Will we continue to sin till we die.?

Will we continue to sin till we die.?

I was reading something that really surprised me, as I have always looked as sin as something that as we are transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit can be overcome, and we become dead to sin. Yet here was a brother Adventists saying that we all will sin until the day we die. Here is a the relevant part:

"We all will sin until the day we die. That is clear. We WILL continue to live a life of sin. We will also have victories. The power is there. There is NO excuse to sin as Ellen White puts it. But we are sinners. And Jesus died for sinners. He did not die for those who have achieved a life without sin. He died for those who 'believe' in Him."

So what about Enoch and Elijah, did they contine to sin until the day they were taken up.......

Lessons from John:
1) He who is born of God cannot sin.
2) If we say we have no sin, we lie.

No.

My brothers,

Are we a bit afraid to speak on this subject, I sense hesitation? A response I agree with was the following, "I think we can get to a point in life where we will hate sin so much that the likelihood we will continue in it is slim. But that's not to say that we will never sin again."

The Holy Spirit will transform us to the point that we will be dead to sin, and hate sin and no longer sit idle near sin as the tempter looks for a way to pull us into his domain. But some may ask, when will this happen.

Its kind of like my back spasms and excruciating pain from a pinched nerve, I asked my doctor when it would clear up and go away so I could lift more than a slice of toast. And he said it could take a long time but if I did the theraphy and special excercizes I would come to a point where I no longer noticed it, and he was right. I cant pinpoint when it finally stopped hurting but everyone noticed when I no longer was dragging one leg and grunting at each step...and let me tell you I truly was a different man being painfree from the one that was in terrible pain.

I think I have to agree with your statement. For sure ... I haven't noticed any saints free from sin before they die. I see saints freely forgiven. But not free from sin. From what I have studied ... that part comes at the second coming. Perhaps just before Jesus comes there will be some who will be the Enochs of their time. A special group who honor God. But I don't see that as a requirement for salvation.

Maybe it has to do with ones definition of what sin is. Is sin just an act like adultry or is it lust? I think this issue has been discussed a time or two. Im not sure we know enough of Enoch to say he stopped sinning do we? Maybe he was made perfect in his faith. Ill believe in perfectionism when I see the first perfect person. The point is none can be perfect thats why Jesus came down to do it for us as our substitute. I think Paul explains the internal struggle we will continue to go through the rest of our earthly lives in Romans 7:14-25.

Aaron

Thats the thing, I have seen saints who were dead to sin, having the Mind of Christ, and I cannot judge but I dare say having Christ in them and they in Christ. So it leaves me a bit confused when others say we cannot overcome sin, that is the whole point of accepting Christ and being transformed by the Holy Spirit, is it not?

Does one have to work at being free from sin or is it something that just happens?

Here's an EGW quote on the subject I like:



The context is a discussion of "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48. EGW defines perfection as being like Christ.

I think thinking of things as being like Christ as opposed to overcoming sin is a more positive, and more successful, approach. How do we become like Christ? By contemplating Christ we transformed into the same image.

This is the example that I use to explain it..

You fall in love with the love of your life, and all of a sudden those old flames and flings with lovers dont have the same look to it. The desire to call them for a hookup seems to fade, the little black book goes untouched, and when they come and try to entice you for a one night stand, you dont even bat a eyelash of interest.

So what has changed, the old lovers still look the same, their flirtations is the same as ever, their easy virtue flaunted for all to see....What is different that you no longer are tempted by the these old lovers. Figure that out and you have your answer...

The obedience that Christ rendered, God requires from human beings today. (COL 282)

Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God’s commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all His precepts. (6BC 1118)

“If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword." These words are true. Exact obedience is required, and those who say that it is not possible to live a perfect life throw upon God the imputation of injustice and untruth. (1MR 369)

The tempter's agency is not to be accounted an excuse for one wrong act. Satan is jubilant when he hears the professed followers of Christ making excuses for their deformity of character. It is these excuses that lead to sin. There is no excuse for sinning. A holy temper, a Christlike life, is accessible to every repenting, believing child of God. {DA 311}

Let no one say, I cannot remedy my defects of character. If you come to this decision, you will certainly fail of obtaining everlasting life. The impossibility lies in your own will. If you will not, then you can not overcome. The real difficulty arises from the corruption of an unsanctified heart, and an unwillingness to submit to the control of God. {COL 331.2}

The commandments of God are exceeding broad, and the Lord is not pleased to have His children disorderly, to have their lives marred by defects and their religious experience crippled, their growth in grace dwarfed, because they persist in cherishing hereditary and cultivated deficiencies in wrong habits that will be imitated by others and thus be perpetuated. If the grace of Christ cannot remedy these defects, what then constitutes transformation of character? {TMK 157.4}

Hey MM,

If Jesus was telling the truth when he said that we would be judged by the same criteria we set for others then you might want to lighten up a little! You could be in real trouble!



scott

Did Jesus set up a standard other than "turn from your evil ways and live"? Does Jesus require something other than obeying His teachings?

Does Jesus turn the other cheek or does He keep a record of all wrongs to make sure He gets His ounce of flesh for every violation against Him. Does Jesus say, "You slap me in the cheek and I'll not hit you back right now, but I've got a big club I'll get you with later called eternal death! You'll get what you got coming to you"?

