Why do we sin?

I came across this in another forum and the simplicity intrigued me. If we know what is sin, and the cause and end result, why do we sin?

I'd say it may have something to do with the fact that we are infected with it. Kinda like why does a smoker who is suffering from lung problems continue to smoke. A far more difficult question would be why did Adam & Eve or Lucifer and a third of the angels give in to sin? Then there is the most difficult question of all: how did Christ take on the nature of fallen man without falling into a sinful state?

I would say that because, apart from God, we don't have the will and/or the power to avoid sin. So, when we, consciously or unconsciously, separate ourselves from Him, we fall into sin.

Why do born-again believers backslide? Why do they commit known sins? The answer is really quite simple: They neglect to consciously choose to continue abiding in Jesus. The instant they neglect to abide in Jesus they resurrect, as it were, the mind of the old man and resume sinning under the dominion and control of Satan and sinful flesh. Ellen explains it in no uncertain terms:

When the soul surrenders itself to Christ, a new power takes possession of the new heart. A change is wrought which man can never accomplish for himself. It is a supernatural work, bringing a supernatural element into human nature. The soul that is yielded to Christ becomes His own fortress, which He holds in a revolted world, and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. A soul thus kept in possession by the heavenly agencies is impregnable to the assaults of Satan. 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. It is not necessary for us deliberately to choose the service of the kingdom of darkness in order to come under its dominion. We have only to neglect to ally ourselves with the kingdom of light. If we do not co-operate with the heavenly agencies, Satan will take possession of the heart, and will make it his abiding place. The only defense against evil is the indwelling of Christ in the heart through faith in His righteousness. Unless we become vitally connected with God, we can never resist the unhallowed effects of self-love, self-indulgence, and temptation to sin. We may leave off many bad habits, for the time we may part company with Satan; but without a vital connection with God, through the surrender of ourselves to Him moment by moment, we shall be overcome. Without a personal acquaintance with Christ, and a continual communion, we are at the mercy of the enemy, and shall do his bidding in the end. {DA 324.1}

Why do they neglect to consciously choose to continue to abide in Jesus?

Because they neglect to consciously choose, moment by moment, to abide in Jesus. Maybe they were distracted like Peter on the water. Again, in the same way it was impossible for Jesus to sin while abiding in the Father, so too, it is impossible for born-again believers to sin while abiding in Jesus.

Didn't Paul ask the same thing?

I'm glad you didn't stop here. Why do they do X? "Because they do X" isn't very insightful.



I think you've got some holes in your logic.

First of all, you have to define not abiding in Jesus in such a way as to not being a sin, or else your statement that you can't sin if you're abiding in Jesus is false right off the bat. I caught you with the already, but now you're changed your mind to say that not abiding in Jesus is no longer a sin. But I think you were right the first time; choosing not to abide in Jesus is a sin.

The first great commandment is to love God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength. If you choose not to abide by Jesus, you're breaking that commandment. Similarly, in terms of the 10 C's, this would be breaking at least the first two.

Another problem I see with this idea is that it seems to be completely behavior based. The idea is if you can just do a certain thing, which is to abide in Jesus, then you'll be safe; then you won't sin. But the causes for sin are more deeply rooted than simply behavior. Our paradigms can cause us to sin without even realizing it. This was the problem with the Pharisees. Their behavior was fine, at least as far as they or others could discern, but their paradigms were messed up (they didn't really care for the true God, or His principles.



This gets at the danger of a behaviorally based religion. It is SO easy to deceive oneself, thinking that all is fine, when it's not.

Consciously making a choice not to abide in Jesus means they are already not abiding in Him, which means they were already sinning under the control and dominion of Satan and sinful flesh.

Unconsciously neglecting to abide in Jesus is an altogether different dynamic.

So Adam and Eve were already not abiding in Jesus when they counsciously chose not to abide in Him?

These bring out that it is necessary for us to resist the Spirit. Our "neglect" may appear to us to be unconscious, but there's an actual decision involved, because the Holy Spirit is working. He doesn't wait for us to take the initiative (or we'd all be lost), but He is "constantly" seeking to draw our attention to Christ. Therefore our going from a state of abiding in Christ to not abiding in Christ requires a choice, which is sin. It's not something that "just happens."

It's not our job to do something to do something to make sure we are continuing to abide in Christ. If this were the case, we would be saving ourselves by our works. Our job is to cooperate with God, by faith; to not resist or hinder Him, but it's not as if God stands idly by while we either ratchet up the necessary effort to stay abiding in Christ or not.

A&E were sinless by default. We are sinful by default. Eve was deceived into believing eating the fruit would improve her relationship to Jesus. Adam unwisely resolved to die with Eve. Both of them made a conscious, deliberate choice which resulted in an altered state, a sinful state.

We must continually make a conscious, deliberate choice to be in an altered state, a sinless state. Otherwise, we are in a sinful state by default. We do not have to choose to be in a sinful state. A&E, on the other hand, did not have to make a conscious, deliberate choice to be in a sinless state. Instead, they had to make a conscious, deliberate choice to be in sinful state.

For these reasons it is impossible to compare ourselves to A&E before they sinned.

"Human effort avails nothing without divine power; and without human endeavor, divine effort is with many of no avail. To make God's grace our own, we must act our part. His grace is given to work in us to will and to do, but never as a substitute for our effort. {AG 253.6}

Where's the rest of this? I explained what I meant. Where is that? Please respond to what I explained I meant (as opposed to extracting one sentence from it's context).

This is false, as I explained. This would be true if God sat idly by not doing anything, but that's not the case. The Spirit of God leads us to the cross. He does this! This is why one must *resist* in order to be lost. That's what the quote I cited brings out. "If the sinner does not resist" then all the rest happens. So it's not a matter of you must do something to be saved, but you don't have to do anything to be lost.

To be saved involves cooperating with God. To be lost involves resisting God. There are two roads, and both roads involve our making a decision.

Similarly, if we are abiding in Jesus, we have to do something to go out. We don't stay in by works we do, but by faith. Faith is a response to the initiative of God. The Holy Spirit is constantly seeking to lead us to the cross. Since His work of leading us to the cross is constant, to resist Him requires constant resistance or rejection, which is sin.

The quotes I posted merely complimented what you wrote. I wasn't disputing anything.

Are you disagreeing with the idea we are in a sinful state by default?

I disagreed with what you said here:



I disagree because the implication here is that one must make a choice to be saved, but not to be lost. This implies the Holy Spirit isn't doing anything that would cause us to have to do something to be lost, but He is. We have to take action to be lost (namely, resist/reject).

Because we like it.

Tom, what you're saying sounds at odds with the following insight - "It is not necessary for us deliberately to choose the service of the kingdom of darkness in order to come under its dominion. We have only to neglect to ally ourselves with the kingdom of light."

Ellen also wrote:

Many are inquiring, "How am I to make the surrender of myself to God?" You desire to give yourself to Him, but you are weak in moral power, in slavery to doubt, and controlled by the habits of your life of sin. Your promises and resolutions are like ropes of sand. You cannot control your thoughts, your impulses, your affections. The knowledge of your broken promises and forfeited pledges weakens your confidence in your own sincerity, and causes you to feel that God cannot accept you; but you need not despair. What you need to understand is the true force of the will. This is the governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision, or of choice. Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. You cannot change your heart, you cannot of yourself give to God its affections; but you can choose to serve Him. You can give Him your will; He will then work in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Thus your whole nature will be brought under the control of the Spirit of Christ; your affections will be centered upon Him, your thoughts will be in harmony with Him. {SC 47.1}

Desires for goodness and holiness are right as far as they go; but if you stop here, they will avail nothing. Many will be lost while hoping and desiring to be Christians. They do not come to the point of yielding the will to God. They do not now choose to be Christians. {SC 47.2}

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. It is not necessary for us deliberately to choose the service of the kingdom of darkness in order to come under its dominion. We have only to neglect to ally ourselves with the kingdom of light. If we do not co-operate with the heavenly agencies, Satan will take possession of the heart, and will make it his abiding place. The only defense against evil is the indwelling of Christ in the heart through faith in His righteousness. Unless we become vitally connected with God, we can never resist the unhallowed effects of self-love, self-indulgence, and temptation to sin. We may leave off many bad habits, for the time we may part company with Satan; but without a vital connection with God, through the surrender of ourselves to Him moment by moment, we shall be overcome. Without a personal acquaintance with Christ, and a continual communion, we are at the mercy of the enemy, and shall do his bidding in the end. {DA 324.1}

I don't see how. The same author wrote what I quoted:



To neglect requires resisting the drawing of the Holy Spirit, right? This seems clear.

