened, and ennobled, the words and actions will testify to the fact. When the soul has been entirely surrendered to God, there will be a firm reliance upon His promises, and earnest prayer and determined effort to control the words and actions. (OHC 336)

MM, I asked you a question here. You didn't respond to my question.



My understanding of rebirth is based on my own experience, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, and is born out the testimony of Scripture, as well as the writings of Ellen White. I know exactly when I was born again, and I know precisely when it happened, and remember well what happened. As John says:



The experience of the new birth was plainly taught by Jesus Christ in His meeting with Nicodemus.



The SOP comments:





Do you disagree? Is it your contention that no one who is born again has ever said "Jeez"? Is it your contention that no one who is born again has had more than one wife? Is it your contention that no one who is born again has not kept the Sabbath? Is it your contention that no one who is born again has had the type of prejudice to which Rosangela alluded?



I'll await your response to my question above (the one I pointed out you didn't answer), and then respond.

The thing that is clear to me is you believe these examples represent the types of sins that the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to people nowadays until sometime after they are reborn.

The thing that is not clear to me is the idea that God still winks at polygamy, that He waits to reveal this sin to people until sometime after they are born again. The other examples you gave, “jeez” and “darn”, no longer mean what they used to mean; thus, I doubt they are still considered sins nowadays. Similar principles apply here that apply to Christmas and Easter. In other words, we no longer view them as sins even though their origins are steeped in sin. Times change, people change. That is reality.


Yes, Tom, it is clear to me that you apply these passages and principles to people nowadays who are born again and still practice polygamy and harbor hateful, prejudicial thoughts and feelings toward certain classes and races of people. You believe God still winks at these types of sin nowadays, that He waits to reveal them until sometime after they are born again.


In addition to what I wrote above, I have at other times made it clear I believe God makes a distinction between sins of ignorance and cultivated traits of character. Ignorantly breaking the Sabbath falls into the category of sins of ignorance, and, yes, God still waits nowadays to reveal this sin in many cases until sometime after people are born again.

But God never waits to reveal known cultivated sinful traits and habits. He always draws their attention to them during the process that leads to rebirth. He presents them in light of the cross, and people are painfully aware of their sinfulness, and what their sins and habits have done to Jesus. No cultivated trait or habit is overlooked, or set aside until sometime after they are born again.

You and I both agree the Holy Spirit does not wait to reveal sinful traits and habits that are offensive, that cause people watching them to conclude Christianity is a joke, right? Do we still agree on this point? Or, is your thoughts about polygamy an exception to this rule?


Okay.

They are still sins. That people don't consider them to be sins would be exactly my point. People are born again who do these things. This is what you asked for, and example of sins people commit that are unrevealed to them.



It's true that times change and people change, but sin is still sin. "Jeez" and "darn" are slang for "Jesus" and "damn" just as much as they were in 1928 or whenever it was they were invented.

Say a person is making a false deduction on their income tax, not realizing the law does not permit the deduction they are claiming. This would be an unrevealed sin, wouldn't it? Aren't there a million of examples like this? Things people do in ignorance, not realizing they are doing wrong? The proof of conversion comes on the basis of how one responds to light.



It seems that you could apply this logic to any sin which God reveals after a person is born again. If it is revealed after they are born again, then it is sin of ignorance. How could such a theory possibly be disproved?



You assert this, but there's no way to disprove this idea, right? Any example that one could give you could just say is a sin of ignorance.



I don't see how your theory can either be proven or disproved. Any item which doesn't fit gets classified into an item which does.

I know what happened when I was born again, I see what Jesus said to Nicodemus, I see what EGW wrote about it in "Nicodemus," I've read Waggoner's experiences as well, as well as Luther, Wesley, and others, and am convinced that these all agree in regards to what being born again consists of.



Look and live. Simple!

Mike, they in no way contradict each other. Sin is multifaceted. The human mind cannot in a short time know all the evil that lurks in its own recesses. So one ray of the glory of God lays bare all the defects of the human character that the mind can apprehend at that moment.

“He [the sinner] becomes reconciled to God through the blood of Christ, and as he continues to walk with Him he will be gaining a clearer sense of the holiness of God's character and the far-reaching nature of His requirements. He will see more clearly his own defects and will feel the need of continual repentance and faith in the blood of Christ.” {FW 53.4}

“There is no such thing as an instantaneous sanctification. It is an every-day work. Says Paul, ‘I die daily’ (1 Cor. 15:31). He received a conversion daily to God. As the truth and Spirit of God revealed to him the defects in his character, he put away his wrong, died to self, and cleansed himself ‘from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God’ (2 Cor. 7:1).” {UL 231.3}

I agree with this, and this is well put. I like the cave analogy too.

Rosangela, you seem to be assuming that Sister White is speaking of sinning when she describes Paul discovering and putting away unknown defective traits of character. But that's not what she's talking about. Yes, Paul possessed unknown defective traits of character. But this isn't the same thing as saying Paul had cultivated them, that he turned them into character by repeatedly sinning. Nor does it mean we was ignorantly sinning until God revealed it to him. She's not talking about sinning.

All of us are born with hereditary traits of character. But having a trait of character is not the same thing as cultivating it, the same thing as turning it into character by sinning over and over again. We inherited all kinds of traits and tendencies at conception. Later on, we convert more of them into character by acting them out repeatedly. However, there are defective traits and tendencies we do not, for various reasons, turn into character. Thus, we are unaware of their existence.

Yes, after we are born again, as we comprehend more clearly the price Jesus paid to redeem us, we loathe more and more the traits of character we cultivated and crucified. However, this doesn't mean we are guilty of sinning. We will loathe them more and more until the day Jesus blots them out and we are no longer able to recall the details that gave rise to them.

In the case of Paul, in light of the quote you posted above, God revealed to him, from time to time, certain unknown, uncultivated hereditary traits and tendencies. Again, Paul hadn't turned them into character; thus, she isn't talking about him sinning without realizing it. Instead, she's talking about the defective traits he inherited at birth and was unaware he possessed them.

The reason God drew his attention to a particular unknown defective trait is because He was preparing him for a new field of labor, which would expose him to new forms of temptations, in ways that would make him aware of a new defective trait he inherited at birth but had not encountered before. In this way he able to learn about it without first having to fall into sin and bring reproach upon the cause of Christ.

Do you see what I mean?

No, I wouldn't classify "known cultivated sinful traits and habits" as a sin of ignorance. The fact it is known is proof they are not ignore of its existence. The question remains, then, what constitutes an unknown sinful trait and habit during "the long... patient, protracted" process that leads to rebirth?

So far you have named the following modern day examples of sinful traits and habits the Holy Spirit, in some cases, waits to reveal until sometime after a person is born again:

1. Polygamy
2. Jeez, darn
3. Racism
4. Sabbath-breaking

I seem to recall earlier on this thread you agreeing with me that the Holy Spirit does not wait to reveal sinful traits and habits that are offensive, that cause people around them to conclude Christianity is a joke. With this in mind, I'm having a hard time agreeing with you that the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to someone that racism is wrong and sinful until sometime after they are born. Few things are more offensive than racist claiming to be a Christian; few things lead more people to conclude Christianity is dangerous and destructive than its adherents being racists.

MM, here's the quote:



This says absolutely nothing about "unknown, uncultivated hereditary traits and tendencies." Instead it speaks of "defects in his character." You've repeatedly pointed out, and correctly so, that if we do not act on the inherited tendencies of the flesh, then they do not become a part of our character.

Here's another way to look at it. You believe that Jesus Christ took the same inherited traits and tendencies that we have, right? Would you say that God revealed to Christ His "defects of character"?

If they're known, there's not an even an issue of God's revealing them at all. He doesn't need to reveal them, since they're known. The only sinful traits and habits the Holy Spirit can reveal are unknown ones. So why doesn't He reveal every unknown sinful trait and habit? It would seem that, if your theory were true, once a person were born again there would be no more such thing as a sin of ignorance.



This is your wording, not mine.



This is again your wording. You do this thing where you put things in a certain way that nobody could possibly disagree with, and then when they don't, you conclude that they agree with you. It's like my asking you, "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" How do you answer this? You can't answer "yes" or "no." You have to answer by explaining that the question assumes a false premise, that you never were beating your wife to start with.

Many of your questions are like this, MM. They assume a false premise. This is why I don't answer them "yes" or "no," but try to explain what I think, without the false premise being included.



I didn't say anything about racisim did I? I'm sure I didn't. I'll check.

No, I said nothing about racism. Please be more careful in how you present things in these posts. I notice you often claiming I've said things I never said.

I spoke of "prejudice." Actually Rosangela spoke of prejudice, and I borrowed her example. Here's what "prejudice" means:



Here's what "racism" means:



It's certainly true that a racist is being prejudiced, but it is not necessary the case that a person who is prejudiced is racist. Rosangela said nothing about Peter being racist, and neither did I.

She's talking about inherited traits of character, not cultivated traits of character. Both are sinful and defective. And, no, Jesus never cultivated the defective traits of character He inherited. He never turned them into character by sinning over and over again.

The difference between being aware of our sinful traits and habits before and after rebirth is the fact the Holy Spirit reveals them to us in light of the cross. Heathens are aware of their sinful traits and habits before they embark upon the process that leads to rebirth. But it makes all the difference in the world when they see in the light of the cross. But not all sins are the same. Heathens do not feel bad about working on the Sabbath or eating pork or living common-law. They have no way of knowing they are sinning. Such sins do not become sinful traits of character.


I’ll work on being more accurate. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.


Here’s what I had in mind:

AA 197
When Peter, at a later date, visited Antioch, he won the confidence of many by his prudent conduct toward the Gentile converts. For a time he acted in accordance with the light given from heaven. He so far overcame his natural prejudice as to sit at table with the Gentile converts. But when certain Jews who were zealous for the ceremonial law, came from Jerusalem, Peter injudiciously changed his deportment toward the converts from paganism. {AA 197.3}

You seem to be insisting that what the Jews felt toward the Gentiles was not racial prejudice. Well, whatever, then the following are examples you’ve provided to prove people are born again ignorant of certain sinful habits:

1. Having more than one spouse at a time
2. Using slang like Jeez or darn
3. Prejudiced against Gentiles
4. Sabbath-breaking

With this in mind, I'm having a hard time agreeing with you that the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to someone that being prejudiced against Gentiles is wrong and sinful until sometime after they are reborn. Few things are more offensive than prejudiced Christians; few things lead more people to conclude Christianity is dangerous and destructive than its adherents being prejudiced.

I’m also having a hard time agreeing with you that the church would baptize polygamists without addressing it. Have you ever attended a Crusade where polygamists where welcomed into fellowship?

No, she's talking about a "defect of character." An inherited trait is not a "defect of character."



I agree with this. However, Peter was not Christ, and did have defects of character. If "defect of character" could be referring to an inherited trait, then we could say that Christ had "defects of character." Do you see that as a possibility.



Are you saying that heathens are aware of every sinful trait they have?



So if you're not aware that what you are doing is wrong, it's not a sinful trait. So saying that heathens are aware of their sinful traits means they are aware of the sins they are aware of. The sins they are not aware of are not sinful traits.



It seems to me at times you conclude the oddest things. I said simply that Rosangela spoke of "prejudice," not "racisim," as an example of something Peter was not aware of.



What about Peter?



What???? Baptize polygamists? What are you talking about?

Please stop doing this! Stop writing that you have a hard time "agreeing" with something I've never said. Can't you phrase things in some other way? You just said in this very post that you would work on being more accurate!

Where have I said anything that even remotely suggests that I think the church would baptize polygamists without addressing it? Please quote something.



??? This is an odd question.

I suppose the church baptizes converted polygamists in African countries.

Rosangela, and I suppose you are right. But do they continue to take new wives afterwards? Of course, having more than one wife is not evil or a sin if done in accordance with the Law of Moses (which I doubt applies to modern day Gentile converts to Christianity). Neither should the church insist the converted man whittle his wives down to one and send the rest away.