Does 1 Corinthians 13 tell us that love keeps no record of wrongs?

scott

Does Jesus teach that we should keep turning the other cheek because He can't get Scott to stop slapping people? Or does He teach that if Scott starts loving Him, he will also start loving His creatures and stop slapping them?

Jesus teaches forgiveness. He also teaches repentance. He also teaches confessing and forsaking our sins. He teaches the slappee to turn the other cheek, as He teaches the slapper to stop slapping.

Tom says you believe that obedience is a good thing. Why can't you get yourself to agree that Jesus teaches us to obey? Rather, your posts tend toward the "disobey and still live" teaching. I'm not convinced that Tom understands your teaching, because his claims on that point contradict your words.

Love keeps no record of wrongs. Is that because love ignores the wrongs? Or is it because love corrects the wrongs? I believe the latter.

What about you? What kind of love is it that you believe in? Love that is blind, or love that transforms?

Hi Arnold,

I believe that love keeps no record of wrongs and that the goodness we see in Jesus reveals that love which has the power to transform our lives.

The threat of the club doesn't have the power to make us obedient!

You can command love until the cows come home, but it won't change the heart.

Obedience under duress is not obedience at all!

scott

Is a transformed life a disobedient life? In my system of belief, transformation and obedience always go together.


Then why is it that you always link obedience with the proverbial club? Of all the people active here, you seem to be the one looking at the club most often.


Here's God's promise:
The need of a change of heart is old hat to God, and to those who study the OT. Only dispensationalists and poor scholars think this is a new invention.

But it seems that somewhere in the translation, something was lost. In the OT version, receiving a new heart and spirit from God always included His promise to "cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."


True. And disobedience with a smile and warm fuzzies is still disobedience.

In your idea of Jesus, does he want you to stop sinning before you die, and does He have to power to make it happen?

Hi Arnold,

Have you ever met a man that has stopped sinning? When I meet one I'll change my theology.

God has this life and 1000 years after this life to heal us from the devastation of sin before He integrates earthlings fully into the rest of His heavenly family. Only a few misguided Adventist expect to see a generation of sinless individuals before the 2nd coming and they don’t get this idea from any good biblical exegesis I’ve seen.

Our righteousness is in Christ. Perfection is a Greek concept, but maturity is a Hebrew concept. We are perfect at any stage of development just like a baby is perfect even though he messes his pants and can't understand quantum physics. Perfection is a journey with God not a journey too God. In God’s kingdom if you aren’t perfect right now you aren’t saved. If you aren’t growing in Christ, maturing through His Spirit, you aren’t born again!

Of course Christ has the power to give us a frontal lobotomy and kill the natural man, but He chooses to take sin away one step at a time as we give it up. God is patient! God isn't the problem, we are! He transforms us through a natural process that we are involved in through our free will. Until the day God completes His work in us He doesn't hold our sins against us and considers us perfect in His love.

scott

Why is your theology guided by sight? We live by faith, not by sight.


Does it take that long to follow Jesus?


So what are your answers to my two questions? You wrote a lot of response, but no answer. If I try to interpret it, you and Tom will probably say I'm wrong and not understanding what you said. Why not just speak clearly and settle it? Yes, no, I don't know, maybe; take your pick.

Of course Jesus wants us to stop sinning, sinning always ends up hurting us. Not only that but we want to stop sinning. And we should always aim for that mark. But we are so fallen that we cant stop sinning. Thats why Jesus came down to do it for us. And of course thats why He came down not in our fallen nature. If He had our broken nature He would have sinned too. Thank God He was radically different then we are.

"He was a mighty petitoner, possessing not the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are."
Review and Herald Aug 17, 1886 pg 513

Aaron

Good thinking.

I did answer both of your questions. A yes or a no would confuse you as to what I believe. Of course Jesus wants us to stop sinning. That is a ridiculous question and shows how you typically misunderstand and misrepresent what I say. And of course Jesus has the power to give us the victory, but I explained that He does it while respecting our freedom and that the problem isn’t with Him, but with us.

Now you answer my question. Have you ever met a man who has stopped sinning?

In your posts you assume that obedience is the most important thing for God’s creatures, but God could have easily made us to obey with no problem. Obedience isn’t the issue in God’s kingdom! It is obedience in love!

In reality freedom is the most important aspect of creature-hood simply because love can only exist in an environment of freedom. So in order for God to change us He has to either change our minds, by convincing us of His love, or extract our brain and replace it with an obedient one. If you think getting us to submit is all God has to do you better think again! God could do that through torture! We can submit all we want, but until we are convinced in our hearts of the truth about God’s love all we are are dry drunks just longing for the next fix of sin, but knowing that is might kill us!

scott

Let's tackle this little tidbit first.

Let me see if I got this right. I misunderstood and misrepresented you by asking you questions? I asked you a question so that you can make yourself understood, yet I misrepresented you? I asked, you answered, but I misrepresented you? Did I force you to type what you did? Pretty soon you might blame me for your typos.

If you would answer clearly, then maybe people won't misunderstand you. And if you were not so judgmental of those who you think disagree with you, perhaps you might not find as much to disagree about.


See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Your answers are: yes, yes. Simple, clear, to the point. I don't see why you think that would be confusing.

And I agree with you.


I agree with you again.

(See how fun it could be to agree with people when they say something you agree with?)


I don't think so. But if we really want to be precise, we need to determine what constitutes "sinning" in your question. But that's for another thread.