Again, we are lost by default. We must consciously choose to experience rebirth; and then we must continue to consciously choose to abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature. True, people must resist the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit. However, doing so does not change our default status. It is no easy matter to change our status. It requires extreme effort to experience rebirth, and it requires continued extreme effort to stay converted. It is easier to be lost than it is to be saved. Ellen made this point crystal clear:

It is no easy matter to gain the priceless treasure of eternal life. {Mar 47.3}

The gaining of eternal life is no easy thing. {TMK 21.5}

It is difficult to depart from old customs and established ideas. {CT 392.1}

It is easier to learn evil than to eradicate it after it is learned. {CG 457.4}

It is easier to invite the enemy into your hearts than to dismiss him after he has the ground. {3T 325.3}

It is difficult to hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end; and the difficulty increases when there are hidden influences constantly at work to bring in another spirit, a counterworking element, on Satan's side of the question. {Mar 28.2}

In this time of special danger for the young, temptations surround them on every hand; and while it is easy to drift, the strongest effort is required in order to press against the current. {Ed 293.2}

It is difficult to arouse them to a sense of the shame and grievous nature of sin. {ML 146.3}

It is difficult to hold fast Christian integrity. {TMK 352.2}

Let self break in pieces before God. It is hard to do this; but we are warned to fall upon the Rock and be broken, else it will fall upon us, and grind us to powder. {HP 30.2}

Into the experience of all there come times of keen disappointment and utter discouragement--days when sorrow is the portion, and it is hard to believe that God is still the kind benefactor of His earth-born children; days when troubles harass the soul, till death seems preferable to life. It is then that many lose their hold on God and are brought into the slavery of doubt, the bondage of unbelief. {ML 328.2}

In many cases the moral powers seem deadened, and it is difficult to arouse them to a sense of the shame and grievous nature of sin; they slip easily into habits of prevarication, deceit, and often open lying. {CG 388.1}

We have trained ourselves to engage with earnestness and power in worldly business, until it is easy for the mind to take that turn. This is why Christians find a religious life so hard and a worldly life so easy. {2T 263.4}

To resist Satan's desires is no easy task. It demands a firm hold of the divine nature from beginning to end, or it cannot be done. {1SM 342.3}

It is easy for you to drop Christ out of your experience. {5T 586.3}

It is easy to rebel, easy to give battle before considering matters rationally, calmly, and settling whether there is anything to war against. {1T 527.1}

It is easy for the enemy to work through those who, themselves needing counsel at every step, undertake the guardianship of souls in their own strength, without having learned the lowliness of Christ. {AA 279.1}

Temptations surround them on every hand; and while it is easy work to float with the current, the strongest effort is required to press against the tide of evil. {4T 421.3}

The strongest evidence of man's fall from a higher state is the fact that it costs so much to return. The way of return can be gained only by hard fighting, inch by inch, hour by hour. In one moment, by a hasty, unguarded act, we may place ourselves in the power of evil; but it requires more than a moment to break the fetters and attain to a holier life. The purpose may be formed, the work begun; but its accomplishment will require toil, time, perseverance, patience, and sacrifice. {MH 452.2}

Ahhhhhh.... Now we are getting closer to the truth, that Chocolate Moche Frappe with carmel dripping on the side with 88 grams of sugar and nearly 700 calories, tastes so good..........but in the end will take time but kill you as surely as a gun if you have it every morning. We just like sin because it pushes the pleasure zone in the chemicals in our brain, but why put pleasure in there if it always seems to lead to a vice...?

The chocolate desert isn't the sin - it's eating too much of it in one sitting. That's where abiding in Jesus comes in. In Christ we will exercise self-control and temperance. The nice thing about the chocolate desert is that even a small amount taste good.

RE: 124442 (a few posts above)

Is it easier to be lost than it is to be saved? Does it require more effort and energy to be lost than it does to be saved?

This is the definition of "converted."

Here is a description of being "born again."



Being "born again" represents the transformation which takes place when one gives up the old way, the old paradigm ("me first"), exchanging it for God's way, ("agape"), captured by the phrase, "Not I, but Christ."

This is evidently conversion.

Tom, this thread is discussing why we sin. Sorry I deviated off topic.

Do you agree it is easier to be lost than it is to be saved? And, do you agree this accounts for one of the many reasons why we sin so often and so readily?

The following comes to mind:



This seems to be speaking to the difficulty of being lost, right?

Also, Jesus' words come to mind, "Take my yoke upon you, for My yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Sounds as if you are defining what sin is.

Is eating something we know is wrong, is that sin or is that "temperance" or "moderation"? For instance you say the chocolate dessert isn't sin just eating too much is. The alcohol imbiber would use the same argument.

Is eating the chocolate or sugar sinning? Or, if you know it is not healthy, that no amount can do you good, that you should not eat it, is the rebellion to go ahead and eat it anyway the sin?

Is the rebellion why we sin?

(Maybe we should ask teenagers or their parents)

Essentially, the root of all sin is the selfish desire - wanting that which is not intended for us. That's where Adam and Eve failed.

But sin brings a thrill of sorts. It is exciting, and often pleasurable. And once you get started, you are immediately addicted.

Worse than the drunkard who wants to stop drinking but has no power, worse than the smoker who wants to quit smoking but cannot bring himself to do it, is the sinner who is utterly unable to keep himself from sinning. We are all, without exception, "accustomed to do evil" and can't change ourselves.

Why do we sin? Because the sinner cannot do otherwise. Even if he wants to stop, he cannot.

But what if the sinner submits his will to One who does not want him to sin? What if that sinner receives omnipotence from that One? Will he continue to sin? Can he continue to sin? He cannot sin while His Seed remains in him.

So why do we sin? That only happens if, like a watermelon that has been changed from its original design, we are Seedless.

Tom, I suppose it depends on the person. For some it is easier to be saved.

Kland, if something is a sin then it must be avoided entirely.

Arnold, amen!

This doesn't seem like it would be fair. I recall reading somewhere in the SOP that God gives special doses of grace for those in difficult circumstances. The wording is right here, but the idea is that God has a special burden for those in difficult environments, and gives them extra grace to help them, something like that.

The Bible says, "And if it is hard for even the good man to get salvation, what chance has the man without religion or the sinner?" (1 Peter 4:18, BBE).

It also says, "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:14).

"Genuine conversion brings us daily into communion with God. There will be temptations to meet, and a strong undercurrent drawing us from God to our former state of indifference and sinful forgetfulness of God. No human heart can remain strong without divine grace. No man can remain converted unless he takes care of himself and the Master has a care for him. Unless the heart holds fast to God, and God holds fast to him, he will become self-confident and exalted and will surely stumble and fall." {TDG 277.1}

In my opinion it's easier to be lost than to be saved. But it doesn't seem to me that it's easier for some people to be saved than for others.

I guess the statement I was making was that sin is rebellion. But going with what you said and before you said sin is eating too much. The alcoholic says he doesn't drink too much. I'm taking you are implying any amount of alcohol is sin.

What about chocolate, sugar, or anything else you know is unhealthy - even if it tastes good? Would that be rebellion?

It's easy for us to believe bad news. But the truth is that Christ's yoke is *easy* and His burden is light.



Galatians 5 tells us that the Spirit fights against the flesh, so that we would not do the (bad) things that we would. It's true we have sinful flesh (as did Christ) which would tend to draw us away from God, but the good news is that the Spirit is stronger than the flesh.

However, to the extent that we have false concepts in relation to God's character, that does indeed make things more difficult.

Tom,

I don't think that being in the midst of a war could be classified as something easy. Yes, serving Christ (taking His yoke) is easy - He is altogether lovely. The difficult part is being fiercely and constantly beset by temptations. I agree that the Spirit is stronger than the flesh, but still we have a struggle to face, and this is not easy.

We weren't talking about whether or not there is effort involved, but with whether it is easier to serve God, or fight against Him. It seems to me the testimony of inspiration is that it's easier to fight with God than against Him.

Weren't we speaking about whether it's easier to be lost than to be saved? Then we can't exclude from the picture the opposition we have to face. It's easier to travel with the wind than against it.

However, it is easier in a car than on a bicycle.

Isn't serving God vs. fighting against Him discussing whether it's easier to be saved or lost? (serving God = saved; fighting against Him = lost) By answer the question of whether it's easier to serve God, or fight against Him, we are answering the question of whether it's easier to be saved or lost.



This is right, and who is the more formidable opponent? Isn't it God?



This is what I'm saying, isn't it? That's it's easier to travel with God than against Him?

"Easy" can mean two things:
1) It is easier to fall off a bike than to ride it because it takes less effort.
2) It is easier to ride a bike than to fall off it because it is less painful.

R is talking about #1. Tom is talking about #2. That being the case, I agree with both.

However, God recognizes our free moral agency, but the wind does not.

Let's pull this back to the original question: Why do we sin?

We know that sin brings a lot of pain. And we also know that most people continue in sin; few can truly be called holy saints.

So why do we continue to sin? Not because we want pain, but because we don't want to put forth the effort.

Precisely. Tom said God is an opponent. But God is an opponent who plays fair, while Satan is an opponent who plays dirty. God is a gentleman, but Satan is not.


Yes. Human beings practice the law of less effort also in the spiritual realm.