All of the traits and tendencies we inherit are defective. They are sinful, fallen - not sinless. But we do not inherit character. We develop character by cultivating the defective traits and tendencies we inherit. Jesus did not cultivate th3e defective traits and tendencies He inherited.


"So if you're not aware that what you are doing is wrong, it's not a sinful trait." It is not a sinful cultivated trait of character. Yes, it is a sin of ignorance, but it is not the same thing as cultivating a trait of character you know is wrong. There is a difference between the two. Do you agree?


There is nothing simple about it, is there? In the context I provided above, Peter was guilty of racial prejudice, which is also called "racism".


You listed polygamy as a modern day sin the Holy Spirit waits to reveal until after they are born again. Are you assuming they didn't also get baptized?

Mike, this is exactly what I and Tom are trying to show you. Ellen White is not speaking about “defective traits of character.” She is saying that the “Spirit of God revealed to him the defects in his character.” I don’t think what you are saying corresponds to what she said.

??? A trait we have is having two arms. That's not defective, is it?



Which is my point. The SOP spoke of Peter's "defect of character," which, according to what you're saying here, is not something he inherited, with which I agree. However, you have also treated Peter's "defect of character" as something inherited, which is inconsistent with your point here.



You didn't address my question. You wrote:



in regards to EGW speaking of Peter's "defect of character." I pointed out to you that this can't be right, because a "defect of character" cannot be referring to something inherited, which your statement above seems to agree with in saying, "we do not inherit character."

Anyway, my question to you, which I think I've asked twice now, is if Christ could be said to have a "defect of character." If a "defect of character" is referring to something one inherits, then why wouldn't that apply to Christ?



I already addressed this MM. I explained that "prejudice" is



whereas "racism" is



"Prejudice" is a broader term and less pejorative than "racism." "Racism" is certainly "prejudice," but "prejudice" is not necessarily prejudice.

I explained all this.

Back to the point. "Racial prejudice," to use your term, is a "defect of character" that EGW spoke of Peter as having, a defect which is not an inherited trait.



I didn't characterize it as "modern day." These are your words. Why don't you simply quote what I write? Please?

Again, you seem to be assuming "defects in his character" means he was guilty of sinning. The point is - he was not guilty of sinning.

UL 231
There is no such thing as an instantaneous sanctification. It is an every-day work. Says Paul, "I die daily" (1 Cor. 15:31). He received a conversion daily to God. As the truth and Spirit of God revealed to him the defects in his character, he put away his wrong, died to self, and cleansed himself "from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1) {UL 231.3}

How do you know? And what does she mean when she says that he "put away his wrong" and "cleansed himself"?

I know because she didn't say so. When God shows us something "wrong" about our character it may or may not involve sins of ignorance. It certainly cannot, especially in the case of Paul, involve known sins. We can discover things about our character that are wrong but does not necessarily mean we are sinning. Future circumstances may lead us into sinning if the wrongs are not addressed and corrected. Just because we have weaknesses and defects that may surface in the future it does not mean we are sinning now.

Don't you say that character is just what you develop? And doesn't developing involve practice?

Yes, but born again believers experience a radical transformation, right? So, certain aspects of character may or may not pose a problem depending on the circumstances. There are weaknesses and defects that God waits to reveal until the time and circumstances require it. They are not guilty of sinning in the meantime. These aspects of character do not surface because the circumstances do not exist that make them obvious. Here is how she explains it:

It is by close, testing trials that God disciplines His servants. He sees that some have powers which may be used in the advancement of His work, and He puts these persons upon trial; in His providence He brings them into positions that test their character and reveal defects and weaknesses that have been hidden from their own knowledge. He gives them opportunity to correct these defects and to fit themselves for His service. He shows them their own weakness, and teaches them to lean upon Him; for He is their only help and safeguard. Thus His object is attained. They are educated, trained, and disciplined, prepared to fulfill the grand purpose for which their powers were given them. (CC 46)

In the providence of God we are placed in different positions to call into exercise qualities of mind calculated to develop character under a variety of circumstances. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Professed Christians may live unexceptionable lives so far as outward appearance is concerned; but when a change of circumstances throws them into entirely different positions, strong traits of character are discovered, which would have remained hidden had their surroundings continued the same. (4T 55)

It is in mercy that the Lord reveals to men their hidden defects. He would have them critically examine the complicated emotions and motives of their own hearts, and detect that which is wrong, and modify their dispositions, and refine their manners. God would have his servants become acquainted with their own hearts. In order to bring to them a true knowledge of their condition, he permits the fire of affliction to assail them, so that they may be purified. The trials of life are God’s workmen to remove the impurities, infirmities, and roughness from our characters, and fit them for the society of pure, heavenly angels in glory. Then as we pass through trial, as the fire of affliction kindles upon us, shall we not keep our eyes fixed upon the things that are unseen, on the eternal inheritance, the immortal life, the far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory? And while we do this, the fire will not consume us, but only remove the dross, and we shall come forth seven times purified, bearing the impress of the Divine. (RH 4-10-1894)

The nearer the Christian lives to God, the more he advances in divine illumination of mind. He has more distinct sense of his own littleness, discerns his defects of character, and sees his duty in the light in which God presents it. The more closely he draws to Jesus, the more he has a near and clear sense of his own defects which had before escaped his notice, and he sees the necessity of humbling himself under the mighty hand of God. If lifted up it will not be because he lifts and exalts himself, but because the Lord exalts him. Having his eye fixed upon the purity and perfection of Christ Jesus, and acknowledging and obeying God in all his ways, he is not blinded to his own failures and imperfections. When his deportment in the eyes of men is unblamable and irreprovable, God reads the intents and purposes of the heart. (TDG 16)

OK. Let me ask you something. I know a girl who seems to be a very sincere Christian but uses a little makeup. How would you classify her sin?

Is it a sin to use a little makeup? Why does she use it? Are her motives sinful?

They are prepared to be used in every emergency, to fill important positions of trust, and to accomplish the grand purposes for which their powers were given them. God takes men upon trial; He proves them on the right hand and on the left, and thus they are educated, trained, disciplined. Jesus, our Redeemer, man’s representative and head, endured this testing process. (4T 86)

The fact Jesus Himself endured the process described in the quotes I posted here and above is evidence that she isn't talking about sinning. Do you agree?

Bump for Rosangela.

Well, to me it's a sin and its source can only be vanity, so her motives can only be sinful. But does she know it? She probably hasn't yet seen things in this light. You don't seem to be sure about this yourself.
Don't you think there are things in our lives that we didn't see as sins for a period but that from a certain moment onward we began to see as sins?
For instance, there was a time in my life I didn't see self-pity as a sin. God brought me to a circumstance which showed me self-pity as part of my character. I had a vague notion it was sinful, but since I was suffering I thought I had the right to indulge it. Today I see it as a sin in a way I didn't see before, but it took me some years to really come to see things in this light.
How would you classify this kind of sin?

I don't think Christ had defects of character that He must correct.

A few paragraphs before the quote you posted, Ellen White says,

"The Lord in His providence brings men where He can test their moral powers and reveal their motives of action, that they may improve what is right in themselves and put away that which is wrong." {4T 84.4}

So, I think in Christ's case God brought Him to trial that He might improve what was right, not that He might put away what was wrong.

Hebrews 5:8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.

I'm not so sure using a little makeup is vanity. And self-pity, depending on the form it takes, can be healthy. Paul seemed to write about it regarding himself. "I am the chief of sinners. I am the least of the least." Yes, taken to too far, both makeup and self-pity can be sinful.

Why are we ignorant of certain sinful habits and behaviors? is it because the Holy Spirit has not revealed it to us yet?

R: I don't think Christ had defects of character that He must correct.

MM: It depends on how you define it, right? Jesus grew in grace and in knowledge, which means He matured. He also inherited fallen traits of character, which He did not nurture or turn into character. Like all of us, He inherited things that war against the Spirit and mind of the new man. Jesus also learned new and better ways to do things as He grew and matured in the fruits of the Spirit. For example, He did not remain a child, so He didn't relate to the world around Him as a child. Had He not matured it would have been sinful to relate to the world as a child. But He grew up and changed so He wasn't guilty of sin.

Well, any woman knows how makeup and jewelry enhance the beauty and attract admiration or notice, specially of the opposite sex, and of course this is only for the gratification of vanity. I know, because I was not born a Christian, and I still admire women who know how to use makeup and jewelry with good taste. A little touch can do wonders.


Healthy? Self-pity is never healthy, and it wasn't healthy to me. Self-pity is very different from being conscious of one's lack of intrinsic worth, which is what Paul demonstrated.


No, because our mind is still somewhat clouded and isn't able to apprehend what He is trying to communicate.


?
Immature people are those who exhibit in the adult life the negative traits of children, that is, their selfishness. But Jesus was never selfish, either as a child or as an adult.

Is God really that incapable of getting through to people? Could it be that they are unwilling, rather than unable, to hear His voice because they are too busy doing something else, too dull of hearing, too dull of understanding? "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin." (John 15:22)

Matthew
13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.


I am referring to the childish things children do which are acceptable for children but not for adults. I am not talking about the selfishness children naturally exhibit. Jesus did the innocent things children do, things which are acceptable for children but not acceptable for adults. In this sense Jesus grew and matured. For example, while assisting Joseph in the shop, Jesus would have done His very best as a child, which would have been perfect for a child but not perfect for an adult.

This is a bit of an unfortunate response. No one is suggesting that a person's ignorance is due to a lack of competence on God's part.

Our minds work in certain ways. It takes time for certain ways of thought to change. When one is accustomed to think in a certain way, it can be very difficult for the mind to think of things in a different way. If we were robots, God could just zap something, and our thought processes would change. But we're not. God has to work with our perceptions such as they are, and make appeals to us that we can understand. Indeed, it's rather amazing that God can make any progress at all.

TE: No one is suggesting that a person's ignorance is due to a lack of competence on God's part.

MM: How long does it take a person to understand what God is trying to communicate to them? Are ingrained habits really the source of one's inability to grasp what God is clearly telling them? Please post inspired statements to support this idea. Thank you.

The following insights do not encourage me to agree with your observations. God does not hold back revealing certain truths because it would be too painful. He lays it out clearly and plainly. There is no room for doubt or confusion. The only question is - This is the way, will ye walk therein?

SC 29
One ray of the glory of God, one gleam of the purity of Christ, penetrating the soul, makes every spot of defilement painfully distinct, and lays bare the deformity and defects of the human character. It makes apparent the unhallowed desires, the infidelity of the heart, the impurity of the lips. The sinner's acts of disloyalty in making void the law of God, are exposed to his sight, and his spirit is stricken and afflicted under the searching influence of the Spirit of God. He loathes himself as he views the pure, spotless character of Christ. {SC 29.1}

Ok, but how would you classify then Peter's prejudice, the use of makeup by that girl, and my self-pity? In other words, things that you didn't see as sins for a time but afterwards came to regard as such?

TE: No one is suggesting that a person's ignorance is due to a lack of competence on God's part.

MM: How long does it take a person to understand what God is trying to communicate to them?





That may be possible, but it wouldn't be the primary reason. It could be a contributing factor, which is easy to see. For example, if a bad habit one has is not getting enough sleep, that could easily be a source of one's inability to grasp what God is saying.



There are many statements which talk about how important it is that we have a clear mind to understanding God. I'm sure you're aware of them. Anything that impacts our ability to have a clean mind would impact our ability to understand what God is telling us.



I think you're misinterpreting the statement you cited. We've already talked about this. There are many things we don't know about ourselves. God can't reveal them to us all at once or we'd be undone (which is what happens to the wicked). So instead He reveals things to us bit by bit, as we are able to deal with them. The more willing we are to cooperate with God, the quicker He can heal us. But if we miss something, He'll bring us around to the same point until we get it.