However, Jesus told me something about that: What is that to you? You follow Me.


First, I don't think you know me well enough to know what I assume. I know I don't know you well enough, so I ask what you mean, so I don't assume or presume anything about you. You would do well to ask instead of assuming.

Second, my definition of obedience has love at its core. There is no such thing as obedience without love. Without love, the best one can get is compliance, never obedience. It may be that you have a different understanding of obedience. So if you're talking about a kind of obedience that does not include love, that is foreign to my theology. In my view, obedience is always a good thing.

(Side note: This is something I learned while studying the inspired material on child training. So much "discipline" is really just beating kids into submission. There is little "discipling" going on. When one receives Godly disipline, he learns how to be a true disciple - one who loves to be with Jesus and follows Him wherever He goes. It's as true for church members as it is for children. Unfortunately, many still have a hireling's understanding of obedience.)


This looks similar to what I wrote regarding obedience.

Christian submission, as I understand it from the Bible and SOP, is always voluntary and can be rescinded at any time. It is always done with full knowledge of the situation (count the cost).

The submission that most people have in mind is really just bondage. They see submission as being forced to do that which you do not want to do. It is the kind of submission that many parents beat their kids into.

This is not what God has in mind for His children. We submit to Him because we choose to trust His love and wisdom, knowing that He can do a much better job than we can. We submit to Him as a free moral agent, knowing full well that we are able to disregard His will at any time, and free to suffer the consequences of such foolishness.

(Side note: This is the same kind of submission that Paul said wives should give their husbands. Many women think it is degrading. But Jesus showed by His life of complete submission that it is noble.)

So if what you have in mind is a submission that is forced from unwilling men, you are talking about something my Jesus wants nothing to do with. The submission He wants is one between loving Father and trusting son. In my view, that submission is always a good thing.

I haven’t met one either. I’ve asked that question many times and no one has ever given me a “yes” answer. So I haven’t met anyone who has met a man or woman who has stopped sinning.

Conclusion: If we don’t know anyone who is sinless, yet we teach that sinless-ness is necessary and that there is something wrong with a Christian’s experience if he/she hasn’t “arrived” then there is a gap between our theology and our experience. And that gap becomes a source of self doubt that can destroy our walk with God. It becomes easy to fall for the lie that we will never measure up.

There exists among Adventists an identity crisis that is directly related to this gap between our experience and our theology. The fact is that the NT teaches us that anyone who claims to be sinless is a liar. Some say that the real sinless ones won’t say it, but the text makes it clear that we are all sinners saved by God’s grace and each one of us is working with the Holy Spirit at our own pace to heal from the damage of sin. This process takes a life time.

This truth in no way means that there isn’t power available to the sinner to overcome nor does it mean that it is ok to sin. But it is ok to be a sinner saved by grace. In fact all heaven rejoices when a sinner repents. I am convinced that those who dwell on sinless-ness have no idea of the depth of sin. It is like a toddler claiming that he understands physics because he knows that when he drops a ball it hits the ground.

scott

Excellent post Scott. Thank you.

Thanx for the warning, Scott. But did I post something above that you disagree with?

"But we are so fallen that we cant stop sinning. Thats why Jesus came down to do it for us." Aaron, how do you reconcile what you wrote with what Ellen wrote in the quotes I posted in the post above this one?

Scott, when do you think this “work” is completed in sinners – before or after they are taken to heaven?


The religious leaders accused Jesus of being demon possessed. Perhaps humans are not the best ones to assess who has stopped sinning. Yes, Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them”, but it doesn’t mean every human makes the right and best and correct assessment.


The truth is true whether humans experience it or not. Human failure is not the standard by which we judge the truthfulness of the promises of perfection and sinlessness. Jesus is the standard by which we judge the truth. The fact He never sinned is evidence the promises are true and attainable.


Isn’t that what you have been advocating? That is, haven’t you been arguing that it is not possible to “measure up” in this lifetime, that we will not stop sinning until we are in heaven?


I assume you are referring to the following passage:

1 John
1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This passage does not say sinners cannot learn to stop sinning. Nor does it say anyone who stops sinning is a liar. Instead, what it means is “all have sinned” and anyone who says they “have not sinned” is a liar. It’s specifically addressing past sins. Contrary to what you implied, it says, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” In other words, anyone who walks in darkness and says they have a relationship with Jesus is lying and is not practicing the truth. This implies practicing the truth means not sinning, not walking in darkness. It also implies maturing in the fruits of the Spirit on a daily basis.


Jesus said He came to save sinners “from their sins”, whereas I get the impression you are saying Jesus came to sinners in their sins. In arguing against Ellen’s statements about being perfect now and forever, about not sinning, you seem to be saying sin is so systemic, so pervasive, that it cannot be overcome in this lifetime. Have I misunderstood you? Tom, if you’re reading this, please let Scott answer this question for himself. Thank you.

Also, the following passages make it clear to me that God empowers people to live without sinning now – not only at the end of a lifetime of sinning less and less often.

1 John
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.

1 John
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.

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
2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Philippians
1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus Christ:
2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.

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

Aaron and Scott, please address the above posts. Thank you.

I dont read into those quotes that Mrs White is saying we must stop committing every little sin to earn salvation. I think she means we should aim for the mark. If she means Christian perfection like you are impling I wonder what year she became perfect herself? Any guesses? Do you think Eve sinned when she ate the fruit, decided to eat the fruit or even simply condersidered eating the fruit?