I mean easy both ways. It takes more effort to fight against God, and it's more painful.

I'll go back to the question I asked previously. Is it easier to serve God, or to fight against Him? Christ said that His yoke is easy and his burden is light. The SOP tells us that Christ's yoke is obedience to the law of God. So that means that obedience to the law is easy. This is the Good News, although almost no one believes it. This is because of the enemy who doesn't play fair. He lies. But inspiration is clear on the matter.

There's also the other quote from the SOP which tells us not to conclude that the wide path is the easy one and the straight one the difficult one.

We were created to obey God. When we behave as we were designed to, we see the difference that Christ was talking about, that His yoke is easy and His burden light.

Any one who is a Christ knows this by personal experience. All you have to do is look at your own experience, and ask yourself the question: Considering the times when I was following Christ closely, and when I wasn't, which was easier?

This is a really easy question to answer.

Then why are so many people lost? That more people are lost than saved is a fact.
In my opinion, as I said, it's easier to be lost because people are not willing to put forth the effort necessary to cling to God.
You say that they are not lost owing to the law of less effort, since it takes more effort to fight against God than to serve Him. Then why are so many lost? What is the reason?
If you say that it's because people are deceived, the fact remains that it is easier to be lost than saved because people are so easily deceived by the devil.

We don't really know what the proportion is, but assuming what you say is true, the reason is that people choose to do the difficult thing, of course.



What's easier, to serve God, or to fight against Him? You appear to believe serving God is difficult, whereas fighting against Him is less so. I don't think this is right. Again, Jesus said, "My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." Assuming Jesus is correct here, wouldn't that mean this is an easier thing to do than the reverse? The yoke of Satan is hard, and his burden heavy. Isn't this correct?



Because they believe the lies of the enemy, lies which lead to living a hard life. The way of sinners is hard. The yoke of Christ is easy. This is what Scripture teaches.



Please consider the following questions.

1.Is it easier to serve God, or fight against Him? Please take your own experience into consideration. Which path did you personally find more difficult?

2.Is is true that Christ's yoke is easy? Is it true that Satan's yoke is heavy? Similarly, is it true that Christ's burden is light? And Satan's heavy? Is it true that the way of sinners is hard?

3.Also, there's the statement from the SOP that we shouldn't conclude that the wide path is the easy one and the straight one the hard one. It seems to me this is just what's being done.

Another point is that God loves people too much to allow them to easily be lost.

How do you presume to know that?

R is certainly able to speak for herself, but since I agree with her on this point, I'll answer from my own perspective.


According to Jesus, many go down the road that leads to destruction, but few find the road that leads to life.

In the rest of your post, I didn't see one that clearly shows that following God is less difficult. However, Jesus said that the road to life is difficult.


Furthermore, we are told to strive to enter the narrow gate, but I know of no verse that says we need to strive to be lost.


The SOP also teaches that the Christian life is not one of ease.


Note {CTBH 32.1}: it requires no effort to be corrupt. Surely, striving to be holy cannot require less effort than that. In fact, {EW 281.1} tells us that those who want life but make no effort to obtain it will be lost. In short, life requires effort, but death requires none.

I'll end with this well-known quote:

Well said, Arnold, and thank you.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thanks, GC.

I should have included this in my last post, which follows my concluding quote:
I was going to highlight the most important points, but I would have highlighted the whole thing! It is clear that one hasty moment can cause our fall, but to rise again requires "more than a moment" and needs from us "hard fighting" and "toil, time, perseverance, patience, and sacrifice." As in climbing Mount Everest so also in our climb toward the heights of glory to which we are called - going up is more difficult than going down.

Just look at your own personal experience. This shouldn't be difficult to see. Think of when you've been actively fighting against God, and when you've been in peace with Him and serving Him, and ask yourself which was more difficult.



No, He didn't. He said it was "tethlimmene;" which is "narrow," not "difficult."

The SOP comments on this verse, as already cited:



Do not therefore conclude that the upward path is the hard and the downward path the easy road. Sounds like we're having trouble believing how good the Good News is! Can it really be case that the upward path is not the hard one, and the downward path the easy one? Yes indeed! This is the truth! Rejoice!



I quoted Gal. 5 earlier. Also common sense should tell you that God wouldn't allow you to be lost without doing anything about it. Do you know the poem the hound from heaven? Here's how it starts:



It communicates the truth that God loves us, and searches for us, and will leave no stone unturned, within the constraints of agape, for our salvation.



Of course not. No one has suggested this. What I've said is that:

1.The yoke of Christ is easy, and His burden light.
2.The yoke of sin is hard, and its burden heavy.
3.It's easier to serve God than it is to fight against Him.
4.If we consider the times in our lives when we've fought against God, and when we've been closest to Him, we will see from our own experience that the times that we have been closest to Him bear testimony to Jesus' words that His yoke is easy, and His burden light, and that these times were easier then the other.
5.We should not conclude that the straight (or narrow) path is the hard one, and the broad path is the easy one.

Every Christian must be a learner in the school of Christ; and there is need of diligent and persevering effort to reach that standard of righteousness which God's word requires. {LP 232.2}

This work of self-subduing requires determined, continuous effort. In fighting the good fight of faith, obtaining precious victories, we are laying hold of eternal life. This warfare requires most strenuous effort, the exertion of all our powers. We are to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. {YI, December 22, 1886 par. 6}

I've never actively fought against God. My greatest failures are when I just let myself do what comes naturally. No effort at all, and I reap corruption. Just as the SOP says.

Peace with God only comes through stern battles with self. When I put forth every effort to obey, especially against the clamors of my nature, I have peace.


Have you read EGW's narrow way vision? Narrow is difficult. The path gets harder.

Of course, falling off the path would be much more painful.


Again, you are conflating easy=less effort and easy=less pain.

As I said, I agree with you that God's way leads to less pain. But you said you are also saying that it takes less effort. That's where we disagree. But your quote is stating facts that (I think) everyone here agrees with.

Let me try to clarify something. Maybe we're talking past each other.

Are you saying that being holy requires LESS effort that being corrupt?

No. I'm saying the following:

1.The yoke of Christ is easy, and His burden light.
2.The yoke of sin is hard, and its burden heavy.
3.It's easier to serve God than it is to fight against Him.
4.If we consider the times in our lives when we've fought against God, and when we've been closest to Him, we will see from our own experience that the times that we have been closest to Him bear testimony to Jesus' words that His yoke is easy, and His burden light, and that these times were easier then the other.
5.We should not conclude that the straight (or narrow) path is the hard one, and the broad path is the easy one.

"tethlimmene" is a Greek word. It means "narrow," not "difficult." Narrow is a different concept than difficult. Narrow has to do with options. There's only one way to be saved, which is Jesus Christ. He is the narrow, or straight, way.

But we should not conclude that the narrow way is the difficult path, and the wide path is the easy one.

"Yet do not therefore conclude that the upward path is the hard and the downward road the easy way."

It seems to me that this is being stated very clearly.

Easy? Narrow or small is easy?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The word which some versions translate as "difficult" is thlibo in v. 14, whose meaning is

1) to press (as grapes), press hard upon
2) a compressed way
2a) narrow straitened, contracted
3) metaph. to trouble, afflict, distress


?
I'm confused, since you said "It takes more effort to fight against God."

Here's what I'm saying:

1.The yoke of Christ is easy, and His burden light.
2.The yoke of sin is hard, and its burden heavy.
3.It's easier to serve God than it is to fight against Him.
4.If we consider the times in our lives when we've fought against God, and when we've been closest to Him, we will see from our own experience that the times that we have been closest to Him bear testimony to Jesus' words that His yoke is easy, and His burden light, and that these times were easier then the other.
5.We should not conclude that the straight (or narrow) path is the hard one, and the broad path is the easy one.

You said exactly the same thing as you said last time, and I understood it just as much as I did last time. Let me try again.

Do you believe that being holy requires MORE effort, or LESS effort, or the SAME effort as being corrupt?

Did you understand the reference to the poem I gave? What do understand the poem to be saying? Do you agree with the poem?

Regarding the question about corrupt, the following by A. T. Jones comes to mind (I'll quote it in the following post).

When the SOP tells us not to conclude that the narrow path is the hard one, and the broad path the easy one, doesn't this mean that the broad path is not the easy one, and the narrow one is not the difficult one? It seems to me this should make clear that the few translations which have "difficult" instead of "narrow" or "straight" (which by far most translations have) are not getting it right.

(The following is by A. T. Jones, "Shall it be Grace or Sin?")

It can never be repeated too often, that under the reign of grace it is just as easy to do right, as under the reign of sin it is easy to do wrong. This must be so; for if there is not more power in grace than there is in sin, then there can be no salvation from sin. But there is salvation from sin; this no one who believes Christianity can deny.

Yet salvation from sin certainly depends upon there being more power in grace than there is in sin. Then, there being more power in grace than there is in sin, it cannot possibly be otherwise than that wherever the power of grace can have control, it will be just as easy to do right as without this it is easy to do wrong.