Sins of ignorance, right? That is, thoughts and feelings they did not regard as sinful. So, why didn't they seem sinful to these people? Why were they ignorant of them? Especially in light of the SC quote quoted above?

You said, “It takes time for certain ways of thought to change. When one is accustomed to think in a certain way, it can be very difficult for the mind to think of things in a different way.” Is this the “primary reason” why people have such a hard time understanding God’s will? Is it their habitual thought patterns that make it hard for God to get through to them, to reveal to them their sinful habits?


Are mind-clouding habits the reason why God is unable to get through to them? Is this the reason why they are dull of hearing, why they continue to practice certain sinful behaviors and habits? Would it be too painful for God to plainly tell them before they experience the miracle of rebirth? Is this the reason why people are born again with certain sinful habits still in tact, still uncrucified?

6BC 1075
The new birth is a rare experience in this age of the world. This is the reason why there are so many perplexities in the churches. Many, so many, who assume the name of Christ are unsanctified and unholy. They have been baptized, but they were buried alive. Self did not die, and therefore they did not rise to newness of life in Christ (MS 148, 1897). {6BC 1075.7}


The insights quoted above do not agree with your observations. She does not portray God as unwilling to reveal certain defects or deformities because it would be too painful. On the contrary, she says the exact opposite. “One ray of the glory of God, one gleam of the purity of Christ, penetrating the soul, makes every spot of defilement painfully distinct, and lays bare the deformity and defects of the human character.” How could she put it any clearer? The truth is - God does not wait until after people are born again to lay bare the defects and deformities of their character.

It's certainly a primary reason people have difficulty understanding truth. One can present the truth, explain it clearly, and yet it is not understood.



Not so much that the thought patters are habitual, but that they fall along certain lines. For example, if you are used to thinking of a certain thing as literal when it's really a metaphor, it may take you quite a long time to realize the meaning of the metaphor.

Regarding our minds not being clear, that can certainly be a factor. I gave an example of that.

Regarding your interpretation of the statement from SC 29, I don't think it is accurate. You are suggesting an interpretation, to my mind, which agrees with neither what EGW has written elsewhere, with common sense or reason, with the Scriptures, or with anyone's actual experience. I agree with Rosangela's explanation of this statement.

TE: For example, if you are used to thinking of a certain thing as literal when it's really a metaphor, it may take you quite a long time to realize the meaning of the metaphor.

MM: Is this an example of a sinful habit the Holy Spirit is unable to reveal because the person is so accustomed to seeing it in the wrong light?

Also, if SC 29 does not mean what it plainly says, why did she write it? Where does she articulate your idea - that God cannot reveal certain sinful habits until after a person is born again because their sinful habits and thought make it impossible for them to grasp the truth.

The following passages reiterate SC 29:

No.



It means what it says, just not what you think it says. I agree with Rosangela's explanation to you regarding this passage.



Since you didn't express my idea quite accurately, I can't give you an answer to your question. However, in regards to what I actually have said, Rosangela has cited passages for you and explained their meaning in a way I agree with.

Tom, are you saying you do not agree with the following - "God cannot reveal certain sinful habits until after a person is born again because their sinful habits and thoughts make it impossible for them to grasp the truth."

If you disagree with this insight, then what do you believe? And, please, just answer the question. Do not expect me to go back over this thread and piece it together for myself. It would be a lot easier for me if you would simply, clearly, and plainly state what you believe. Thank you. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you.

PS - Just in case you are unclear as to what I'm asking you to do, here it is: Does God wait until after a person is born again to reveal certain sinful habits and thoughts? If so, why does God wait to reveal them?

To answer your question, no, I do not agree with the statement in quotes.

I believe God can reveal sinful habits anytime, but we may not understand what He is saying, for reasons which both Rosangela and I have mentioned.

Before we are born again, God reveals to us representative sins, not as an arbitrary requirement God has, but because it is necessary that we understand and accept that we have been forgiven. That's the only way healing can happen. It's no different than in a relationship between people. If I do something wrong, and the wrong thing that I've done has caused me to misunderstand your actions and misjudge you, it's necessary that I see that truth in regards to what you really did, and that I recognize my error, and understand and accept your forgiveness in regards to it in order for our relationship to be healed.

God reveals to us what is necessary in order for our relationship with Him to be healed. After we are born again, He continues revealing more things to us. It's not necessary, or even possible, for God to reveal everything to us at once. For one thing, we couldn't bear it. For another, we wouldn't understand what He was saying. In order to understand some truths, it's necessary to understand other truths first.

Have you studied developmental psychology? Are you familiar with Piaget? If so, you are familiar with experiments which Piaget did which demonstrated that as one matures, one things about things differently.

So in a spiritual sense. When one can recognize as a sin later on in one's development, would not have even been recognized as a sin earlier. Rosangela gave the example of self-pity. God could have revealed the behavior to her, but she would not have recognized it as sin, because her mind wasn't working that way; she had not yet matured to that place, similar to how a child doesn't understand conservation of mass until the child reaches a certain level of maturity.

Is sinful self-pity an example of a habit God waits to reveal until after rebirth?

It's an example of a sinful habit He can reveal anytime, but of which we might not understand what He is saying.

If a person should die before God is able to get through to them, will they be raised up in the first resurrection with the sinful habit of self-pity?

If Peter died before God was able to reveal to him the prejudice there was in his heart, would he be raised up in the first resurrection with his prejudice?

MM, it seems you are thinking a person must be perfect to be in the first resurrection. Is this correct? Do you see any difference between the 144,000, who are translated, and other Christians who have died in Christ? Was the thief on the cross ready to be translated?

That is the question I'm seeking to answer. Do you have an answer?

Morally perfect, yes, but not necessarily mentally perfect. For example, a person may not know the truth about Sabbath-keeping. They are not mentally perfect. Mental perfection has to do with things we have to learn through Bible study and prayer. To be a part of the first resurrection they must be born again morally perfect. Moral perfection has to do with cultivated traits of character.


Not so far as moral perfection is concerned. And in some cases there may be no difference in mental perfection. For example, Ellen White was just as ready to go through the investigative judgment and the time of trouble as any one of the 144,000 will be.


Yes.

Now, concerning my question - Do you believe people will be a part of the first resurrection who did not crucify all of the cultivated sinful traits of character? If so, please name an example. Or, is sinful self-pity your example?

So you don't think Rosangela's example about self-pity applies. In your opinion, she wasn't born again until she "confessed and crucified" her self pity (and still isn't, if she has any similar traits she is unaware of, and hasn't "confessed and crucified" yet. I trust Rosangela won't mind being picked on.)

I suppose you must think you are morally perfect.

I'm curious about something. A while back you said to me "Thank you for stating the obvious" which is clearly sarcastic. I asked my wife on a scale of 1 to 100 where she would rate this in terms of being sarcastic, and she said 100. I think most people would agree.

What I'm curious about is if the fact that you think you are morally perfect means you think you are unable to say something sarcastic? Therefore anything you say must not be sarcastic, regardless of how sarcastic it sounds?



I don't think this is true. I think God sends their is a corporate blessing in the truth which God sends, and all benefit from it. For example, EGW tells us that the message of Jones and Waggoner was given to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. She called it the "beginning of the latter rain." There is no reason to suppose that EGW has no need of the latter rain in order to be part of the grain which matures to be harvested, to use a metaphor.



Interestingly enough, this is what Evangelicals think. I used to think this before becoming an Adventist.

Thanks for answering these questions. It helps explain things.



Self-pity was Rosangela's question. I'm weary of this question since I've already answered it something like 100 times, so I'm happy to go with hers.

Our character is determined not by the sinful traits we possess, but by the sinful traits we cherish.
Cherishing implies that you are conscious of a sinful trait of character and allow it to go on. You are unwilling to deny yourself.
However, you can neither cherish nor repress a sinful trait you aren’t conscious of. Manifesting it is different from cherishing it.
It’s your attitude that counts – are you living for self or for God?

“The character formed in this world determines the destiny for eternity. The element of value in the life in this world will be of value in the world to come. Our future is determined by the way in which we now allow ourselves to be influenced. If we cherish hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong, ... we can never enter the kingdom of God. But if we strive to repress evil inclinations, if we are willing to be governed by the Spirit of Christ, we are transformed.” {YI, August 17, 1899 par. 7}

“There are some who will not hear. So long have they chosen to follow their own way and their own wisdom, so long have they cherished defective hereditary and cultivated tendencies of character, that they are blind, and cannot see afar off.” --Ms 138, 1902.

In the resurrection all our sinful traits will have been removed, right?

“Thus the redeemed will be welcomed to the mansions that Jesus is preparing for them. ... Every sinful tendency, every imperfection that afflicts them here, has been removed by the blood of Christ; and the excellence and brightness of His glory, far exceeding the brightness of the sun in its meridian splendor, is imparted to them.” {OHC 39.3}

Yes, I am morally perfect, and I haven’t sinned in 20 years. Is that what you want me to say? Would that make you happy? Come on, Tom, you’re way off base here. You’re making this way too personal. Do you really want to study this way? I don’t. I’d rather study it using the third person as case in point. It's safer, don't you think?

Here’s the context of the "Thank you for stating the obvious" post:


Please note the context: “Yes, of course. The law of Moses is based on mercy. It allowed for forgiveness. I should have made this point more clear. Thank you for stating the obvious.” I admitted to leaving out the obvious and thanked you for stating it. And I was honest and sincere about it.

I realize this phrase can be used sarcastically, and I’m sorry if it offended you, but I was not being sarcastic when I wrote it. If you had seen and heard me say it, I’m sure it would not have looked or sounded sarcastic to you. My wife agrees with me, and wished me to convey these thoughts to you on her behalf.

Just out of curiosity I Googled this expression online and found quite a few people using it in the positive sense. For example, in certain discussion groups people are often hesitant to state the obvious. They’re afraid of sounding rude, or insensitive, or whatever. So, it goes unsaid. But when someone finally does state the obvious, the others are relieved, and often say, “Thank you for stating the obvious.”


I had forgotten we disagree on this point. You seem to believe there is a certain message that God is withholding, a message which He is waiting to reveal until the right time, a message that will prepare the 144,000 to be translated alive. I believe God revealed to the NT writers all the truth necessary to be translated alive, and that these truths have been known by the Remnant Church since shortly after 1844. The following quotes indicate as much:


Please note that nowhere does she say Jesus cannot return until after God reveals the truths He has been withholding. Instead, she says the reason Jesus hasn’t returned yet is because we, as a church, have not embraced and experienced the truths God has already revealed to us. We’re not waiting for more truth; God is waiting for us to live up to the light we already we have.

Also, what do you think Sister White lacked that would have prevented her from being translated alive with the 144,000?


Why don’t you believe it now? Why do you think he wasn’t ready to be translated alive? What is the difference between him and the 144,000?


Okay. Let me see if I can reconstruct your answer: Yes, I believe people will be part of the first resurrection even though they did not crucify all of their cultivated sinful traits of character. Sinful self-pity is an example of a cultivated sinful trait of character people do not crucify before they die, and which will not keep them out of heaven. Jesus was unable to reveal it to them because they were unable to confront it before they died. For whatever reasons, they were not ready to face this sin before they died. Therefore, it remained unknown to them. As such, it does not count against them in judgment. They will simply be resurrected without it. Moreover, we shouldn’t worry about the cultivated sinful traits of character Jesus does not reveal to us. Since He is willing to let it ride for now, we shouldn't worry about it. The main thing we need to do is learn to love and appreciate the character of God. As we do this, we will gradually discover cultivated sinful traits of character that need to be confessed and crucified, and we will gladly do it because we love God our Father, and want to do those things that please Him.

How did I do?

Amen. I totally agree with you on this point.


Again, amen. I totally agree with you on this point, too. The question is, therefore, what constitutes an unknown cultivated sinful trait of character? And, why is it unknown, why are they unaware or unconscious of it? Why is it obvious to others but not to them? What accounts for their ignorance? Is God ot blame? Is He waiting to reveal it to them until a more appropriate time?