Aaron

Here's my favorite EGW perfection of character quote:



This brings out that:

1.Perfection = Being like Jesus Christ
2.*God* will accomplish this for all those who do not "interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace."

This quote brings out that that focus should be on God, and His wonderful grace, rather than our trying to not sin.

3. God *will accomplish* this for all those who do not "interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace."

If we focus on God, it will happen. Therefore, if it does not happen, we are not focusing on God.

Neither did she say we must stop committing grosser sins to earn salvation. She never talks about earning salvation by not sinning or by being righteous. Being sinlessly perfect and becoming sinlessly perfect are two different aspects of salvation.

Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." In the same way Jesus began perfect (complete) and became perfect (mature) so too born again believers begin perfect and become perfect.

Paul described it this way: "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." (2 Cor 7:1)

1. Begin perfect. "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit."

2. Become perfect. "Perfecting holiness in the fear of God."

Peter confirms this formula: "Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious." (1 Peter 2:1-3)

1. Begin perfect. "Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings."

2. Become perfect. "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."

Again, Peter confirms this formula: "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; 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. Begin perfect. "He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin."

2. Become perfect. "He no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God."

Of course, this formula is conditional upon several things. Born again believers experience the promises of perfection only while they are actively abiding in Jesus, walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, partaking of the divine nature, fighting the good fight of faith, etc. While doing these things they do not and cannot sin. That's what John said.

1 John
2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
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.
3:9 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.
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.

The promises of perfection do not say born again believers lose the ability or freedom to sin. Indeed, only born again believers are truly free to sin. Unconverted sinners are the slaves and servants of sin. They cannot not sin. We are not free to sin until we are free from sin. John's point is that while actively abiding in Jesus, born again believers do not and cannot sin.

Other promises apply if believers neglect to abide in Jesus and fall into sin, namely, 1 John 2:1, 2. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Bump for Aaron.

Aaron, are you there?

removed post

I guess it boils down to one's definition of what sin is. Like Ive said before God can help us overcome sins in one's life. I think if you drink and feel its a sin then you can ask God to help you overcome that. I think if you swear alot and feel convicted to stop then ask God and over time He will help you overcome. The longer we reflect on Christ the more we become like Him while at the same time realize how different we are from Him. Thats why we always need Him, always need to go back to the feet of the Saviour. I don't believe one day you wake up and say "wow I cant even remember the last time I sinned"
Aaron

I haven't followed all of this. I believe in perfection of character, in the possibility of overcoming sin, but having said that I agree with what you wrote Aaron. In fact, I like the way you put it. Especially this:



and this

Actually, for those who are alive after the close of probation, they will not be able to recall their sin, because they have been blotted out. But they won't be patting themselves on the back saying, "I'm doing pretty good."

Yes, that's very good.

Im a little confused about this. Is the memory removed from the brain when probation closes?

I'm not sure how it's going to work, but we are told it will happen.

Waggoner has a very good explanation of the blotting out of sin:



This brings out the real point here. It's not that God does something unilaterally to affect the memory (this has ominous implications), but "their iniquity may be sought for, but it will not be found."

Often Scripture speaks of things not being remembered which has nothing to do with a faulty memory.

I also believe Christians do not say, "Wow, I can't even remember the last time I sinned." Simultaneously feeling they are like and unlike Jesus is not an indication they are guilty of sinning. People will feel this way throughout eternity. I am familiar with the evolution model of sanctification you describe above. In fact, it's what I believed for the first 13 years of my walk with Jesus.

One day a friend challenged me to prove it from the Bible. I thought it would be easy. However, I was unable to do it. The Bible never describes believers gradually evolving from sinning to not sinning. I was unable to support the idea that believers sin less and less often over time until they cease sinning.

Instead, I found that 1) while abiding in Jesus, 2) while partaking of the divine nature, and 3) while walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man - believers do not and cannot sin. It doesn't mean they are incapable of sinning, it's just that under these circumstances they do not and cannot sin.

To sin, therefore, they must neglect to do the things mentioned above, and then all they can do is sin. To cease sinning they must exercise the gift of repentance, and then God empowers them to resume doing those things that enable them to not sin and to mature in the fruits of the Spirit.

Do you see what I mean?

Regarding remembering specific sins after they are blotted out:

Those who have delayed a preparation for the day of God cannot obtain it in the time of trouble, or at any future period. The righteous will not cease their earnest agonizing cries for deliverance. They cannot bring to mind any particular sins, but in their whole life they can see but little good. Their sins had gone beforehand to judgment, and pardon had been written. Their sins had been borne away into the land of forgetfulness, and they could not bring them to remembrance. Certain destruction threatens them, and like Jacob they will not suffer their faith to grow weak, because their prayers are not immediately answered. Though suffering the pangs of hunger, they will not cease their intercessions. They lay hold of the strength of God as Jacob laid hold of the angel, and the language of their soul is, "I will not let thee go except thou bless me." The saints at length prevail like Jacob, and are gloriously delivered by the voice of God. {3SG 134.2}

It may be true that they do not think of sin/sinning any more, but that is not what the GC quote says. She says they cannot recall the sins.