No man ever yet naturally found it difficult to do wrong. His great difficulty has always been to do right. But this is because man naturally is enslaved to a power - the power of sin - that is absolute in its reign. And so long as that power has sway, it is not only difficult but impossible to do the good that he knows and that he would. But let a mightier power than that have sway, then is it not plain enough that it will be just as easy to serve the will of the mightier power, when it reigns, as it was to serve the will of the other power when it reigned?

But grace is not simply more powerful than is sin. If this were indeed all, even then there would be fulness of hope and good cheer to every sinner in the world. But this, good as it would be, is not all; it is not nearly all. There is much more power in grace than there is in sin. For "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." And just as much more power in grace than there is in sin, just so much more hope and good cheer there are for every sinner in the world.

How much more power, then, is there in grace than there is in sin? Let me think a moment. Let me ask myself a question or two. Whence comes grace? - From God, to be sure. "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Whence comes sin? - From the devil, of course. Sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. Well, then, how much more power is there in grace than there is in sin? It is as plain as A B C that there is just as much more power in grace than there is in sin, as there is more power in God than there is in the devil. It is therefore also perfectly plain that the reign of grace is the reign of God; and that the reign of sin is the reign of Satan. And is it not therefore perfectly plain also, that it is just as easy to serve God by the power of God as it is to serve Satan with the power of Satan?

Where the difficulty comes in, in all this, is that so many people try to serve God with the power of Satan. But that can never be done. "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt." Men cannot gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles. The tree must be made good, root and branch. It must be made new. "Ye must be born again." "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Let no one ever attempt to serve God with anything but the present, living power of God, that makes him a new creature; with nothing but the much more abundant grace that condemns sin in the flesh, and reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Then the service of God will indeed be in "newness of life;" then it will be found that his yoke is indeed "easy" and his burden "light;" then his service will be found indeed to be with "joy unspeakable and full of glory."

Did Jesus ever find it difficult to do right? Every one will instantly say, No. But why? he was just as human as we are. He took flesh and blood the same as ours. "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." And the kind of flesh that he was made in this world, was precisely such as was in this world. "In all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." "In all things"! It does not say, In all things but one. There is no exception. He was made in all things like as we are. He was of himself as weak as we are; for he said, "I can of mine own self do nothing."

Why, then, being in all things like as we are, did he find it always easy to do right? - Because he never trusted to himself, but his trust was always in God alone. All his dependence was upon the grace of God. He always sought to serve God, only with the power of God. And therefore the Father dwelt in him, and did the works of righteousness. Therefore it was always easy for him to do right. But as he is, so are we in this world. He has left us an example, that we should follow his steps. "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure," as well as in him. All power in heaven and in earth is given unto him; and he desires that you may be strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power. "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" and he strengthens you with might by his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your heart by faith, that you may be "filled with all the fulness of God."

True, Christ partook of the divine nature, and so do you if you are a child of promise, and not of the flesh; for by the promises ye are partakers of the divine nature. There was nothing given to him in this world, and he had nothing in this world, that is not freely given to you, or that you may not have.

All this is in order that you may walk in newness of life; that henceforth you may not serve sin; that you may be the servant of righteousness only; that you may be freed from sin; that sin may not have dominion over you; that you may glorify God on the earth; and that you may be like Jesus. And therefore "unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.... Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." And I "beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain."

Tom,

I haven't read the long quote yet, but it doesn't look like an answer to my questions. My first one was binary; the second one only had three options. An answer would take only one word: more, less, same.

Can you answer it? You can give all the explanations you want, but at least answer the very straightforward question.

BTW, it is "strait" not "straight" in the verse. "Straight" is not difficult, but "strait" is.

The quote addresses the corrupt question. If one chooses to serve God, then it's easier to not be corrupt than not, because grace is more powerful than sin. If one chooses not to serve God, then it's not only difficult but impossible not to be corrupt.

Regarding "straight" (or spelled "strait") and "narrow"

Here are translations from Online Parallel Bible





So in addition to the 17 translations cited earlier in English, the main translations of these other 5 languages all convey the same meaning (the Portuguese is particularly nice, the idea being more or less narrow and pressed together).

From the lexicon:





"To crowd" fits well with the Portuguese "apertado," the idea being that there's not a lot of room.

The SOP tells us that we should not conclude that the narrow path is the difficult one.

The evidence is overwhelming that the path being described is not "difficult." Indeed, saying we should not conclude that this narrow path is the difficult one should set the matter to rest once and for all. How could one say this more clearly?

By the way, what's the advantage to thinking that the path to heaven is the difficult one? How is this good news? How does this agree with Jesus' claim that His yoke is easy and His burden light?

So, since we are not grace-filled by default, you're saying that being holy requires MORE effort than being corrupt. Then I agree. That wasn't so bad.

There are two paths. One is narrow, and one is broad. We should not conclude that the narrow path is the difficult one. That the narrow path is difficult is what I've been speaking against. I've been hearing several tying to say that the narrow path is difficult, but I understand the SOP is very clear that this is not the case.

Also Jesus Christ tells us that His yoke is easy and His burden light.

Once more, this is what I've been saying:

1.The yoke of Christ is easy, and His burden light.
2.The yoke of sin is hard, and its burden heavy.
3.It's easier to serve God than it is to fight against Him.
4.If we consider the times in our lives when we've fought against God, and when we've been closest to Him, we will see from our own experience that the times that we have been closest to Him bear testimony to Jesus' words that His yoke is easy, and His burden light, and that these times were easier then the other.
5.We should not conclude that the straight (or narrow) path is the hard one, and the broad path is the easy one.

Please don't try to force words in my mouth. I've been clear in what I've been saying. I've posted this above list at least four times now. Why don't we consider this list please?

Do you agree with these six items? Do you agree with the quote from A. T. Jones that I posted?

If you wish to agree with me on something, let's try starting here.

Regarding the "default" comment, here is a statement from the SOP:



To be lost, one must do something, namely, resist. This concept is what the poem I cited was dealing with. Are you familiar with this poem? Do you agree with the sentiment of the author?

It seems to me that any saved person should readily understand that a life apart from Christ is more difficult than a life with Him, and that serving God is easier than fighting against Him. Do you disagree with these assertions?

Isn't it more difficult to choose to serve Christ than to choose to serve sin?

I understand now. I think I said previously that the path of sin is much more painful and difficult than the path of God. That's obvious. We agree there.

And now we also agree that the path to holiness requires MORE effort to stay on than the path to corruption. That's also obvious.

I'm fine now.

To be saved, one must also resist. So resistance is unavoidable.

It is, according to inspiration:
Failure only requires and "unguarded act" while success requires "hard fighting" among other things. One can slip and fall, but none has ever slipped and rose up.

One cannot drift through heaven's gates. One must strive, Jesus told us.

The "Hound of Heaven" poem addresses this. To choose to serve sin you have to choose to resist the love of God drawing one to repentance throughout one's life. That's not so easy.

Resistance is futile.

To be lost, one must resist God. To be saved one must, *after already knowing Christ and having Him as one's personal Savior, and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit*, resist temptation. Gal. 5 addresses this, telling us that the Spirit fights against the flesh, so that we not do the things that we would.

Which is stronger, the Spirit or the flesh?

It's nice that your fine, but it would be also nice if you would extend the courtesy to others that they might be fine as well. I would appreciate it if rather than putting words in my mouth that you would address the questions that I've repeatedly asked. Specifically, do you agree with the items on the list? Secondly, did you agree with the A. T. Jones quote?

Also, to be clear, I think it requires a great deal of effort to be lost. I do not think it's an easy thing to do to resist the Holy Spirit for the entirety of one's lifetime. This is what one needs to do to remain corrupt.

Once again, I'm requesting that you not put words in my mouth. I've tried to be as clear as I can. I'm explicitly posted a list as to what I'm saying, and asked if you agree with the list, with no reply. Instead I read things like this:



What did I write to lead you to write such a thing? (especially after I asked you not to put words in my mouth)

Well, one must join a "collective" eventually. The goal is to choose the collective that has a good future.


Actually, I believe that *after already knowing Christ and having Him as one's personal Savior, and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit*, one is ALREADY saved. In that condition, falling into temptation is impossible.

I should have quoted better. This was my response to your list:


I haven't read it yet.


I asked you a question that needed only one word to answer, and you gave a paragraph. So I had to interpret your response, rather than quote your answer. I guess I misunderstood you. So you don't think holiness requires MORE effort than corruption. That leaves two options.

I guess you think holiness requires LESS effort than corruption, considering that you "think it requires a great deal of effort to be lost."

You know, if you would just type out the word you want - MORE, LESS, SAME - I wouldn't have to guess. As it is, I keep having to guess.

The question is, Which is more difficult: to resist God's drawing or to resist Satan's alluring? What I pointed out earlier in this thread is that God respects our power of choice, but Satan doesn't; God plays fair, but Satan plays dirty. This fact, in my opinion, makes more people choose to resist God than choose to resist Satan.