She is not addressing unknown cultivated traits of character in the quote posted above. Instead, she is simply saying we must "repress" (not eliminate) our evil inclinations (hereditary and cultivated) if we hope to enter heaven. In Christ, by abiding in Him, we can control them in this lifetime; but we will never be able to totally silence their voices. They will always, in one way or another, tempt us from within to be unlike Jesus.


These people have likely committed the unpardonable sin.


Not "in the resurrection", but rather before they died. Is that what you meant? Here's how she puts it:

AH 16
If you have become estranged and have failed to be Bible Christians, be converted; for the character you bear in probationary time will be the character you will have at the coming of Christ. If you would be a saint in heaven, you must first be a saint on earth. The traits of character you cherish in life will not be changed by death or by the resurrection. You will come up from the grave with the same disposition you manifested in your home and in society. Jesus does not change the character at His coming. The work of transformation must be done now. Our daily lives are determining our destiny. {AH 16.2}

MM, you believe that when a person is born again, their character is perfect, right?

A second question. You believe the thief on the cross was ready for translation. I take it from this that you believe that any person ready for death is ready for translation, right?

No, I don’t think God is waiting to reveal it to them until a more appropriate time. Rather, I think that it’s their mind that is not able to apprehend, at the same time, everything God is trying to communicate.


I just posted those quotes to demonstrate that if we cherish sinful traits we can never enter the kingdom of God.


Sinful traits, to me, are synonymous with sinful tendencies. Do you agree with this?

R: No, I don’t think God is waiting to reveal it to them until a more appropriate time. Rather, I think that it’s their mind that is not able to apprehend, at the same time, everything God is trying to communicate.

MM: What do you mean by "apprehend"? Do you mean grasp, understand, comprehend? Is God trying to reveal to them all of their sinful habits and traits at the same time before they are born again?

---

R: Sinful traits, to me, are synonymous with sinful tendencies. Do you agree with this?

MM: A trait is a characteristic; whereas, a tendency is a propensity. We develop traits and resist tendencies.

I'm glad you clarified this. "Traits" is commonly used to express genetic traits, but you are excluding this from your use (which is fine, as long as everyone understands what you mean).

So you believe, if I'm understanding you correctly, that every single sinful characteristic that one has developed in one's lifetime must be overcome *before* one can be born again?

I think when one is born again, the work has just begun! What I see as being the prerequisite to being born again is a perception of the love of God, especially as revealed at the cross, and a response to that love in the form of repentance and submission.

I don't think it's fine. The term is used by Ellen White, so we must know what she means. The search shows 28 references to "hereditary and cultivated traits" of character. It's evident, to me, that traits = tendencies.

Why can't MM use words the way he wants, as long as he is clear about what he is doing? He is clearly wanting to differentiate between two concepts, one being things that are passed genetically vs. things which are developed by experience. It seems to me the way he is going about it is one reasonable way of doing so.

There's no reason we need to use words exactly the way Ellen White did. Even Ellen White didn't use words the way she did all all the time! For example, she uses "sinful nature" to mean different things. Many other examples could be given.

She explains in her chapters on inspiration in 1SM that there isn't a one to one correspondence between words and ideas. MM is trying to express an idea, and I think he did so clearly.

However, that being said, I would agree that it would be clearer if he spoke of "developed traits" and "developed tendencies" rather than simply "traits" and "tendencies," as the distinction he makes seems to be an arbitrary one. Indeed, I had to check his post to see which was which (i.e. if "traits" were genetic as opposed to developed).

Tom,

We were discussing about how to harmonize two EGW passages - OHC 39.3 which speaks of sinful tendencies, and AH 16 which speaks of sinful traits.
Since both are from Ellen White, we must give the terms the meaning she gives to them. As I said, I see no difference in the way she uses both terms, so they are synonyms.
The passages can be harmonized by the fact that she mentions that "the traits of character you cherish in life will not be changed by death or by the resurrection."

I don't think MM was discussing simply how to harmonize two EGW passages. I think he is discussing his overall theory, and uses these words more to explain what he thinks, not what EGW is saying (in terms of the words used; I'm sure he thinks EGW is saying the same thing he is). But, of course, MM himself would have to clarify his intent. Assuming I'm right about his intent, I don't see a problem with him using these words in the way he described, although I would clarify them with adjectives myself.

In terms of the ideas involved (in the context of this thread), I think you and I are on the same page.

Actually, I believe people are born with all of the traits of character (traits, not character) common to mankind. As they grow and mature, they cultivate some of the traits they inherited thereby converting them into character. They naturally, instinctively cultivate sinful character.

Collectively these cultivated traits are called the "old man". They also constitute a driving force within people which compels them to sin again and again. The rest of the traits they inherited at birth lay dormant within them, uncultivated, and as such do not count as character. Jesus was also born with all of the traits of character common to mankind.

During the process of conversion, before people experience rebirth, the Holy Spirit shows them, for the first time, their sinful, cultivated traits of character in light of the cross. This new revelation causes them to love Jesus and to hate sin; thus, they are motivated from on High to confess and crucify their old man.

Jesus never cultivated sinful traits of character, therefore, He never had to confess or crucify them. Consequently, neither did He have the sinful propensities associated with cultivated sinful traits of character.

The old man dies the moment people experience the miracle of rebirth. The sinful propensities associated with sinful character also dies. God implants within them all of His righteous attributes of character, all of the fruits of the Spirit.

As born again believers abide in Jesus, as they walk in the Spirit and mind of the new man, as they partake of the divine nature - they grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit, they cultivate sinless traits of character. Jesus, of course, only cultivated sinless traits of character.

Regarding tendencies. At birth people also inherit all of the sinful tendencies, inclinations, propensities common to mankind. This aspect of human nature differs from hereditary traits of character in that it compels people to cultivate inherited traits of character in a sinful manner. It is called "sinful flesh".

Born again believers retain this aspect of human nature after they experience the miracle of rebirth. It will continue to war against them, against the Spirit and mind of the new man, until the day Jesus arrives and replaces it with a sinless flesh. Jesus, I believe, inherited the same sinful flesh at His incarnation.


Correct. However, please understand I’m referring to “representative sins”, not the hundreds and thousands of individual sins that resulted in specific traits of character. For example, people confess, during the process of converting, in light of the cross, the representative sin of impatience. They do not have to confess the thousands of times they were impatient, or the hundreds of different ways they were impatient. The Holy Spirit will, however, bring to mind specific incidences that were particularly offensive and destructive. These must be repented of, too.


I agree. But I also believe people experience rebirth during the process of converting to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded. A person is reborn the moment they confess and crucify their old man, their cultivated sinful traits of character. The following insights confirm this position. Please note the when-then, before and after relationships she describes:

R: No, I don’t think God is waiting to reveal it to them until a more appropriate time. Rather, I think that it’s their mind that is not able to apprehend, at the same time, everything God is trying to communicate.

MM: What do you mean by "apprehend"? Do you mean grasp, understand, comprehend? Is God trying to reveal to them all of their sinful habits and traits at the same time before they are born again?

MM, I don't see the distinction in your thought between justification, sanctification, and perfection of character. Is there any? It seems you believe that one must have a perfect character in order to be justified.

I mostly agree with this. The disagreement is that the "old man" includes what you suggest, in my view, but is not limited to that. (I'll discuss this in more detail below)



I disagree with this. Of course, the first part of the sentence is true, but the second part isn't. Jesus said for us to take up our cross and *follow* Him. If He had nothing to crucify, then we have nothing to follow. Please don't forget that Christ bore our sins in fallen flesh His whole life. The Spirit of Prophecy says that it was our sins He was bearing that made His temptations in the wilderness so difficult.



It seems to me that the old man includes our memories, and as such, does not die the moment of rebirth. I've heard it said that every morning the old man reappears in a new suit. Also our sinful propensities remain to tempt us. They are not instantly gone. For example, many converted smokers or alcoholics still feel the urge to smoke or drink. The sinful propensity is dead only so far as the temptations which come from these propensities are denied, or crucified, to use your term. This crucification is not need just once, when one is born again.



Could you clarify this please? I understand the sentence beginning with "At birth," but the following two sentences are not clear to me.



I agree with this, but don't think it goes far enough. Born again believers also retain their memories, and these memories also have an impact on one, contributing to temptations.

Justification cannot occur if a person retains even the least offensive cultivated sinful trait of character. To renounce self, to crucify the old man, people must first see their cultivated sinful traits of character in light of the cross; then they must repent of them; then they must receive the divinely implanted mind of the new man, the righteous attributes of God's character; then they must choose daily to abide in Jesus, to grow in grace, to partake of the divine nature.

Although they are born again morally complete in Christ (perfect, sinless, without spot or blame) they are not, however, born again morally mature, as if they have no more room to grow in grace or to mature in the fruits of the Spirit. In the same way Jesus grew and matured from childhood to manhood, so too they will grow and mature (so long as they continually choose to abide in Jesus). Like Jesus, they begin perfect (with all of the righteous attributes of God's character; but they are babes, immature) and they become perfect (they cultivate sinless traits of character, perfecting holiness, which continues throughout eternity).

Believers begin the process of sanctification (growing and maturing in the fruits of the Spirit) the instant they receive the gift of justification. They retain the glorious benefits of justification by perfecting holiness, by daily advancing from one stage of perfection to another. It has nothing to do with becoming less and less sinful. And, it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit gradually, gingerly, gently making them aware of their sins of ignorance, their mental imperfections, as I like to call them (e.g. not knowing the truth about Sabbath-keeping as opposed to supposedly not knowing it is a sin to be impatient with little Johnny when he keeps asking "annoying" questions).

6BC 1072
Many commit the error of trying to define minutely the fine points of distinction between justification and sanctification. Into the definitions of these two terms they often bring their own ideas and speculations. Why try to be more minute than is Inspiration on the vital question of righteousness by faith? Why try to work out every minute point, as if the salvation of the soul depended upon all having exactly your understanding of this matter? All cannot see in the same line of vision (MS 21, 1891). {6BC 1072.4}

FW 100
But while God can be just, and yet justify the sinner through the merits of Christ, no man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins or neglecting known duties. God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul. {FW 100.1}

1SM 213
There is no safety nor repose nor justification in transgression of the law. Man cannot hope to stand innocent before God, and at peace with Him through the merits of Christ, while he continues in sin. He must cease to transgress, and become loyal and true. As the sinner looks into the great moral looking glass, he sees his defects of character. He sees himself just as he is, spotted, defiled, and condemned. But he knows that the law cannot in any way remove the guilt or pardon the transgressor. He must go farther than this. The law is but the schoolmaster to bring him to Christ. He must look to his sin-bearing Saviour. And as Christ is revealed to him upon the cross of Calvary, dying beneath the weight of the sins of the whole world, the Holy Spirit shows him the attitude of God to all who repent of their transgressions. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). {1SM 213.2}

Yes, of course, Jesus was born with the sins of the world upon Him, within His sinful flesh. And, yes, His sinful flesh warred against Him in the same way and for the reasons it wars against born again believers. What I meant above is Jesus never had to confess or crucify a sinful trait of character He Himself cultivated. Therefore, He never developed the propensities associated with cultivating sinful traits of character. Instead, He was born with the propensities associated with inheriting sinful flesh, which is an altogether different type or source of internal foe (tendency, propensity).


Yes, our memories of sinning in the past remain to haunt and harass us after we crucify the old man and experience the miracle of rebirth. But this fact only serves to convince me they are not part of the old man; otherwise, they would have been blotted out with the death and burial of the old man. You believe we will retain these memories in heaven, right? If so, then wouldn’t that mean we will take our old man to heaven with us?