EGW: They cannot bring to mind any particular sins, they cannot bring them to remembrance

Waggoner: they may be able to recall the fact that they have committed certain sins

She is not saying their memory is faulty. She is not saying they don't remember what they did. She is saying they can't bring to remembrance sins that need to be confessed. That's because they're aren't any!



They "have no concealed wrongs to reveal." They can't bring any concealed wrong (i.e. unconfessed sins) to remembrance to confess, because they're aren't any. They've already been confessed (they have gone beforehand to judgment).

When considering an interpretation, especially what might be an over literal one, it is prudent to consider the implications of the interpretation being considered. For example, consider a person who is 50 years old, and was recently converted, has become part of the 144,000, and is going through the processing being described, trying to bring to memory sins to be confessed. Now if what she means is that they literally cannot remember anything they did which was sin, then the entirety of their memory would be erased! The first 47, 48, 49 years or so (until the person was converted) was nothing but sin. So he would have no memory of his childhood, youth, or adulthood, other than the last number of months from the time he was converted.

Waggoner's idea fits. It seems clear he had the EGW quote in mind. He offers an interpretation which fits the common sense test.

The Bible says that God will remember our sins no more. Do you think this means He can't remember what we did?

All of Jesus' disciples, with the exception of Judas, believed in Christ, which is to say, they were born again. We seem them learning in their experience as they were with Christ. This is an object lesson for us! The same prejudices, mistakes, lack of faith, in their lives are present in ours. We miss much of the blessing Jesus wished to impart to us if we cut off their experience from ours, as if it weren't relevant to us, because they weren't converted.

Did you read the quote MM posted?


The plain meaning of the text is that they could not bring the sins they had committed, which have been pardoned, to remembrance.


You are doing some serious violence to the text. In the phrase, "they cannot bring them to remembrance," what is the antecedent of "them"? It is sins that have been blotted out.

You say that they cannot remember because there's nothing to remember. Your interpretation would have her saying that these nonexistent sins were blotted out. That makes a mockery of the judgment and the Judge.


Do you believe that the life of an unconverted person is one long, continuous sin? That if he cannot remember his sins, then he will not remember anything? I don't think so.

But you seem to have difficulty grasping the possibility that God can make you forget something. How about the disciples? They didn't recognize Jesus, even after the years of labor together.

God is resourceful and powerful. Don't underestimate what He can do, even if it goes against your current belief system. Especially if a prophet says He's going to do it.

If I filtered everything I read by what I already believe, I would never learn anything significantly new, and neither would I detect any of my errors.


No. It means He will not take it into account when dealing with sinners.

MM are you saying that your saved as long as your not currently committing an act of sin and life is a process of saved.. not saved.. saved.. not saved?
In this view I guess we just hope that we are in a saved state at the exact close of probation?

Aaron

Why would God do this? (Regarding the quote MM cited, it seems clear to me it's essentially the same as the GC quote. SG was a forerunner to the GC; same visions, but rewritten/edited)



You think they couldn't recognize Jesus because God made them forget Him?!



You're doing "serious violence to the text."

Why doesn't it mean the same thing it means when Ellen White says it? But you seem to have difficulty grasping the possibility that God can make Himself forget something.

But seriously, why do you think God would make us forget something? What good would it do? You seem to have difficulty grasping that God respects free will, and that manipulating someone's memories is verboten.

Back to Waggoner's explanation. It is clearly in reference to what Ellen White wrote. And it makes sense. Ellen White counsels us to use common sense in interpreting Scripture and what she wrote. If an interpretation of Scripture or the SOP leads to an idea which violates common sense, it should be seriously questioned. Here's an example of the idea:



There are those who think this is literal. That is, Satan is literally bound with a chain in a bottomless pit which is locked and sealed. If you suggested this meant that he is bound to the earth, you would be accused of doing "serious violence to the tenxt" and "have difficulty grasping that God could chain someone."

Here's another example:



Taking things as literal which shouldn't be leads to wrong conclusions.

Just a quickie....


I can't say definitively, but I have my ideas. Have you ever remembered one of your more dastardly sins, and shrunk in shame for what you did and what you were? I have. It's nice to forget sometimes.

But in any case, why God would do it is not something we need to answer in order for it to happen. God does not limit Himself based on our understanding or lack thereof.


I know that. But I believe that SG was also inspired and correct in its assertions.

========
There is a new thread to address the issue of how obedience and understanding relate. Click here: Is it possible to obey God before understanding His reasons for giving the command?

We'll continue the discussion there. Now,
========

God doesn't want the obedience of automatons:



In order to have an intelligent, appreciation of His wisdom, justice and benevolence, we need to understand His ways. The idea that God would zap our memories is contrary to common sense, and, more importantly, in contrary to His character and the principles of His government.



I'm not questioning the assertions of SG or GC, but your interpretation of these. I believe Waggoner's interpretation makes a lot more sense, and is in harmony with God's character.

God does want us to have an intelligent appreciation of His character. However, He will not let our unintelligence hinder His work. God will fulfill His purposes, even if Arnold and Tom are too dumb to understand them. There will be time enough during eternity to fill in the gaps.




EGW said people won't remember particular sins. Waggoner said people will.

It's not even a matter of interpretation of some obscure text. It's in plain language.

The problem is that the plain meaning of the text goes against what you believe is truth, and what you believe is God's character. In short, you can't accept the plain meaning because it does not match your current theology. Right?