John addressed this. He said, "If anyone sin, he has an advocate with the father." He was speaking to those who are converted.

Another way of seeing that your claim above is false is to consider Jesus Christ. He was always in the condition you described, but it wasn't impossible for Him to fall into temptation, right?

This is silly. These are themes that can be answered by one word. I'm trying to provide you with information that you're wanting to have.



Did you stop beating your wife yet? Please respond with a one word answer, yes or no.

Some questions involve more than one word answers. I provided the A. T. Jones quote to help explain what I believe. You said you haven't read it. Well, if you wish to understand what I believe, please read the quote. That's much preferable to writing things like, "And now we also agree that the path to holiness requires MORE effort to stay on than the path to corruption." If you sincerely thought I was saying this, you'd be able to quote something I said which gave you this impression.



I think what I wrote, and what I quoted. These explained what I think in detail. I think this is a better approach than asking loaded questions, and then going off half-baked based on the response. Let a person explain what he means, and respond to that.



Don't guess! Read!

My basic point has to do with whether being saved is a more difficult thing to do than being lost. To be saved, one must do the things which have been pointed, which involve winning the battle over our fallen flesh, a battle which Christ also had to fight. Indeed, this is not a fight of ease, but when one undertakes this fight knowing Christ, one does so with the help of the Spirit, with the understanding of the love of God, and with a relationship with Jesus Christ.

This is one path, the narrow one (or "upward" as EGW calls it), the one which we should not conclude is the difficult one.

The other path is broad, but involves resisting the Holy Spirit for the entirety of one's life. This is not an easy thing to do.

The effort involved is not one of physical exertion, but of either responding to or not to one's conscience and the voice of the Holy Spirit.

This is a question one could ask, but so are the questions I've been asking. For example, which path is the difficult path? I've been hearing you say the narrow path is the difficult one. I don't believe this is in harmony with inspiration.

Also Jesus tells us His yoke is easy and His burden light. I believe this is good news! I'm not hearing this being said, but rather how difficult it is to serve Christ.



Where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. It's God's job to counteract the efforts of the enemy, so that it's a fair fight, and a person can make a free and fair decisions. God is very good at His job.

In terms of pain, the broad path is the difficult one. But, in terms of effort, in my opinion the narrow path is the difficult one. Resisting God brings pain, but I don't think it requires more effort than resisting Satan. If there are two people trying to convince you to do opposite things, and one of them reasons with you, but the other one is threatening you with a gun and torturing you, who is more difficult for you to resist to?
Ellen White does speak of an easy religion which is not that of the narrow path:

We hear a great deal about faith, but we need to hear a great deal more about works. Many are deceiving their own souls by living an easy-going, accommodating, crossless religion. But Jesus says, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." {NL 38.1}

The desire for an easy religion that requires no striving, no self-denial, no divorce from the follies of the world, has made the doctrine of faith, and faith only, a popular doctrine. {Mar 232.2}

Let no one talk of an easy religion. Let no one imagine that the path to Heaven is smooth and pleasant, that there is nothing to do but to believe. We are to be workers together with God; and through diligent and painstaking effort alone, can the conditions of the promises be met. The words of inspiration declare that "faith without works is dead, being alone." We are exhorted to "fight the good fight of faith." We are to wrestle with unseen foes, to labor, to watch, to strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many will be content with simple seeking, and will fail of an entrance. "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat;" but "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." {ST, July 20, 1888 par. 8}

The religion of many is altogether too comfortable, too easy. They seem to think that if they copy the life of their neighbors, they will be safe. I tell you, we are not safe in copying any one but Jesus. {RH, July 7, 1891 par. 6}


I agree that following Christ is easy, is sweet. "The longer I serve Him, the sweeter it grows." The difficulty doesn't come at all from serving Christ, but from the machinations of the enemy.

Here's the SOP statement I've been referencing:



Please note the underlined sentence. This is the point I've been making.

The narrow path is not the difficult one because God's love makes it difficult for those who would be lost to destroy themselves.

I agree with that perspective. But I understand it's not the only one we have to approach the subject.

While Christ is in you, according to John, you CANNOT sin, Satan has no power over you. As long as you are filled with the Spirit, you will always walk as Jesus walked.

And how did Jesus walk? Always in the Spirit. In that condition, He wasn't going to fall into temptation.

However, it is possible for Christians to sin. He just has to separate from God first. But humanity combined with divinity does not sin.

No, my claim was not false. My claim was a summary of the plan of redemption.

Ditto.

Arnold, according to the logic of your argument, Christ could not have fallen into temptation, right? If you disagree with this conclusion, please explain to me, given the assumptions you're making, how this could have happened.

Also, to make clear what we're discussing, here's what you said:



My statement was in regard to a converted person, any converted person. I was qualifying a converted person as one who knows Christ, has Him as a personal Savior, and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which is true of any converted person. Do you agree with this? Or do you think it's possible to be converted without one or more of these qualifying statements applying?

If you agree, then based on your statement, you look to be saying that a converted person cannot sin. Is this really what you mean to say? When you say, "in that condition" do you mean something other than the condition of being converted" (because being converted is the context of my statement that you were responding to).

Ok, so both Arnold and Rosangela are agreeing with the perspective that the narrow path is not the difficult one? The agreement is in respect to this point?

Jesus could have fallen into temptation, but only if He decided to stop depending on the Father and the Holy Spirit. But while dependent and submitted to God, man cannot sin, including Jesus.


I agree that every converted person "knows Christ, has Him as a personal Savior, and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit." If one of these aspects is missing, he is not converted.


Yes. Whoever is born of God (converted) does not sin. Whoever walks in the Spirit (converted) will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.


I mean the condition of "knowing Christ and having Him as one's personal Savior, and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit" - converted.

And going back to the original context, that condition is not something one must achieve in order to be saved, but a description of one who is already saved.

I'll speak for myself: The narrow path is not more difficult, but it requires more effort. A lot more.

Yes, in my opinion also it is not more difficult but requires more effort. You both have helped me to clarify my thought.

If Jesus could do this, then so could any other converted person, so the assertion that a converted person cannot sin is false. You can assert that a converted person cannot sin, and have it be a true statement, as long as you carefully clarify the statement, as you did above in reference to Christ, but as you originally stated it, unqualified, it's false. That is, you said:



This isn't true, as a person in this condition could do the same thing you said Jesus Christ could do, which to decide to stop depending on God. A converted person can do this at any time.

It looks like what you really meant to say was that a converted person cannot sin, provided said person does not decide to stop depending on God.

So this would make taking the two paths come down to either resisting God, or depending upon Him. Which is more difficult?

Likewise I've appreciated the discussion.

To be clear, the narrow path is the easier path because God's love makes it difficult for the lost to destroy themselves. We're in agreement on this point?

When you say it requires more effort, this means that it requires more effort to serve God than it does to fight against Him, right?

Yes. In addition, I would say the narrow path is the easier path because God bears the weight of every burden.


No, I mean that, in an evil world, it requires more effort to fight against evil than to go with it. As I said in my post #125470, the difficulty, the effort, doesn't come at all from serving Christ, but from the machinations of the enemy.

If a person is not depending on God, is he converted?

I answer most vehemently, No! He has reverted to his lost condition. He is diverted from his high calling. He has been subverted from the Rock of his salvation. He has been perverted from holiness. He is many kinds of "verted" but converted isn't one of them.

Do you disagree?

Very nice!!



The effort involved in serving God is exactly the same effort involved as that required to fight against evil, right? Aren't these synonymous? If not, what additional effort is involved in fighting evil that is not involved in serving God?

The effort involved to go along with evil is the same effort involves as fighting against God, isn't it? A point I've been making is that God isn't passive in His workings with us. It requires effort to go along with evil, and that effort is precisely the effort to fight against God.

Therefore is the effort to fight evil is greater than the effort to go along with it, it follows that the effort to serve God is greater than the effort to fight against Him. The only way around this is to somehow distinguish between the effort involved between fighting evil and serving God, or between going along with it and fighting against God.



The difficulty in fighting against God comes from resisting the pangs of the conscience and the promptings of the Holy Spirit. God loves us too much to let us go without a fight. In Acts of the Apostles it says that the Holy Spirit is constantly seeking to draw the attention of men to the love of God revealed at the cross (not the exact words, but the concept). This means the resistance must be constant. This is hard work, even if work that one is not conscious of it.

Arnold, you wrote this:



The "that condition," in the context of what I said, is being converted. You are saying that as long as one is in a converted condition, one cannot fall into temptation. But any converted person can choose to fall into temptation, so this simply isn't true. To say that one must revert before doing so doesn't help matters because one reverts precisely by falling into temptation.

I wrote the words, "that condition," didn't I? So doesn't it make more sense to take those words in the context of what I said, rather than what you said? Hermeneutics.