I believe the source of internal temptation, the origin of latent carnal cravings, such as drinking and smoking, in the case of born again believers who are abiding in Jesus is sinful flesh – not sinful character. As people cultivate sinful traits of character, corresponding tendencies in sinful flesh are fortified and strengthened. It is these very fortified sinful flesh tendencies that account for the fact they are tempted from within with the same intensity, with the same veracity as before they were born again.

The cultivated evil propensities associated with sinful character are eliminated when our old man is crucified. “We need not retain one sinful propensity.” (7BC 943) “The religion of Christ is to take possession of the whole being, and give force and power to all our faculties, renovating, cleansing, and refining.” (SD 100)

But the inherited evil propensities associated with sinful flesh are not eliminated until Jesus returns. “Evil propensities are to be controlled.” (CG 42) “He who has determined to enter the spiritual kingdom will find that all the powers and passions of unregenerate nature, backed by the forces of the kingdom of darkness, are arrayed against him”. (AA 476)


I’m referring to the fact there are two sources of tendencies, propensities – inherited and cultivated. People are born with the one, cultivate the other, and are born again without the latter. Jesus was born with the one, and never cultivated the other.

No, this doesn't follow. If A is a part of B, and we will not take B to us with heaven, it doesn't follow from this that we will not take A to use with heaven, which is how you're reasoning.



The memories also play a part.



Born again without sinful tendencies? Sinful tendencies do not go away in an instant. How could they?

Habits are formed by repeated actions, which are the results of choices made by wills which may or may not be sanctified. When one becomes born again, the will is sanctified, but the habits don't just disappear. One may choose not to do them, but these sinful tendencies remain, being embedded in the nervous system. It takes time to form new neurological pathways. Perhaps you would recharacterize these as "sinful flesh," but I think the heart of the matter is the idea you have that there is no difference between being born again, sanctified, or perfect (unless I've misunderstood you; you do think these are all synonymous, don't you?)



This is true.

Paul says people crucify their old man the moment they experience the miracle of rebirth, which happens before they go to heaven. Their "old man is crucified" the instant they die to self and are born again. They die and are resurrected, as it were, without the old man. The old man remains buried in the grave. Then they rise with the implanted mind and heart of the new man, they rise to newness of life.

Romans
6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

So, the question is - What constitutes the old man? What does it consist of, what is it made up of? Paul has this to say about it:

Ephesians
4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

He went on to say the following (the contrast between the old man and the new man is insightful):


Sister White took all these things into account when wrote this about the old man (please note she is speaking specifically about newborn babes in Christ, newly baptized members of the Church):

Great responsibility comes to those who have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Strive to understand the meaning of the words, "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." In the new life upon which you have entered, you are pledged to represent the life of Christ. Having put on the new man, "which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him," "put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful." {SD 300.2}

The old sinful life is dead; the new life entered into with Christ by the pledge of baptism. Practise the virtues of the Saviour's character. Let His wisdom dwell in you richly in all wisdom; "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." . . . The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." {SD 300.3}

She also says the following about the old man:


Between the Bible and the SOP it seems clear to me that the "old man" represents the former life of sinning, the sinful habits and practices people cultivated before they experienced the miracle of rebirth - true, genuine rebirth. Dozens of specific sinful habits and practices were named, each one being confessed and crucified upon being born again.

There is no evidence, however, that their memories were purged or crucified, which leads me to conclude memories are not part of the old man. That which dies with the crucifixion and burial of the old man are the former cultivated sinful habits and practices. Of course, sinful flesh remains to tempt and harass them, but these internal foes should not be confused with the dead and buried old man. Sinful flesh and sinful character (the old man) are two entirely separate aspects of human nature - at rebirth, the one remains while the other is removed, it ceases to exist, to function.

Yes, I agree, the tendencies, propensities, the momentum that results from cultivating sinful habits and practices through repetition do not go away right away. They remain to tempt people. Certain propensities die off right away while others linger and die off slowly; some never do completely die off. But these particular propensities cannot be a part of the old man. Why? Because Paul tells us that the old man is crucified and buried when people are born again. So the propensities associated with the old man die off right away.

I believe the source of internal temptation, the origin of latent carnal cravings, such as drinking and smoking (in the case of born again believers who are abiding in Jesus) is sinful flesh – not sinful character (the old man).

The cultivated evil propensities associated with sinful character are eliminated when our old man is crucified. “We need not retain one sinful propensity.” (7BC 943) “The religion of Christ is to take possession of the whole being, and give force and power to all our faculties, renovating, cleansing, and refining.” (SD 100)

But the inherited evil propensities associated with sinful flesh are not eliminated until Jesus returns. “Evil propensities are to be controlled.” (CG 42) “He who has determined to enter the spiritual kingdom will find that all the powers and passions of unregenerate nature, backed by the forces of the kingdom of darkness, are arrayed against him”. (AA 476)

People who experience the miracle of rebirth have, in light of the cross, confessed their old man habits and practices of sin, and they have crucified and buried the old man. They receive the implanted mind of the new man, which comes complete with all the righteous attributes of God's character, with all the fruits of the Spirit. The moment they are born again they are sanctified and perfect. They begin at rebirth where Jesus began at birth. Like Jesus, they begin perfect (complete) and they become perfect (mature). As babes in Christ, they grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit "more and more unto the perfect day". They advance from one stage of perfection to another, perfecting holiness unto the honor and glory of God our Father.

I think I agree with the words you wrote, although it's a bit difficult to decipher. However, I think you mean something different by them than I would. For example, I think you think that a born again person commits no sins. Not just known sins, but unknown sins as well, except for things you call "mental," the only example of which I know is the Sabbath.

Yes. God reveals our sins to us through the light of His Word. But we are not able to grasp all this light at once. Of course it’s easy to see immediately the most obvious sins: killing, stealing, lying, blasphemy, adultery, etc. But there are more subtle sins that we may not notice immediately.


But "traits" refer not only to what is developed, but also to that which we are born with.
Ellen White uses these terms interchangeably. It’s clear they are synonyms. The only possible distinction might be that the tendencies are that which is inside you, while traits might refer to the outward manifestation of these tendencies.

“Each soul inherits certain un-Christlike traits of character. It is the grand and noble work of a lifetime to keep under control these tendencies to wrong.” {HP 231.2}

“Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected. . . .” {RC 298.2}

“Every day hereditary tendencies to wrong will strive for the mastery. Every day you are to war against your objectionable traits of character, until there are left in you none of those things which need to be separated from you.”{6MR 84.3}

“No one can be omnipotent, but all can cleanse themselves from filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord. God requires every soul to be pure and holy. We have hereditary tendencies to wrong. This is a part of self that no one need carry about. It is a weakness of humanity to pet selfishness, because it is a natural trait of character. But unless all selfishness is put away, unless self is crucified, we can never be holy as God is holy. There is in humanity a tendency to suspicious imagining, which circumstances quicken into lively growth. If this trait is indulged, it spoils the character and ruins the soul.” {FLB 140.4}

The first is a definition for "trait," the second for "tendency."

I'm not sure what you agree with, Tom. Also, the "moral sins versus mental sins" concept can be summed up in the following way: instinctive versus intellectual. We are born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments. But not so with the first four commandments. These must be learned through Bible study and prayer.

Yes, we inherit traits and then we cultivate them (but not all of them). Some of them lay dormant within us until the day we die. No one person, except Jesus, can cultivate all of the traits they inherit.

Tendencies (inclinations, propensities) are also inherited and cultivated. They tempt us from within to be unlike Jesus. As we sin, we add to the momentum of sinful nature, and pass it on to our children stronger and more dreadful.

Polygamy disproves this. Polygamy is a sin against the last 6 commandments which is not instinctive.

Living with someone without being married is another one. One could hardly argue this is something someone knows by instinct is wrong. Indeed, it's not easy to prove it's wrong at all. (consider, for example, couples who plan to live together until they die; is that necessarily sin?

Rosangela's example of self-pity is another.

Another example would be using sarcasm without realizing that's what one is doing.

Another example would be confusing righteous indignation with something else.

Another example would be thinking one is speaking emphatically when one is actually yelling.

Another example would be not taking care of one's self (that is, not living healthfully; three good Adventist examples would be not getting enough exercise, partaking of two much sugar, and not getting enough rest).

Another example would be coveting. Paul was certainly not aware by instinct that this is wrong. Indeed, he says if it were not for the law, he wouldn't have known at all. Therefore it's clearly not instinctual.

Another example would be not recognizing that one is wrong, or refusing to admit such regardless of the evidence presented.

Another example would be taking the life of another in certain situations, for example, war. Is that a sin? Is this something would know instinctively? How about self-defence?

Another example would be certain types of lies, for example, white lies. If someone asks you how you are, and you say "fine," is that a sin if you're really only feeling so-so? Or if you tell someone else they look good when in reality they only look fair?

This isn't even considering sins of omissions. How about sins that one could have avoided if one had taken advantage of opportunities to learn about them? How could these possibly be considered instinctive?

How about not taking care of one's parents? Is this a sin? How about if one doesn't know whose one's parents are, but could have known if a detective had been hired? Is this a sin?

There's a thousand examples like this that could be given. There's no scriptural basis, or otherwise, to split the commandments like this. Nothing in Scripture says the first 4 commandments are "mental" but the last six are "instinctive."

Here's an excerpt from a manuscript:

Because mankind was originally made in the image and likeness of God, we are born with both a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong. “God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” (Romans 12:2) For example, we know from birth that it is morally wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, et cetera. Nobody has to tell us such things are wrong. We just know it naturally, instinctively. That’s how God programmed us from birth.

"As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. (RC 106) The human mind is endowed with power to discriminate between right and wrong. (DA 458)

Even a cursory study of feral children, humans who were raised by animals, makes it obvious that we are born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong. Without ever having been told, feral children know it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, and murder. In fact, they feel guilty when they violate any one of the last six commandments. The reason they are able to feel guilty is due to the fact humans are born with a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong.

Although we are born with a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments we are not, however, born with a mental or biblical knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the first four commandments. For example, we do not know from birth that it is morally wrong to worship false gods, to make idols, to take the Lord’s name in vain, or to violate the Sabbath day. Nor are we born with an understanding of lifestyle doctrines like diet and dress reform.

Until we learn about such things through Bible study and prayer, we unwittingly disobey them, that is, we sin ignorantly. God does not, of course, hold us responsible until we are convicted of the truth. Consequently, it is possible for someone to experience “rebirth” before they understand the first four commandments. This applies to people, like indigenous natives, who have never heard of Jesus but who live in harmony with what they know naturally from birth. They are morally but not mentally converted.

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. (Romans 2:13-15)

"Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. (DA 638)

We can also apply the principle of “morally but not mentally converted” to Christians who do not understand the truth about Sabbath keeping, or diet and dress reform, or any other doctrine which requires Bible study and prayer. In other words, a person can experience rebirth before they complete the process of converting to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded. More about this later on.

There's no reason to assert this. The only part of this that looks like it follows to me is the Sabbath. I'll mention two counter-examples. First of all, in regards to the last six commandments, Paul explicitly states that he would not have known that coveting was wrong without the law, so the last six commandments are not purely instinctive.

Regarding the first 4, Paul explicitly states that everyone knows from creation about God, and should be thankful to Him. Psalm 19 also points out that all know of God. We also know from the Spirit of Prophecy that there are those who have not known Scripture who will be saved. Therefore it is possible to have a knowledge of the first 4 commandments apart from Scripture.



This is fine. All doctrines require Bible study and prayer.

The last six commandments are written in human hearts and minds at conception, thus Paul could write what he did about covetousness.

Do you really believe people are born with a knowledge of the first four commandments? Do you mean god or God?

If the last six commandments are written in human hearts and minds at conception, Paul could *not* write what he did about covetousness. He wouldn't have needed to learn it from the law, since he would already have known it.



No, I didn't say this. However, I do really believe what I actually said. I'll repeat it for your convenience:





The Scriptures I cited speak of "God," don't you agree? (Ps. 19, Rom. 1).