It is possible that your current theology is not completely correct. You might not know God's character as fully as you think. And if you filter and adjust everything you hear to match what you believe, you will never detect any of your errors. Just something to consider.

Perhaps we will have a general notion about what we did, but won't remember the details. I agree with Arnold that it's bad to remember the details about our sins, but I also think I must not forget what God has saved me from.

That's why she says, "they have a deep sense of their unworthiness."

Arnold, I had a longer response prepared, buy my home computer died before I could sent it So I'll try again.

The context of her remarks should be taken into consideration. She compares the experience of the 144,000 with that of Jacob. Here are some comments regarding Jacob's situation:



How was Jacob able to see God face to face and live? Because he was pure in heart. He had no "concealed wrongs," but had confessed his sin. He couldn't bring any sins to remembrance, or else he couldn't have abided God's presence. This is the principle Ellen White is dealing with in regards to the 144,000. A zapping of Jacob's memory wouldn't have helped him any, in terms of being able to see God, and it wouldn't help the 144,000 be able to stand before a holy God without a mediator.



I think Waggoner understood EGW's intent.



If one reads things without taking into account the context of the writing or the intent of the author, I think this leads to problems of the sort I alluded to earlier, such as those who think Satan will be literally bound by a chain.



This is a simplistic analysis. First of all, I don't agree with you as to the plain meaning of the text. I agree with what Waggoner said. Just out of curiosity, would you ask the same questions of him? Isn't it possible that he interpreted her meaning correctly? That it wasn't just a matter of his not being able to accept what she wrote because it didn't agree with his theology?

Secondly, the interpretation you are suggesting doesn't taken into account the context.

Thirdly, it doesn't make sense. It's not just a matter of it's making sense in relation to God's character, but even apart from that it doesn't make sense. A selective zapping of the memory so that just certain things are forgotten, those certain things being precisely all of the sins that we've ever committed? Memory doesn't work that way.

Fourth, it doesn't agree with God's character.

Regarding the latter, it was because of my interpreting things in the light of God's character that I became an SDA. Especially in regards to the state of the dead, and God's not punishing people for all eternity.



I have no doubt whatsoever that my currently theology is not completely correct. I've never claimed it is. I've argued against ideas I think are plainly wrong, and defended ideas I've had I think are correct, but my views have been constantly evolving, and don't expect them ever to stop. There are always wonderful things to learn about God's character.

Regarding filtering things out which I don't agree with, I used to have a point of view similar to what I've heard from you, so if I were doing as you are suggesting, I'd be agreeing with you instead of disagreeing! However, I'm sure we're all guilty of what you are suggesting to differing degrees. It's inevitable that we will interpret new ideas according to the paradigm we already have. I believe the truth is always challenging our paradigms, and if we are responding to truth, our paradigms will be constantly growing, becoming more and more like Christ's.

1) Yes, we all have our biases. The difference is in how attached we are to our biases, and how willing we are to acknowledge error.

2) Yes, I would ask Waggoner the same questions. The same questions come to mind whenever I run across someone whose understanding of context goes against the plain meaning of the text. This is different from cases when context leads to an uncommon understanding of the text.

More later....

Since I started from more or less where you are, and ended up somewhere else, I would seem to be at least as willing to acknowledge error as you are. Of course, I could have some other problem, like accepting positions which are in error, instead of holding on to truth (assuming your position were correct, and I shouldn't have moved), but what you were suggesting as a possible problem (my perhaps being intransigent) doesn't appear to be the problem.



I think you're way of expressing yourself may be signifying a possible problem. That is, you write, "whenever I run across someone whose understanding of context goes against the plain meaning of the text" instead of the more circumspect "whenever I run across someone whose understanding of context goes against my understanding of the text." You seem to have a very high opinion of your ability to determine that "plain meaning of the text." I think a humbler perspective of your abilities in this regard would be in order.



Context and common sense are always important, IMO.



OK.

What I am suggesting is that ALL of us are intransigent to some degree. If we weren't, these discussions and disagreements that go on for years would only take moments. That means we are not blown about by every wind of doctrine.

But that also means that we must be vigilant to remind ourselves that there may be significant errors in our theology.


Perhaps. But is that any less humble than one having a high opinion of his knowledge of God's character and thereby determine what God will or will not do? Ain't we all impressed with ourselves!


Yes. But let's not allow what we believe to be common sense to be normative.

Jesus walked with a couple of disciples for quite a distance without allowing them to recognize Him. Why? I can't say for sure. But He did it anyway, even if it makes no sense to me.

While God wants me to have an intelligent faith, it is not to be based on exhaustive knowledge or complete understanding. His ways are still past finding out to me. It's a good thing that He doesn't make my understanding a prerequisite for His actions.

Could be. I try to be careful in how I couch my language, but could well be falling short. I don't really feel I understand God's character that well.



I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm saying, if I read something which appears to be saying something that doesn't make sense, I think it through very carefully. Either it doesn't make sense because I'm thinking about something wrongly, or what I'm thinking is being said is not really what was meant. But just accepting something that doesn't make sense to us; I don't see the value in that. We should be able to give a reason for the things that we believe.

I suppose some people believe this way, but I don't. I believe we are saved while we are abiding in Jesus. If we are not abiding in Jesus we are not saved. It's that simple. To abide in Jesus we must consciously choose to do so. While abiding in Jesus people do and cannot sin.