Anyhow, I see no difference. When you spoke of conversion, you qualified it with "after already knowing Christ and having Him as one's personal Savior, and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit." That's the condition we are speaking of, right?

In that condition, one does not sin.


While one is converted, in Christ, born again, whatever you want to call it, he cannot fall.

Falling into temptation requires separating from God's grace first.

Yes, in reference to what I had written.



No, not really. You responded to what *I* wrote. Hermeneutics.



Unless one chooses to, which one can, at any moment. So one doesn't sin as long as one remains in the condition of not sinning, which is true, but circular.



Again, this looks circular. You look to be saying that as long as one doesn't fall one can't fall. A converted person, in Christ, born again, whatever you want to call it, *can* fall into temptation.



You're presented with a temptation. You consider the temptation, and decide to do it, and so fall into temptation. Are you saying you have to separate from God's grace before you consider the temptation, or before deciding to do the temptation?

Regardless if you wish to add some in between step or steps, it would still be false to claim that a born again person cannot fall into temptation.

Right. And most of our differences come down to hermeneutics.

I am of the firm opinion that when I wrote "that condition" in my post, I know best what "that" was referring to. However, others may hold a different opinion.


"Whoever is born of God does not sin; he cannot sin because God's Seed remains in him." I'm going to stick with this promise.


"You consider the temptation, and decide to do it." Is such a person still being led by the Holy Spirit? Can a person filled with the Spirit choose to sin?

Perhaps that's where we differ. I am convinced that humanity and divinity combined does not commit sin.

Hence, my answer to the question "Why do we sin?" is simple: We are not combined with divinity.

I was contrasting being converted vs. not being converted. You responded that a person in "that condition," which, to me, was simply a converted person, could not fall into temptation. I was wishing to clarify if you were understanding what I meant and that when you said "in that condition" that you meant the same thing that I did when I described the condition. In other words, I was wanting to confirm that you were talking about the same thing that I was. Because I disagree with your assertion that a person "in that condition" cannot fall into temptation, I wanted to clarify what "that condition" is.



The question is what the statement means. Two things are good to bear in mind in understanding this. One is the context. What is John talking about? In particular, what is sin in the context of his statement? E.g., a few verses later:



The context in John's epistle is not the development of a theology that converted people cannot sin, but what are the characteristics of a converted person. A converted person will love his brother, by showing compassion.

A second point is that the present active indicative is used in the Greek for "does not sin" and "can not sin" from above. This can mean "does not ever sin" or "does not habitually sin", and similarly for the second usage. For example, here are a few translations which bring out this idea.









In addition to being grammatically correct, these fit with the context of what John is saying.



What do you think this means? Jesus Christ was humanity and divinity combined, wasn't He? Was it possible for Him to sin?



How does this relate to your assertion that a converted person cannot fall into temptation?

I don't see the dichotomy. A converted person doesn't sin, he loves his brother, he shows compassion. Those go together.


So we have 2 incompatible possibilities there. Which one is correct?

I believe the correct understanding is "does not ever sin." I believe that the converted person can experience, by God's grace, uninterrupted victories over sin. That is, of course, as long as he stays converted, living under grace.

But Johns wasn't the only one who taught that. Here's Paul:

"Sons of God" matches John's "born of God." They're talking about the same group of people.

Paul says they are "led by the Spirit of God." Does the Holy Spirit lead us into temptation? James says He does not.

So, if you go into temptation, are you led by the Spirit? No. Hence, you're not a son of God. Therefore, 1Jn 3:9 does not apply to you.

But if you are led by the Spirit, He always leads into truth and righteousness.


Possible. But since He was always led by the Spirit, He did not sin, not even by a thought. So it may be with us.


The converted person is a partaker of the divine nature. As such, God is able to keep him from falling.

Now I'm going to add an even bigger promise. Jesus hated sin with a perfect hatred. By God's grace, we can come to the same point. Not only can we constantly walk as Jesus walked, but even the thought of walking where He does not lead can become hateful to us.

This doesn't fit with the context. John says if anyone sins, he has an advocate. If believers never sinned, they wouldn't need an advocate. John would not need to have said this.



Yes, Jesus demonstrated this.



This looks to be saying as long as a person doesn't sin, he doesn't sin. A converted person can fall under temptation anytime he's tempted.



Why are you asking this?



We wouldn't know this if not for James?



God does not tempt us, but this does not mean that if one is tempted that one is not being led of God. Even Jesus Christ was tempted. Where are you wanting to go with this?



If you're tempted?



1 John 3:9 says nothing about temptation. It's talking about the characteristics of a believer, like the rest of the epistle. It's present active indicative, indicating a habitual action.



And the devil tempts you. And our sinful nature tempts us. And there are temptations in the world. And people can tempt us. And this probably isn't comprehensive. To be tempted is not to sin.

Tom,

Your last post tells me that it's time to stop. We are having a hard time seeing eye-to-eye on very basic principles. Time for milk.

I'll close with this: For the converted, sin is not an option.

If we agree on what it means to be converted, we will agree that such a person does not sin.

A converted person is a person who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (i.e., someone who has accept Christ as their personal Savior).

Savior from what?

No, I don't consider them synonymous. God's creatures served Him before the inception of sin, and will continue to serve Him after its erradication. I think that serving God is loving Him, living for Him and doing what pleases Him. This may involve fighting evil, but goes much beyond it.


I also think they are distinct things. I think there is a difference between fighting against God and resisting the prompts of the Holy Spirit (which latter, I think, is what you refer to). A creature who has comitted the unpardonable sin my fight against God, and goes along with evil, but that creature no longer resists the prompts of the Holy Spirit - doesn't even feel them.

What did you have in mind? (I mean, what choices). "Savior from sin" is, of course, what everyone says, but if you're asking the question, you must have some reason for doing so.

In the context of our discussion, serving God is dealing with fallen humans. Given that it goes much beyond fighting evil, this just makes what I said even more true. That is, if serving God is does not require more effort than fighting against Him, then fighting evil cannot require more effort than this, since serving God requires more effort then fighting evil(since it encompasses fighting evil, but also much more).



Fighting against God, in the context of our discussion, means fighting against Him in the context of the promptings of the Holy Spirit, yes. This seemed clear to me. It also seemed clear to me that we were dealing with fallen humans.

To summarize, if serving God is not more difficult than fighting against Him, then fighting evil cannot be more difficult than not doing so (assuming that to not do so requires fighting against God, which it does). This follows, right?

You defined a converted person as "a person who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (i.e., someone who has accept Christ as their personal Savior)." I'm asking, in the context of your definition, what do you believe Jesus has saved the converted person from?

Given that everyone gives "Savior from sin" as the answer, is that your answer also?

This is getting confusing. We have two comparisons here:

fighting evil/going along with it
serving God/fighting against Him

What I said was that the effort to fight evil is greater than the effort to go along with it.

But fighting evil, to me, is not the same as serving God. I think fighting evil is one of the things you sometimes do when you serve God (please Him).

Also, going along with evil is not the same as fighting against God (resisting the Holy Spirit). Fighting against God is one of the things you sometimes do when you go along with evil.

So, fighting evil and serving God are related, but not synonymous. The same is true of going along with evil and fighting God. The two pairs are separate.

So I believe that fighting against God is more difficult than serving God, but that fighting evil is more difficult than going along with it.

A person is converted from unbelief.



That's an interesting question. I've thought of it in terms of "Savior from sin," but given that I just said that one is converted from unbelief, and that the SOP tells us that "unbelief is the root of all sin," perhaps "Savior from unbelief" is an alternative. Did you have some alternative definition in mind?

Right, you said that serving God encompasses fighting evil, but much more than this. So serving God involves more effort than simply fighting evil.



Right, so fighting evil requires more effort than fighting against God (resisting the Holy Spirit).

Now you said, if I understood you correctly, that fighting God is not harder than serving God. Since going along with evil requires more effort than fighting against God (resisting the Holy Spirit), and serving God requires more effort than fighting Him, is cannot be the case (given your assumption that serving God is not more difficult than fighting Him) that it's easier to go along with evil than not, as this would be a logical contradiction.



Yes, but the pairs have the following points:

a.Serving God requires more effort than fighting evil (because fighting evil is only a part of what's involved in serving God)
b.Going along with evil requires more effort than fighting God - resisting the Holy Spirit (because resisting the Holy Spirit is only a part of what's involved to fight evil).

Therefore if it's easier to serve God than it is to fight against Him, it must be the case that it's easier to fight evil than to go along with it.

In terms of effort, from least to most, we have:

1.Fight evil.
2.Serve God.
3.Fight against God (resist the Holy Spirit)
4.Go along with evil.

This follows from your statement that it's easier to serve God than to fight against Him, and from the fact that serving God involves fighting evil, but "much more," and that going along with evil involves fighting God (resisting the Holy Spirit), but more than that (hence more effort).



I hope you can see the logical contradiction involved here. Hopefully I've made this clear.