When did Paul realize covetousness is a violation of the law? As a child? As a youth? As an adult? Do you really believe people can suffer the consequences of covetousness without realizing it is the source of what is causing them to feel bad and rotten?

Is there a difference between knowing something instinctively and then learning later on that the law also prohibits it? And, is there a difference between knowing something is wrong and then seeing it for the first time in light of the cross?

So, you really believe people can learn to obey the first four commandments without learning about them through Bible study and prayer? Do you also believe they can ascertain the truth about the Son of God and the plan of salvation without learning about it through Bible study and prayer?

As an adult. Paul was converted as an adult. He's talking about his conversion.



Do you really believe people can suffer the consequences of having other gods above God without realizing it is the source of what is causing them to feel bad and rotten?

At any rate, Paul said



This completely contradicts what you are saying, which is that Paul instinctively knew that covetous is sin. "For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do not covet.'"



Of course there's a difference. This is a red herring anyway, since Paul wasn't talking about learning something "also." He says he wouldn't have known it without the law. That means that he didn't know it before he learned it from the law, so he didn't know it instinctively.



Yes, of course. These are orthogonal concepts.



No, not fully, any more than they can learn to obey the last six commandments without learning about them through Bible study and prayer. Paul explicitly cites covetousness as an example.



Not fully, but a person can be saved without knowing the Scriptures, that is clear.

You seem to be saying Paul did not understand the 10th commandment before his conversion. As a learned Pharisee, what did he think it meant? It's hard to believe he was totally clueless. What changed just before he was converted? Certainly he was aware of the law before his conversion. The question is - At what point was he cognizant of it, namely, aware that covetousness is debilitating?

The following passages reiterate the idea I've been espousing, that people are born with a moral knowledge of what is right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments:

"God has written His law upon every nerve and muscle, every fiber and function of the human body. {Ev 265.4}

"His law is written by His own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every fiber of our being, upon every faculty which has been entrusted to man. {OHC 266.2}

"As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. (RC 106)

"The human mind is endowed with power to discriminate between right and wrong. (DA 458)

"Every careless, inattentive action, any abuse put upon the Lord's wonderful mechanism, by disregarding His specified laws in the human habitation, is a violation of God's law. wonderful. {CD 17.2}

Paul would have been aware of the sinfulness of selfish, sinful desires. No one is ignorant of the fact such desires are destructive and counterproductive. From a very early age people are able to put two and two together, realizing that coveting the things other people have, knowing they cannot have it without taking it by force, makes them feel lousy.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." {PP 309.4}

"The tenth commandment strikes at the very root of all sins, prohibiting the selfish desire, from which springs the sinful act. He who in obedience to God's law refrains from indulging even a sinful desire for that which belongs to another will not be guilty of an act of wrong toward his fellow creatures. {PP 309.5}

PS - I'm going to be away again for awhile. See ya when I get back.

Tom, you seem to be saying Paul did not understand the 10th commandment before his conversion. As a learned Pharisee, what did he think it meant? It's hard to believe he was totally clueless. What changed just before he was converted? Certainly he was aware of the law before his conversion. The question is - At what point was he cognizant of it, namely, aware that covetousness is debilitating?

The following passages reiterate the idea I've been espousing, that people are born with a moral knowledge of what is right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments:

"God has written His law upon every nerve and muscle, every fiber and function of the human body. {Ev 265.4}

"His law is written by His own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every fiber of our being, upon every faculty which has been entrusted to man. {OHC 266.2}

"As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. (RC 106)

"The human mind is endowed with power to discriminate between right and wrong. (DA 458)

"Every careless, inattentive action, any abuse put upon the Lord's wonderful mechanism, by disregarding His specified laws in the human habitation, is a violation of God's law. wonderful. {CD 17.2}

Paul would have been aware of the sinfulness of selfish, sinful desires. No one is ignorant of the fact such desires are destructive and counterproductive. From a very early age people are able to put two and two together, realizing that coveting the things other people have, knowing they cannot have it without taking it by force, makes them feel lousy.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." {PP 309.4}

"The tenth commandment strikes at the very root of all sins, prohibiting the selfish desire, from which springs the sinful act. He who in obedience to God's law refrains from indulging even a sinful desire for that which belongs to another will not be guilty of an act of wrong toward his fellow creatures. {PP 309.5}

MM, Paul said he would not have not known covetousness if it weren't for the commandment which said, "Thou shalt not covet." How do get from this the idea that Paul didn't understand the 10th commandment before his conversion?



This one doesn't. It is no way distinguishes between the first 4 and last 6 commandments.



Nor this one, for the same reason. Ditto for the next 2.



This may be your opinion, MM, but it doesn't agree with what Paul actually said himself, right? Paul said:



This is pretty much the exact opposite of your idea, isn't it?

I don't know why you quoted PP 309.

Anyway, none of the statements you quoted in any way supports your assertion that the last 6 commandments are instinctive and the first 4 ones aren't, right? Take this one, for example:



Wouldn't you have to interpret "His law" as "the last table of His law" in order to agree with your idea?

Tom, my question to you is - At what point in Paul's life was he aware of the debilitating affects of covetousness?

Also, I agree with you that the quotes I posted do not differentiate between the two tables of the law. But they do clearly teach that the law of God is written within us from birth. Reality teaches us which commandments are known from birth without having to read them in the Bible.

"debilitating affects of covetousness". What is this?

Paul said he would not have known covetousness if not for the law. Isn't this the direct opposite of what you've been saying?



This hasn't been disputed. What's under dispute is your theory that the first 4 commandments are not instinctive but the last 6 are. Indeed, the quotes you presented, as well as your comments here, are further evidence against your theory.

People who covet things they can't have are miserable, it is debilitating. When did Paul realize coveting things he couldn't have was one of the sources of his debilitating unrest and unhappiness? When did he put two-and-two together, that is, when did he see in the law the relationship between coveting and feeling miserable? Was it before he became a Pharisee? Before he became an adult? Before he become a youth? Did he know it instinctively from birth? When?

The point of this thread is to address the question - Are we born again with uncrucified, cultivated sinful habits?

I'm not talking about sins of ignorance. In other words, I'm not talking about the fact many sincere believers are born again ignorant of the truth about Sabbath-keeping. Nobody knows from birth, nobody knows instinctively that the Son of God died on the cross to impress and empower believers to keep holy the Sabbath day, to avoid taking His name in vain, to avoid fashioning icons to represent Him.

However, everyone able person of sound mind and body knows instinctively from birth not to murder, not to steal, not to lie, not to commit adultery, not to dishonor their parents, and not to covet. These aspects of the law were written on every fiber of their being at conception.

True, not everyone can articulate this fact until after they see it in the Bible, nevertheless, they know they feel miserable when they violate anyone of them. That is, before they see it in the Bible they would not be able to say, "The reason I feel miserable when I do this or that is because it is forbidden in the law of God, because we were not designed to sin, to break the law of God."

I don't understand why you are asking all these questions about when Paul knew what regarding covetousness. My point was simply that Paul said that he would not have known covetousness if not for the law, which is directly contrary to what you've been saying, which is that he instinctively knew about it, since it's one of the last six commandments.



Not Paul!



The biggest flaw I perceive in your theory is the separation you make between the first 4 commandments and the last 6. For example, the quote you presented from EGW speaking of the law being in every fiber of our being makes no such distinction.

You are assuming Paul did not have the 10th commandment written on his heart and mind at conception and that that is why he knew the law forbade coveting. Paul was a Jew, thus, he knew about the 10th commandment from very early on.

Even if people cannot explain coveting violates the 10th commandment, they are, nevertheless, cognizant of the fact coveting makes them miserable. People are wired from conception to feel miserable when they covet, when they break any one of the 10Cs.

There is a difference, though, between the first 4 and last 6 commandments so far as people knowing instinctively what makes them miserable. IOW, they are not able to identify breaking the 4th commandment as a source of what makes them miserable. OTOH, they are instinctively aware coveting makes them miserable, even though they do not know why, even though they do not understand it's because they are violating one of God's commandments.

God designed us to feel bad and miserable whenever we violate one of His commandments. It matters not that people do not understand breaking the law is what makes them miserable.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just taking Paul at his word. He said he would not have known coveting if not for the law.

This is diametrically opposed to your theory, right?

The rest of your post you simply reassert your ideas, but don't offer any proof. Why do you distinguish between the first 4 commandments and the last 6? The EGW quote you cited earlier includes all 10.

I, too, am taking Paul at his word. You seem to think, though, that he's not talking about knowing it instinctively, knowing by experience that coveting somehow breaks one of the commandments of life and living. You seem to think he's only referring to when he learned about it sometime later on in life, when he learned about it from his mother and father as a child.

I'm saying people realize coveting makes them miserable early on in life, before they learn about it through Bible study and prayer. True, they wouldn't know it except for the fact the law was written in every nerve and fiber of their physical and emotional being at conception and birth. Paul speaks of the law written in our flesh in the following passages:

"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God." Rom 6:13. "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness." Verse 19.

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." Rom 7:5. "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Verse 23. "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Verse 25.

I am also saying this fact is true of each one of the ten commandments - not just the last six. God designed us to feel bad and miserable whenever we violate one of His commandments. It matters not that people do not understand breaking the law of God is what makes them miserable.

In the case of feeling miserable because they are breaking the first half of the law, they are incapable of identifying the cause of their misery before learning about it through Bible study and prayer. But when they break the last half of the law, they are able to identify and articulate the behaviors that make them feel miserable. The shelves are full of secular books on the subject.

For example, people know naturally that dishonoring their parents makes them feel weird and miserable. People know instinctively that murder, adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting are wrong and leave them feeling miserable when they fail to resist committing them. There is no shortage of worldly books and therapists to verify these findings and observations.

How so? Paul says



This seems like the exact opposite of your position. You say Paul knew about covetousness instinctively. He says he would not have known it unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

What am I missing here?



I agree with this.



I disagree with this. Paul said he wouldn't have known covetousness except the law said, "You shall not covet."



Yes, but they're all wrong. It's only through "Bible study and prayer," to use your expression, that the cause can be correctly identified. The way I would put it is that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, so only by the Spirit of God can the cause be correctly identified. What is the cause for their misery? Not knowing Christ. The sins are simply an outward manifestation of the real cause of their misery.



First of all, your use of the word "instinctively " is too facile. People know things by a combination of genetics and environment. It's very difficult to distinguish between the two, and only God could apportion them correctly, but there's no doubt that both instinct and learning are involved.

Secondly, your point would equally apply to the first four commandments (excluding the Sabbath). People know that using God's name in vain is wrong. People know it's wrong not to acknowledge God and to be thankful to him. Paul makes this point in Romans 1.

So there's no reason to make a distinction between the first four commandments and the last six (except for the fourth, which is clearly unique).

The law spoke to him in several different ways - 1) through every fiber and function of his being, 2) through his parents, and 3) through the Bible. Again, here is how she describes the first of these ways:

EV 265
God has written His law upon every nerve and muscle, every fiber and function of the human body. {Ev 265.4}

OHC 266
His law is written by His own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every fiber of our being, upon every faculty which has been entrusted to man. {OHC 266.2}

TE 213
All nature expresses the law of God, but in our physical structure Jehovah has written His law with His own finger upon every thrilling nerve, upon every living fiber, and upon every organ of the body. {Te 213.5}

In Romans 7 Paul is describing the spiritual aspects of the law. This aspect didn't dawn on him until later on. Listen:

SC 29
Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem was gone. {SC 29.3}


Again, he knew it because of the fruit it produced, namely, he felt miserable. Plus, he knew it because his parents told him from the time he was old enough to comprehend it. But in cases where people haven't been told about the 10th commandment they are still able to put two and two together, that is, they know from experience that coveting something that's not theirs to have makes them feel miserable. No one has to read about it in the Bible before they come to this conclusion, as if learning about it in the Bible is what makes them feel miserable. They feel miserable because that's how God designed them. Surely you agree with this insight?