Aaron,

Is it possible to commit sin while with Jesus? If one is in Christ, will he find sin there?

When you say sin do you mean Sin or sins? If you mean sins as in losing your temper while driving your car then regretting it then I would say yes one can commit a sin while being saved. Do you think that prior to getting in the car you were saved as long as you had previously asked forgiven since your last sin then the second you lost your temper then your lost until you then ask forgiveness for that sin? Or are you saying one in Christ would never even lose your temper......Cause if your saying that then we are all lost arent we? I dont really agree with the yo yo effect that I'm sensing here.

That's the boat I'm in. Hence, there are very few things about which I am comfortable saying, "That's goes against God's character." Selective, and possibly temporary, memory loss is not one of them.


What I mean is that we should not trust ourselves so much that we can make assertions as to what God will or will not do based on what we think is or is not common sense. As for me, my wisdom is foolishness to God.

There are certain things for which we must be able to give an answer to all who ask, especially in soteriology. But there are other things that we don't understand, but still have to take by faith. This is especially true for people who don't yet know everything God has taught in Scripture.

For example, my father does not keep the Sabbath. Why? Because he, along with the rest of his church, does not see any reason why God would require it. They believe that every day is as holy as any other. They are too proud to think that God can require their obedience before He requires their understanding.


Yes, there are secret things that are not revealed to us.

I mean whatever you mean by "an act of sin" in your previous post.


Though I don't know everyone here, I wouldn't say that. I've heard reports of people not losing their temper even when stones were being thrown at them. God's grace has been powerfully manifested in the experience of some.


You mean the "I'm nice because I'm in Jesus" then "I've lost my temper because I'm in Jesus" effect? I don't really agree with that either.

The experience I like is the "shines brighter until the perfect day" and "keeps me from falling" that the Bible describes.

We're not trusting in ourselves simply by trying to understand what God is communicating to us. If we read something, and it doesn't make sense to us, we have the duty to question it, and not simply accept it. God isn't looking for unthinking obedience, but trusting faith, based on an intelligent appreciation of His character.



I think I agree with your father, if I'm understand what you're saying correctly. That is, God doesn't require obedience before requiring understanding. What good would that do? Someone should be able to explain to your Father why God would have us remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy in a way that he can understand. Now if he refuses to listen, that's a different issue. But if he sees no reason to do something that he doesn't understand, I think he's right.



I don't know what the "yes" is in response to. Is it an answer to a question? Or just as affirmation?

Certainly there are secret things, but I take this as referring to items of speculation, like for example things about the afterlife which haven't been revealed. I don't see this as referring to anything that would require obedience on our part. Did you have something like this in mind?

That's an entirely different story from "I won't accept it because I don't understand it." Question it and try to make sense of it, no problem. Reject it if you don't get an answer that is acceptable to you, that's a problem.

Anyway, why do you require things of God that you don't require of physicists? You will accept Heisenberg's assertions without understanding why it is that way, and just accept that "that's just the way it is" but you can't accept God's assertions unless He explains it to your satisfaction.


Have you done an in-depth study of child training principles? Check out this passage:

My father doesn't agree with my principles of child training either.

Obedience should come before reason. When the child is capable of understanding, then reason should be enlisted on the side of obedience, obedience that is already there. To wait for understanding before teaching obedience is to give Satan a huge head start, because he doesn't mind unreasonable obedience to his commands.


Have you ever compared the disposition of a child who has been trained to regard his parents' word as law, to a child who has been trained to regard his parents' word as suggestions that he can choose to follow as he saw fit? One grows up feeling safe in the care of his parents, while the other one grows up in a constant state of stress because he is being cared for by the incompetent child in the mirror.


There's a long story that goes along with that. But to give you a hint at what's going on, he had a business associate to whom he gave clear directions. This person refused to do what he was told unless my father explained to him why he wanted it done. His words were, "I can easily do it, but first I want to know why I should do it." Did I say my father HAD a business associate?

But he sees no problem in disrespecting God in the same way.


I don't see any such restrictions in the verse. Before reason comes, we can be taught to obey. Even if reason never comes, we can still be taught to obey.

Anyway, if God wanted you to forget stuff, He won't need your obedience. It's not like you can choose to forget.

I would say neither reject it nor accept it, but keep thinking about it and studying the matter until it makes sense to you.



With God the question of understanding is relevant for a number of reasons. I'll mention two. One is the issues are moral; physics isn't. Two is God desires that His creatures render Him homage because they judge Him worthy of such. He doesn't wish to be honored because of His power or authority, but because of His character. We cannot love God as He desires to be loved (which is loving Him in truth) without understanding His character.



We're not discussing children but adults. To "obey" God without understanding what one is doing is robotic. This isn't what God desires.



This seems reasonable. If we made this request of God, He would explain why. That is, God will give us sufficient evidence as to why we should do what He asks us to do. He won't satisfy every possible question that could come up (not remove all hooks upon which we could hang our doubts, to use EGW's language) because He desires that we act on the basis of free will, and overwhelming someone with evidence would detract from that principles. But providing enough evidence so that a person open to do His will is able to do so is certainly something God does.



I'm not seeing the disrespect here (although I'm sure there's more going on here than what I'm aware of, so I'm not saying you're misjudging the situation, just that based on what you've said so far, I don't see the disrespect you are speaking of).



How is this not robotic?