Sounds like you are trying to prove that whatever you have just said is now truth. I beg to differ.

The devils believe and tremble. If all that was required was to be "saved from unbelief," I guess the demons will be saved. This concept from James, then, begs the question as to the context of Mrs. White's statements on the definitions of "belief" and "root of all sin," and certainly undermines the concept of being "saved from unbelief."

"Saved from sin" is what I want. Considering that unbelief is one of those sins, I want to be saved from it too. But "sin" is a broad category, of which "unbelief" is just one part.

It is possible to sin without having "unbelief." The very first sin in the universe was?...

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

More later.

"Believe" here is used in a different sense than in John 3:16, which speaks of the belief involved in saving faith. Do you disagree?



To be saved from unbelief would mean to believe, as in John 3:16. Do you think the devils believe in this sense? Or could James be using the word in a different sense, as in mental assent? What do you think the context of James 2:19 suggests?



Yes, considering the context of the given statements would be a good idea!

I couldn't find the quote I was looking for. The quote must be slightly different than what I'm remembering. I came across this, which is very similar:



Also the following:



The part in quotes is Ellen White. The preceding part is from the author, whose point and logic I agree with. He quotes her from Education, but doesn't give the page number.

I noticed a number of times she also wrote that selfishness is the root of all sin. That makes sense, since agape is the fulfillment of the law.



Well, that's the usual definition. I was seeing if Arnold had something else in mind. Given that unbelief is the root of sin, being saved from unbelief would lead to being saved from sin. To put it another way, righteousness is by faith, and faith is the same thing as belief (both from the same Greek word). Of course, "belief" should be understood in context, which is not mental assent (as in James 2:19) but saving faith (as in John 3:16, and countless other places).



Since righteousness is by faith, unrighteousness (which is transgression of the law, or sin) is by unbelief. Getting rid of the unbelief encompasses all sin. Put another way, whatsoever is not of faith is sin.



A sin of unbelief!

"Unbelief is the root of all sin."

That statement is not supported by inspiration.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There are some other alternatives that I have heard, but I agree with what you said, given the proper definition of "belief/unbelief."

So let's say that "Savior from sin" and "Savior from unbelief" are equivalent. If I'm understanding you, your definition of a converted person is one who has a Savior from sin/unbelief.

If a person has a Savior from sin, how can he sin? If he's sinning, that means he needs a Savior; he doesn't have one. It's like saying that a person has been saved from drowning, while he is still drowning in the water. If one has been saved from sin, he has been separated from it.

Let's look at belief/unbelief. If one has been saved from unbelief, why would he choose to do that which he knows is wrong? Why would he sin against God? Such an act would be unbelief. Therefore, he hasn't been saved from it.

The other definitions I have heard of converted or saved can allow one to still sin. But if our definition is "having a Savior from sin," we cannot mix it with sin.

We are lost by default. We do not have to choose to be lost. On the other hand, we must consciously choose to be saved, to experience rebirth. And then we must continue to consciously choose to abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature.

True, people must resist the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit. However, doing so does not change our default status. It is no easy matter to change our status. It requires extreme effort to experience rebirth, and it requires continued extreme effort to stay converted. It is easier to be lost than it is to be saved. Ellen White made this point crystal clear. Here is a sampling:

It is no easy matter to gain the priceless treasure of eternal life. {Mar 47.3}

The gaining of eternal life is no easy thing. {TMK 21.5}

It is difficult to depart from old customs and established ideas. {CT 392.1}

It is easier to learn evil than to eradicate it after it is learned. {CG 457.4}

It is easier to invite the enemy into your hearts than to dismiss him after he has the ground. {3T 325.3}

It is difficult to hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end; and the difficulty increases when there are hidden influences constantly at work to bring in another spirit, a counterworking element, on Satan's side of the question. {Mar 28.2}

In this time of special danger for the young, temptations surround them on every hand; and while it is easy to drift, the strongest effort is required in order to press against the current. {Ed 293.2}

It is difficult to arouse them to a sense of the shame and grievous nature of sin. {ML 146.3}

It is difficult to hold fast Christian integrity. {TMK 352.2}

Let self break in pieces before God. It is hard to do this; but we are warned to fall upon the Rock and be broken, else it will fall upon us, and grind us to powder. {HP 30.2}

Into the experience of all there come times of keen disappointment and utter discouragement--days when sorrow is the portion, and it is hard to believe that God is still the kind benefactor of His earth-born children; days when troubles harass the soul, till death seems preferable to life. It is then that many lose their hold on God and are brought into the slavery of doubt, the bondage of unbelief. {ML 328.2}

In many cases the moral powers seem deadened, and it is difficult to arouse them to a sense of the shame and grievous nature of sin; they slip easily into habits of prevarication, deceit, and often open lying. {CG 388.1}

We have trained ourselves to engage with earnestness and power in worldly business, until it is easy for the mind to take that turn. This is why Christians find a religious life so hard and a worldly life so easy. {2T 263.4}

To resist Satan's desires is no easy task. It demands a firm hold of the divine nature from beginning to end, or it cannot be done. {1SM 342.3}

It is easy for you to drop Christ out of your experience. {5T 586.3}

It is easy to rebel, easy to give battle before considering matters rationally, calmly, and settling whether there is anything to war against. {1T 527.1}

It is easy for the enemy to work through those who, themselves needing counsel at every step, undertake the guardianship of souls in their own strength, without having learned the lowliness of Christ. {AA 279.1}

Temptations surround them on every hand; and while it is easy work to float with the current, the strongest effort is required to press against the tide of evil. {4T 421.3}

The strongest evidence of man's fall from a higher state is the fact that it costs so much to return. The way of return can be gained only by hard fighting, inch by inch, hour by hour. In one moment, by a hasty, unguarded act, we may place ourselves in the power of evil; but it requires more than a moment to break the fetters and attain to a holier life. The purpose may be formed, the work begun; but its accomplishment will require toil, time, perseverance, patience, and sacrifice. {MH 452.2} [/quote]

Ellen White also had this to say about it:


Some people mistakenly apply this wonderful truth to believers who are living in known sin.

I don't think this is true. First of all, I think the author's logic is sound that I quoted. Secondly, I recall reading something like this, although I don't remember exactly how it was worded.

Also, from Scripture, we have the words of Jesus and Paul. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." "He that believes not is condemned already" (this is unbelief).

Righteousness is by faith. Condemnation is by unbelief.

It still seems to me that your basically arguing in a circle, saying that as long as one doesn't sin, one can't sin.

A person who is saved, whether from sin or unbelief, can be presented with a temptation and fall, of which Moses is a fine example. (I'm thinking of Moses' sin of hitting the rock).

This seems not to take into account Christ's work. We *would* have been lost by default (or, actually, irrevocably lost) had Christ not done what He did, but:



So "restored" looks to be the default condition, since the "whole race" was "restored."



Of course we do:



You're familiar with this! I've quoted this many time.

We have to resist to be lost. That's a choice.

If you want to disprove my statement, it can only be by finding a quote which says that unbelief, lack of faith, doubt, etc. is the "root of all sin." Apart from such a statement, I stand by my affirmation that this is not an inspired comment.

As for the latter part of your post, you have done a bait-and-switch again, switching subjects.

As believers, and not "unbelievers," we believe Jesus saves us. But it is not this belief that saves us. "The devils also believe, and tremble!" We may be "justified by faith," yet this does not mean we are "saved from sin." There's a vast difference between justification and sanctification, and I think most of us would agree that it is the latter which we desire in terms of "salvation from sin."

I don't want to merely be saved from sin's penalty of death...I want to be saved from the sins themselves.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I didn't say "encompasses," I said "involves." For instance, you are driving and you meet a stone in your way. It's necessary that you remove the stone in order to continue driving, but driving doesn't encompass removing stones. They are two separate activities, although, in this case, related.


?
I said precisely the opposite. My last sentence: "So I believe that fighting against God is more difficult than serving God."


I don't see a logical contradiction here because, as I said, I consider that the two pairs are related but separate - one is not encompassed by the other. "Encompass" means "include as part of something broader." But I consider fighting evil like the obstacle, the stone, which is not part of driving.

Whatever words are used, the point is that serving God involves fighting evil, and thus requires more effort than simply fighting evil would.



Yes, I said it backwards here, but correct in the conclusion.



Here's the logical contradiction:

In terms of effort, from least to most, we have:

1.Fight evil.
2.Serve God.
3.Fight against God (resist the Holy Spirit)
4.Go along with evil.

This follows from your statement that it's easier to serve God than to fight against Him, and from the fact that serving God involves fighting evil, but "much more," and that going along with evil involves fighting God (resisting the Holy Spirit), but more than that (hence more effort).

Since serving God encompasses (or involves) fighting evil (but "much more" as well), it requires more effort than simply fighting evil would, so 2 requires more effort than 1.

You said that fighting against God is more difficult than serving Him, from which I infer 3 requires more effort than 2.