True, most secular books do not teach that the reason people feel miserable when they covet what's not theirs to have is because God designed them that way. But they correctly teach that coveting makes people feel miserable. Do you agree?


I agree. But this is true whether they realize it or not. The reason they are able to identify covetousness as the cause of their misery is because the Holy Spirit is wooing them.


True, not knowing and abiding in Jesus makes us miserable. But so does covetousness. Are you saying covetousness is one of the inevitable fruits of not knowing Jesus? Are all non-believers covetous by default?


I'm glad you agree.


How do they know? If both instinct and learning are required, as you observed above, how would they know the truth about God if they hadn't read about Him in the Bible? Can they learn about God through the natural world? If so, please cite a tribe that correctly concluded the truth about God through studying nature alone. Most tribes have concluded there are many gods, and they are terrified of them. Listen as Sister White talks about it:

CG 47
Only in the light that shines from Calvary can nature's teaching be read aright. {CG 47.3}

SC 10
God has bound our hearts to Him by unnumbered tokens in heaven and in earth. Through the things of nature, and the deepest and tenderest earthly ties that human hearts can know, He has sought to reveal Himself to us. Yet these but imperfectly represent His love. Though all these evidences have been given, the enemy of good blinded the minds of men, so that they looked upon God with fear; they thought of Him as severe and unforgiving. Satan led men to conceive of God as a being whose chief attribute is stern justice,--one who is a severe judge, a harsh, exacting creditor. He pictured the Creator as a being who is watching with jealous eye to discern the errors and mistakes of men, that He may visit judgments upon them. It was to remove this dark shadow, by revealing to the world the infinite love of God, that Jesus came to live among men. {SC 10.3}

Only the spiritual aspects of the law matter. This is all I've ever been talking about. If a person keeps the law in a spiritual manner, all is well. If he doesn't, he is condemned.

So we are agreed then that from a spiritual standpoint it is not the case that people know the last six commandments instinctively?



This is what I've been saying all along, from my very first post on the subject. I'm glad *you* agree!

The whole time I've been arguing against a theory that says:

a.The first four commandments are learned.
b.The last six are instinctive.

My position has been (again, starting from my first post on this subject) that commandments from both tables (with the Sabbath being a special case) involve both instinct and learning.

SC 29
Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem was gone. {SC 29.3}


Correct. No one knows instinctively that the law condemns sinners and that if they do not repent they will be resurrected, judged, and punished in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness in the lake of fire.

I'm glad we agree, but this isn't what I've been sharing. Again, here is what I believe:

1. People are born with the law of God written on every nerve and function of their physical being.

2. People know instinctively that dishonoring their parents, murder, adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting makes them feel miserable.

3. People feel miserable violating the first four commandments but they cannot identify the cause or source until they learn about it through Bible study and prayer.

And, the reason I have been sharing these insights is to say it is impossible to violate the second half of God's law without realizing it makes them feel miserable and is, therefore, morally wrong. Sins of ignorance can only apply to the first half of the law.

Ok, good, because this is what I've been speaking of when I've been saying that it is not the case that the last six commandments are known instinctively.



Well, this is a different subject. You could open a thread to discuss this.



Ok, so when you've been speaking about the last six commandments being known instinctively, you've been thinking in a non-spiritual sense.



This would be spiritual, though, wouldn't it? So we can throw this out.



What you are asserting here, it seems to me, is that people know that when they do certain things, like coveting, that doing so makes them miserable. They know they are miserable if they do any of the things included in the last six commanments, but they don't know they are miserable if they do any of the things in the first four commandments. This is what you're saying, right?



This seems to contradict Romans 1, where Paul says that people are condemned because they are not thankful to God.



This implies that anything that makes you feel miserable is morally wrong. Do you really believe this to be the case?



This seems worthy of a thread. I'll see if there's any interest in discussing this.

No. They sense an emptiness, which makes them feel miserable, but they are unable to identify why, nor can they articulate what the source of their misery and emptiness is. IOW, they could not say, The reason I'm miserable is because I have other gods.

But you would say that this doesn't apply to the last six commandments, right? That is, if they covet they have a sense an emptiness, which makes them feel miserable, which they could identify: "I feel miserable because I covet!"

Some questions and comments.

1.Paul says he wouldn't have known covetousness if not for the law. So it's not something he knew by instinct.

2.Even if it were granted that people could identify their miserableness as being due to coveting, what makes you think this is something instinctive as opposed to learned?

3.You assumption that people cannot identify why they feel empty if their emptiness is due to the first 4 commandments looks to be contradicted:



This says they suppress the truth, that they know of God's divine nature, and that the reason that they know the truth is because God has made it plain to them.

4.The difficulty I've seen with your position the whole time is you make two (what look to me to be) artificial and unfounded assumptions for which you offer no proof in saying that men know the last 6 commandments instinctively but not the first 4.

The first is to want to make a clean separation between instinct and learning. The truth is that what man knows is a combination of instinct and learning.

The second is to make a distinction between the first 4 commandments and the last 6.

I haven't seen any evidence presented for either of these ideas.

Again, people are born with the law of God written upon every nerve and function. That's the proof. We both agree with this inspired insight. Where we disagree is whether or not people can instinctively identify the cause of what makes them feel miserable. We both agree it requires both instinct and learning. You make no distinction between the first and second half of the law (excluding the Sabbath commandment). What I'm not clear on is why you think people know naturally the first three commandments. How do they arrive at these truths?

If the statement said people were born with the last table of the law of God written upon every nerve and function, that would be evidence. As it is, the statement is evidence against your position, as it includes both tables of the law, whereas you only include one.



This is something you just introduced recently. For either commandments in the first or second table a person will have some instinctive knowledge that what they are doing is wrong, and some learned. It's simplistic to say for the last table the causes are 100% identifiable instinctively.

Polygamy is an example that this isn't the case. People seem not to know instinctively this is wrong. Also living with someone without being married. It would seem absurd to assert that one would know this is wrong, since that would imply one knows by instinct what marriage is. Surely marriage is something one learns about.



From the SOP statement that the law is written on every nerve and function. Also from Romans 1, which I've already quoted several times.

Let me clarify what I believe. I believe the law of God, all ten commandments, including the fourth, is written upon every fiber and function of our being from conception. People instinctively feel bad when their life is in any way not in harmony with all ten of the commandments, including the fourth.


People are born with an instinctive need for a monogamous relationship. True, they are not born with an instinctive need to get married in a church, or in accordance with one of the many different cultural customs. People also instinctively know it is wrong to have more than one wife when the situation doesn't demand it.


Please cite an example of people arriving at these truths who have never read the Bible, whose beliefs cannot be traced back to biblical truths. Thank you.

Good; this isn't distinguishing between the two tables of the law.



Here's a statement from the SOP:



So given that circumstances never demand things contrary to God's will or things He never sanctions, then we should be able to rule out this exception.

Besides this, your statement doesn't make sense. Take a look at what you said:



Knowing when a situation does or does not demand polygamy (assuming such a thing were possible) wouldn't be something instinctive. It would be something learned.



The Desire of Ages speaks of heathen who risked their lives to help missionaries sent from God, before they had read anything from the Bible. Also for 2,000 years that Bible didn't exists, so everyone from Adam to Moses would be an example to those who have never read the Bible.

Regarding your statement about their beliefs not being able to be traced back to Bible beliefs, I don't believe this to be the case. That is, what your asking me to provide an example for is not something I believe to be true.

True. But what I'm asking is - Cite an example of people arriving at the truths contained in the first three commandments without 1) learning about it through tradition, 2) through the contact with missionaries, 3) through contact with holy angels, 4) through a vision or dream from God, or 5) through reading the Bible.

Why should I do this, MM? I've never asserted anything like this. Also, none of these things helps support your idea. I've not argued against the idea that God teaches things in regards to His commandments. I've argued against the distinction you make between the first table of the law and the second. You've produce no evidence for the distinctions you've made.

For example, you asserted that no sin of ignorance involves the second table of the law. I know of no one other than yourself who believes this.

This is the closest you've come to answering my question without actually answering it. What do you believe. Did the heathens you cited arrive at the truths under the circumstances I outlined above? If not, why did you reference them in response to my question? What was your point?

Regarding my point, you've said that no one could know obey the first four commandments without the Bible, so I disproved this by citing two examples, both of which you agreed with. One was the people who lived before Moses, and the other are those who have never heard of the Bible, like the heathen I referenced from "The Desire of Ages."

Now you are asking a different question, with a whole bunch of extra conditions. I think before moving on to a new claim, it would be good to recognize that your first statement was incorrect.

Regarding your new claim, you seem to have assumed I disagree with it, but I've not comment regarding it. Actually your new claim is an implied one, from the request you made. You seem to think I disagree with it, since your asking me to cite an example. But I don't know why you're doing this, as I've never made any statement in regards to this.

What do these two examples disprove? Are you suggesting they prove people can arrive at the truths contained in the first three commandments without the Bible, without missionaries? If so, how? And, please cite a real example. Heathens being nice to missionaries does not constitute knowing the first three commandments. And Gentiles living in harmony with their conscience and convictions does not constitute knowing the first three commandments.

They disprove your assertion. ("MM: Please cite an example of people arriving at these truths who have never read the Bible")



No, I was disproving your assertion.



The principle goes deeper than what it looks like you're suggesting:



What are "His principles"? They are that which is embodied in the 10 commanmdments. Because they live in harmony with these principles, they will not perish.

Can you or can you not cite an example of people arriving at the truths contained in the first three commandments without 1) learning about it through tradition, 2) through contact with missionaries, 3) through contact with holy angels, 4) through a vision or dream from God, or 5) through reading the Bible.

This is what I meant all along when I first asked it. Can you think of an example? I'm not saying you can or even believe it's possible. I'm asking because I don't know your answer.

On another note - How did the heathen she wrote about arrive at living in harmony with the principles as outline in the first three commandments before coming in contact with the missionaries?

I don't understand why you're asking this. You made a statement regarding the Bible only, which was false. I demonstrated this statement was false. Please either acknowledge that or make some counter-argument in regards to my argument.

Before asking me for examples of something, the reason for such examples should be established. If I had disagreed with some statement you made where you asserted these things, then it would make sense for you to ask for a counter-example. But you've neither made such a statement nor have I disputed any such statement. So I don't see the sense in your asking for an example here.



Well this isn't even close to what you said. The way I would put it is that God communicates the truth to others by His Spirit. That might or might not involve the Bible. This seems like you're saying the same thing.

We've gotten off course a bit. Please comment on post 102604.

Tom, here's the history of my question:


Do you really believe the people who lived before Moses recorded the oral Bible did not have the "Bible"? What is the difference between having the Bible in hand and having it in mind?

Also, have you ever heard of tribes whose beliefs can be traced through oral tradition back to biblical times? In other words, they were aware of certain biblical truths which would be impossible to know unless they were passed down from generation to generation beginning at biblical times.

At any rate, you weren't understanding my original question, so I restated it, clarifying precisely what I meant. Now you seem to be unwilling to answer it. Why? I did not mean to imply you agree with any part of the question. I asked it because I have no idea what you believe.

You also seem to think you've unequivocally debunked something I believe. But I don't believe what you disproved. You're misunderstanding of my question led you to this unfortunate conclusion. Do you see why I felt it was necessary to clarify my question? Please, Tom, try to understand what I'm asking so we can discuss the issue. Thank you.

PS - The point of my question is to ascertain whether or not you believe it is possible to arrive at the truths contained in the first three commandments in a way not excluded in my question. Is there a way to arrive at these truths that I didn't list in my question?

Okay.


I agree.


I agree. What they know instinctively is that it is wrong to have more than one wife. A situation that would require having more than one wife is if there were not enough men capable of procreating.