To "obey" by doing things that have no basis in our reasoning would be the "slavish obedience" that God takes no pleasure in, wouldn't it?

1) Which is bigger, the "distance" between children and their parents, or adults and God?

2) Have you ever raised godly children?

3) Did you know that EGW said parents are to be as God to their children?

4) Do you think it is right to worship God simply because He created us?

5) Since you admitted that you don't understand God's character that well, are you then saying that you don't worship or love God that well?

I'm interested in your answer to this question:




1)This isn't a relevant question. The distance between God and adult vs. adult and child isn't the salient feature, but honoring God because we have an intelligent appreciation of His character. A child is limited in its ability to do so, because of a lack of intelligence/reasoning ability etc. This fact remains regardless of how distant an adult is compared to God.

3)Yes.

4)No. God could have been an evil Creator. We should worship God because we are convinced He is worthy of worship.

5)I wouldn't say I "admitted" this, as "admit" makes it sound like I was reticent to say so, which I'm not. I simply stated it.

Why are you asking if I'm saying I don't worship or love God that well? I'm not seeing the relevance in this question. Please answer this.

The answer to your question is no, that's not what I'm saying, but I don't disagree with your conclusion.

Not necessarily. That quote corresponds to Ed 287.2. But it is rare if we do not pass through the experience of Ed 287.1 first.

If God intended to leave us at Ed 287.1, that would be slavish obedience. But to pass through Ed 287.1 on the way to Ed 287.2 is trust.

Now, what about #2? That's very important, since we are talking about how our Father deals with us.

One more to add:

6) Have you ever been in charge of a group of people in a dangerous situation, and been responsible for getting them through alive?

So you're saying before we can obey God in a reasonable way (i.e, using reason) it is first necessary that we obey Him in a way He does not desire, the "slavish obedience" that EGW speaks of?

Regarding 2, that's a personal question. Regarding 5, you haven't answer my question regarding why you are asking this. Regarding 6, I have the same question. I don't see why you're asking these personal questions.

Nowhere in the Bible, though, does it teach what you're suggesting, namely, people will sin while abiding in Jesus. If it's possible to sin while abiding in Jesus what difference does abiding in Jesus make? The Bible describes people who are abiding in Jesus as not sinning. The guy who lost his temper while driving his car did so because he neglected to abide in Jesus.

It is impossible to get angry while abiding in Jesus. One must first disconnect from Jesus, and then all he can do is sin. Does he lose his salvation because he sinned? Well, what happened to A&E when they sinned? They lost rights to the tree of life, right! The gift of repentance, however, restores the relationship sin severs. Whether or not someone is lost depends on if they exercise the gift of repentance - not on if they sin, for all have sinned.

Jesus came to save us from our sins - not in our sins or with our sins. See Matthew 1:21. What does this mean to you?

Being saved doesn't depend on what we do; rather, it depends on what Jesus did and does for us. Repentance doesn't save us. We are lost if we refuse or neglect to cooperate with the plan of salvation as it is in Jesus.

What is it about not sinning that you find so unbelievable, so objectionable?

Tom, God required A&E to trust and obey Him before they were familiar with His character. Did that make Him a slave driver?

PS - I have asked you on several occasions if you have children and you have refused every time to answer. I take it the answer is - No. It is significant that you have never raised children, especially as it applies to your opinion about raising children.

What makes you think they were unfamiliar with His character? They walked face to face with God every day!



This is a personal question. Arnold's asking me the same question. Boy you guys are nosy!

God expected them to obey His law from the first day they were created. They weren't created with a knowledge of His character. On that first day of their lives they were unfamiliar with His character. Nevertheless, God required them to obey His law. There was nothing wrong with God requiring them to obey His law before they were familiar with His character.

What is so nosy about asking if you are a father? All the fathers I know are excited about being a father and are more than willing to share the good news.

God warned them not to eat of the forbidden fruit because if they did something bad would happen to them (they would die). The serpent got them to eat of the forbidden fruit by misrepresenting God's character. This didn't happen the first day they were created. We don't know how long they walked daily with God in the garden, but they had had time to become acquainted with Him. Besides, they would would have been created in harmony with God and His principles; they were created in His image, so His character was inwrought in their very being.



Do you know if I am married?

Tom, I can see you are not going to concede the point. So be it.

You have on several occasions referred to your wife. Usually to point out that even she disagrees with something I've posted.

. Sorry about that. (about only referring to her in that way)

I couldn't remember if I had spoken of her or not. She's a real saint. She puts up with me.

Jesus Christ was neither married nor a parent. Does that mean He could not speak about marriage or children? All I did was make an analogy. If I made an analogy involving a tree, would you ask if I had any trees in my yard?

Asking about my family life is not appropriate for a public forum.

To say Jesus wasn't married or didn't have children undermines the OT depiction of Him as husband and father.

==========

ADMIN HAT ON!!!

Inappropriate portion of this post was removed as it was deemed by the Admin Staff that it was prying into a member's private life, which is against the forum rules. That which was deemed OK was restored back into this post.

ADMIN HAT OFF!!!

PS - I cannot remember what you believe in relation to the title question of this thread.

1. Do you think believers will continue to sin until they die?
2. If not, when do they cease to sin in relation to their death

Mike,

Well, we do know that Christ wasn't married as Adam and Eve were and as we are, therefore, I assume you are referring to this in a symbolical or spiritual sense?