Often when missionaries go to tribal areas, and explain that polygamy is contrary to Scripture, this is very confusing to them. They certainly don't have the idea, "Oh, right. I always knew this was wrong."

They have to be taught what the Scripture teaches in regards to polygamy every bit as much as being taught in regards to the Sabbath.

Out of curiosity, what reason do you have for asserting this is something known instinctively?

Tom, please comment on post #102822 on this thread. Thank you.

Abraham didn't. He was a heathen.



No, I understood it. Here was your request:



There's nothing difficult to understand about this. Then you came up with a totally new request:



To say you restated it, clarifying precisely what you meant, is like me making asking you, "Cite an example not by Paul" and you do, and then I say, "I meant to say, cite an example that's not by Paul or Mark or John or Luke or Peter."



You ask me to do something without explaining why, and I do so. Then, rather than asknowledging that you were wrong in your assertion, you come up with another one, without explaining why you want this one. You say you have no idea what I believe. I don't see why. I've been very clear. I've stated that God communicates to people through His Spirit and the Bible may or may not be involved.



No, I "debunked" what you wrote. If you claim what you wrote isn't what you believe, then I haven't debunked that. I can only go on the basis of what you write down, not what's in your head.

Are you sure you want to maintain that Abraham was a heathen, that he didn't have the oral Bible? Listen:

"After the dispersion from Babel idolatry again became well-nigh universal, and the Lord finally left the hardened transgressors to follow their evil ways, while He chose Abraham, of the line of Shem, and made him the keeper of His law for future generations. Abraham had grown up in the midst of superstition and heathenism. Even his father's household, by whom the knowledge of God had been preserved, were yielding to the seductive influences surrounding them, and they "served other gods" than Jehovah. But the true faith was not to become extinct. God has ever preserved a remnant to serve Him. Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Shem, in unbroken line, had preserved from age to age the precious revealings of His will. The son of Terah became the inheritor of this holy trust. Idolatry invited him on every side, but in vain. Faithful among the faithless, uncorrupted by the prevailing apostasy, he steadfastly adhered to the worship of the one true God. "The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth." Psalm 145:18. He communicated His will to Abraham, and gave him a distinct knowledge of the requirements of His law and of the salvation that would be accomplished through Christ. {PP 125.1}


Are you going to answer my new question? The first one didn't convey what I wanted to ask. Please disregard the first question from now on. It doesn't ask what I want to ask. The new question does.


How does the Holy Spirit communicate to people the truths contained in the first half of the law without using the oral or written Bible or any of the other ways I list in my new question? That's what I really want to know. I'm sorry my previous question caused so much confusion. I did not ask what I wanted to ask. I made a mistake in not clearly asking what I wanted to know.

I should have worded my question more precisely. But I didn't. Hopefully the new question clearly asks what I want to know. I didn't mean to assert that God cannot communicate truth without the written Bible.

I believe God communicates truth to people through the oral Bible, through the written Bible, through religious tracts, pamphlets, and books, through missionaries, through angels, and through visions and dreams.

But I have never heard of a legitimate, bonafide account of people who have had zero contact with Christianity, who have no traditions whose origins can be traced back to biblical times, who arrived at the truths contained in the first half of the law of God. The three examples you cited are not verifiable.


Debunked what I wrote you did! I confess before you and God that my first attempt at asking what I wanted to know failed to convey what I wanted to know. Hopefully you'll be willing to address my new question.

I have never read accounts of missionaries teaching people that polygamy is a sin and it being confusing to them. Do you know of any legitimate reports?

The reason I say people know instinctively it is wrong to have more than one wife when circumstances do not warrant it is because that's how God wired people from the beginning. He writes the law upon every fiber and function.

Here's an interesting link to an online book dealing with "toleration" as it applies to missionaries encountering polygamy. It starts at the bottom of page 10:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XgzexEv...lt#PRA1-PA10,M1

Regarding Abraham, much of what would become the Bible was what God revealed to him. He would have known about creation and the flood, but that's just a few chapters of Genesis.



Are you dealing with how God communicates with men? Are you asking if the list you gave covers everything? If so, it looks like you left off God communicating through nature, and also the Holy Spirit communicating directly without a dream or vision. Actually, think this is how God most commonly communicates with people during the process of conversion. I suppose one could call it a vision though; it depends on how loosely one uses that term.

Another thought that comes to mind are things written which are not Scripture.



You're speaking too strongly here. All you can accurately state is that you haven't been able to verify them so far. I provided more information.

At any rate, Romans 1 tells us this is true for everyone, so that's good enough. Psalm 19 also.

You've suggested in the past that those in Romans 1 (around vs. 20) knew Scripture, but this goes contrary to Paul's argument, which is that all, without exception, are guilty.

TE: Abraham ... was a heathen.

MM: Are you sticking to your story? I ask because she wrote, "Faithful among the faithless, uncorrupted by the prevailing apostasy, he steadfastly adhered to the worship of the one true God." Does this sound like a heathen to you?

...

MM: I believe God communicates truth to people through the oral Bible, through the written Bible, through religious tracts, pamphlets, and books, through missionaries, through angels, and through visions and dreams.

TE: Another thought that comes to mind are things written which are not Scripture.

MM: I already listed that one.

...

TE: If so, it looks like you left off God communicating through nature, and also the Holy Spirit communicating directly without a dream or vision.

MM: Ellen made it clear that people cannot read nature aright without a knowledge of the plan of salvation. They end up worshiping the creature rather than they Creator. Or, do you know of people who arrived at the truths contained in the first half of the law solely through nature without previous knowledge of the plan of salvation?

Also, what is an example of the Holy Spirit communicating directly rather than through dreams and visions? What doe she mean, "Ever since Adam's sin, the human race had been cut off from direct communion with God ..." {DA 116.2}

...

TE: You've suggested in the past that those in Romans 1 (around vs. 20) knew Scripture, but this goes contrary to Paul's argument, which is that all, without exception, are guilty.

MM: Here's what she wrote about the people Paul describes in Romans 1:

The children of Seth went "in the way of Cain" (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of the Lord. Men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge;" they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:21. Therefore "God gave them over to a mind void of judgment." Verse 28, margin. Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy. {PP 81.2}

And as men became bolder in sin, the knowledge and the love of God faded from their minds and hearts. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God," they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." {5T 738.2}

Solomon had great learning; but his wisdom was foolishness; for he did not know how to stand in moral independence, free from sin, in the strength of a character molded after the divine similitude. Solomon has told us the result of his research, his painstaking efforts, his persevering inquiry. He pronounces his wisdom altogether vanity. . . "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" (Rom. 1:22, 23). {1SM 249.2}

[Rom 1:25, 21 quoted] So in Israel, man's teaching had been put in the place of God's. Not only the things of nature, but the sacrificial service and the Scriptures themselves--all given to reveal God--were so perverted that they became the means of concealing Him. {COL 18.2}

Cite an example of people arriving at the truths contained in the first half of the law without learning about it 1) through tradition, 2) through the contact with missionaries, 3) through contact with holy angels, 4) through a vision or dream from God, 5) through reading the Bible, or 6) through religious tracts, pamphlets, and books.

The examples you gave, whether verifiable or not, demonstrate God revealing truths through dreams or visions. If the truths contained in the first half of the law can be learned in ways not listed above please cite an example. Thank you.

PS - Ellen made it clear that nature cannot be read aright apart from a saving knowledge of Christ and Him crucified. Thus, it is hard to imagine people arriving at the truths contained in the first half of the law by observing the natural world.

MM, I have no idea why you are asking this. It seems like you just have a list of ways that God can communicate with us, and when I think of something you left out, you add that to your list. What's the use of this list? What's the point? Why can't we just stipulate like Scripture does that "God, at sundry times and in divers manners" speaks to us?

I guess another item that comes to mind is one can be instructed by ones parents, or by whomever one is raised. Or one can be influenced by another person whom one holds in respect.

Regarding the P.S. just because one cannot read nature completely correctly (i.e. "read it aright") without a saving knowledge of Christ does not mean that God does not use nature to communicate to men, or that men can learning nothing at all from nature. The point of her quote is that nature is not, of itself, sufficient. But its not being sufficient of itself does not mean it has no effect at all. I took this into account when including it.

Because you seem to believe people can read nature aright and at arrive at the truths contained in the first half of the law. I am not as convinced as you seem to be that this has ever happened. It goes to prove my point, which is - It is impossible to live in harmony with the first half of the law without learning about it first through one or more of the means and methods I listed above. Not only is nature not "of itself sufficient" it is impossible.

However, the fact people know instinctively, without ever having learned about it through the means and methods I listed above, it makes them miserable when they do things contrary to the last half of the law. IOW, they know dishonoring their parents, murdering someone, cheating on their spouse, stealing, lying, and coveting makes them miserable.

TE: Abraham ... was a heathen.

MM: Are you sticking to your story? I ask because she wrote, "Faithful among the faithless, uncorrupted by the prevailing apostasy, he steadfastly adhered to the worship of the one true God." Does this sound like a heathen to you?

...

MM: I believe God communicates truth to people through the oral Bible, through the written Bible, through religious tracts, pamphlets, and books, through missionaries, through angels, and through visions and dreams.

TE: Another thought that comes to mind are things written which are not Scripture.

MM: I already listed that one.

...

TE: If so, it looks like you left off God communicating through nature, and also the Holy Spirit communicating directly without a dream or vision.

MM: Ellen made it clear that people cannot read nature aright without a knowledge of the plan of salvation. They end up worshiping the creature rather than they Creator. Or, do you know of people who arrived at the truths contained in the first half of the law solely through nature without previous knowledge of the plan of salvation?

Also, what is an example of the Holy Spirit communicating directly rather than through dreams and visions? What doe she mean, "Ever since Adam's sin, the human race had been cut off from direct communion with God ..." {DA 116.2}

...

TE: You've suggested in the past that those in Romans 1 (around vs. 20) knew Scripture, but this goes contrary to Paul's argument, which is that all, without exception, are guilty.

MM: Here's what she wrote about the people Paul describes in Romans 1:

The children of Seth went "in the way of Cain" (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of the Lord. Men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge;" they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:21. Therefore "God gave them over to a mind void of judgment." Verse 28, margin. Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy. {PP 81.2}

And as men became bolder in sin, the knowledge and the love of God faded from their minds and hearts. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God," they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." {5T 738.2}

Solomon had great learning; but his wisdom was foolishness; for he did not know how to stand in moral independence, free from sin, in the strength of a character molded after the divine similitude. Solomon has told us the result of his research, his painstaking efforts, his persevering inquiry. He pronounces his wisdom altogether vanity. . . "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" (Rom. 1:22, 23). {1SM 249.2}

[Rom 1:25, 21 quoted] So in Israel, man's teaching had been put in the place of God's. Not only the things of nature, but the sacrificial service and the Scriptures themselves--all given to reveal God--were so perverted that they became the means of concealing Him. {COL 18.2}

I don't remember what the context is here (of our discussion). Anyone before being converted is technically a heathen:





I addressed this. Nature is not sufficient of itself, but nature is certainly used by God to communicate to man. You're not disputing this, are you?



I made very clear I wasn't speaking of "solely through".







She means God does not communion with man as He did with Adam, where they walked each day.

Regarding Romans 1, we don't need Ellen White to interpret what Paul wrote! Paul told us himself!



Just who would be left out by this? If the wrath of God is revealed against "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men," this covers everyone. That should be clear.

So when Paul explain why:



This includes everyone as well.

Now if that weren't enough, Paul says:



Paul's argument is universal. He starts in Romans 1 and continues through Romans 3 to show the universal need for Christ.

Back to Ellen White, your argument appears to be that because Ellen White applied Romans 1 to some specific person that what Paul wrote should be limited to the example Ellen White provided. A little thought should show this is not the case. For example, Ellen White applied "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," to Nicodemus. Should we conclude from this that this only applies to him? Or that it only applies to people who have access to the Bible?