That 4 requires more effort than 3 follows from the fact that going along with evil involves resisting the Holy Spirit.

Since 4 requires more effort than 3, which requires more effort than 2, which requires more effort than 1, it follows that 4 requires more effort than 1.

I've told you I've seen a statement very similar to this, although I don't recall the exact wording. I also have stated, twice, that the author whom I cited, who quoted from "Education", used sound logic.

If you choose not to believe what I've said, that I recall reading something very similar to what I quoted, that's your prerogative. A more accurate on your part would simply be that I haven't produced a statement from EGW which says "unbelief is the root of all sin," which I've already said.



? No, not at all. I was dealing with the subject. At least as I perceive things.

You're not being very charitable in your writing here.



Believing that Jesus Christ isn't what John 3:16, or the other verses I cited, are discussing. Believing that Jesus Christ saves us is simply believing a fact. This isn't what saving faith involves. It involves repentance and faith, trusting in and committing to an actual Being.



Again, as I've stated, not in the sense of John 3:16. Please consider the context of James 2:19.



Sure it does. I'll post something from Waggoner which explains this eloquently.



I don't know what you're trying to say here.



Justification does this. Please consider the following post quoting from Waggoner's "Christ and His Righteousness."

Let no one cavil over the expression, "putting on righteousness," as though such a thing were hypocrisy. Some, with a singular lack of appreciation of the value of the gift of righteousness, have said that they did not want righteousness that was "put on," but that they wanted only that righteousness which comes from the life, thus depreciating the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe. We agree with their idea insofar as it is a protest against hypocrisy, a form of godliness without the power, but we would have the reader bear this thought in mind: It makes a vast deal of difference who puts the righteousness on. If we attempt to put it on ourselves, then we really get on nothing but a filthy garment, no matter how beautiful it may look to us, but when Christ clothes us with it, it is not to be despised nor rejected. Mark the expression in Isaiah: "He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness." The righteousness with which Christ covers us is righteousness that meets the approval of God, and if God is satisfied with it, surely men ought not to try to find anything better.

But we will carry the figure a step further and that will relieve the matter of all difficulty. Zech. 3:1-5 furnishes the solution. It reads thus:

"And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee; is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the Angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair miter upon his head. So they set a fair miter upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the Angel of the Lord stood by."

Notice in the above account that the taking away of the filthy garments is the same as causing the iniquity to pass from the person. And so we find that when Christ covers us with the robe of His own righteousness, He does not furnish a cloak for sin but takes the sin away.And this shows that the forgiveness of sins is something more than a mere form, something more than a mere entry in the books of record in heaven, to the effect that the sin has been canceled. The forgiveness of sins is a reality; it is something tangible, something that vitally affects the individual. It actually clears him from guilt, and if he is cleared from guilt, is justified, made righteous, he has certainly undergone a radical change. He is, indeed, another person, for he obtained this righteousness for the remission of sins, in Christ. It was obtained only by putting on Christ. But "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." 2 Cor. 5:17. And so the full and free forgiveness of sins carries with it that wonderful and miraculous change known as the new birth, for a man cannot become a new creature except by a new birth. This is the same as having a new, or a clean, heart.

The new heart is a heart that loves righteousness and hates sin. It is a heart of willingness to be led into the paths of righteousness. It is such a heart as the Lord wished Israel to have when he said, "O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!" Deut. 5:29. In short, it is a heart free from the love of sin as well as from the guilt of sin.(E. J. Waggoner; Christ and His Righteousness, p.66)

Tom,

Saying "unbelief is the root of all sin," does not equate with "belief is salvation," however much you would like to make that switch. (And I have yet to see even that the first statement is true, so the logical connection, if such exists, is irrelevant anyhow.) Here is a statement that demonstrates how "belief" cannot save us.


Mrs. White speaks above of "enduring," and not just "believing." She speaks of both hope and faith. But a mere assent to the truth, or a belief in God, does not save anyone. What do you suppose she means by "endure?"

Would "endure" have a relationship to the "resisting" or "fighting" that we have been discussing here?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Beliefs that will not save us:

--belief that we are saved
--belief that Jesus is God
--belief that Jesus saves
--belief in a lie, however sincerely we believe it
--belief in the truth, when the belief does not lead to action

We can be "believing sinners." Belief, in and of itself, will not prevent us from sinning. Going back to the thread question, why then do we sin?

I see many reasons. But the biggest reason, in my mind, is this:

IGNORANCE.

If we truly knew and understood what our sins are, how they hurt Christ, how they affect others, and what they will ultimately lead us to, we would not choose to sin.

Eve sinned in ignorance. If she had known the serpent was the fallen angel she had been warned of, she would never have gone near it. We sin in ignorance. Every sacrifice for sins in the Old Testament was for a sin of ignorance. (We've had this discussion before in another thread, but I don't remember which one.) Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Knowledge of the truth is perhaps the single best antidote to our "sins of ignorance" problem. Jesus is the truth. Know Him, know salvation from sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The difference is, I believe that one who is abiding in Christ will be kept from falling. In order to fall, one must first remove himself from God's grip.

Consider Moses, for example. He was presented with a temptation, and lost his temper. Saying that Moses has to first remove himself from God's grip is saying what? What specifically did Moses do to remove Himself from God's grip?

You're saying that as long as one abides in Christ, he is kept from falling. What must one do to abide in Christ? If one stops doing this, is one sinning by so doing?

? I've not said this.

What do you mean by "belief"? It seems to me what you're thinking of is "mental assent." I've been talking about saving faith, which I've been making clear.

James 2:19 is not discussing saving faith, but mental assent. John 3:16 is dealing with saving faith.



Again, I haven't said this. Again, I've been speaking of saving faith.



Certainly if it exists it's irrelevant, regardless of whether you've seen it or not.



I didn't see anything in the statement that has anything to do with anything I've said. The statement is dealing with the "once saved, always saved" idea.



One endures by faith. "The just shall live by faith."

Salvation is not by faith plus something else. It's not faith and works, but faith which works.



Right, and that's what I've been saying.



"The just shall live by faith."



This is from "The Desire of Ages"



"Enduring" is continuing to have this experience.

This is simply "mental assent," which, of course, is not saving faith.



No we can't (understanding "believing" as Jesus used the term in John 3:16).

Righteousness is by faith. Righteousness = obedience to the law. Sin = transgression of the law. One who lives by faith is righteous, which is to say obedient to the law, which is the opposite of sinning. Or, as Arnold has been saying (or quoting from 1John, to be more accurate) one who is born of God does not sin.



I don't know what you have in mind by "in and of itself." But salvation is by faith, not faith plus something else, like effort or works.

Saving faith, however, produces works, and effort. Not to gain or obtain salvation, but in gratitude, from a heart which appreciates the gift of God.



"Unbelief" would be a better characterization, I think.







Not if understanding here is simply mental assent. This would lead to the same problem you've been pointing out in regards to "belief."



This seems contradictory to what you were saying before. Simply knowing the truth is not protection against sin. The will must be involved, and that's where faith comes into play. Faith binds our hearts to God, leading us to do things which please Him, out of appreciation for His love for us and what He has done for us.

Regarding ignorance, please consider the EGW quote cited above. You can see that the frown of God (i.e. condemnation) only exists where ignorance is not the issue.

Your texts are confusing the issues again, Tom. For the one who "knows to do good," and does not do it, what kind of sin is that addressing? That is addressing a single category of sin which does not encompass other categories.

Your statement from Mrs. White is likewise misleading in the light which you present it. When people do something they should not do without knowing they should not do it, it may not be counted against them as sin, but did that turn the wrong deed into righteousness? Hardly.

There weren't any sacrifices in the Bible for the sin of "unbelief." Contrariwise, they were all for sins of ignorance. Every sin is a sin of ignorance. We sin because we don't know any better. Even when we ought to know, and even when we know the thing is wrong, we do not know how wrong, or how bad the thing is. We are ignorant.

"For now we see through a glass darkly..."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If every sin is a sin of ignorance, I don't see how one could make any sense out of either the James text or the SOP statement.

What did you think of the Waggoner passage I quoted?

So if you happen to find a stone blocking your way you would say that driving is more difficult than removing the stone? Does this comparison make any sense to you? To me it doesn't. Driving is driving and removing the stone is removing the stone. Two distinct things, although, in this case, related. Driving is guiding, controlling or directing the vehicle, not moving stones from one place to another. Nor would I consider moving the stone a part of the driving process.
Because serving God and fighting evil seem two distinct things to me, and the same is true of resisting God and going along with evil (for instance, Satan has been going along with evil for thousands of years without resisting God), I don't think there is a logical contradiction in what I said.

I don't think your analogy makes sense. Fighting evil is clearly an integral part of serving God. It would be more like checking your mirrors in the analogy. Checking the mirrors is an in integral part of driving, but driving involves more effort than checking the mirrors. Similarly fighting evil is an integral part of serving God, but involves less effort, since serving God "involves much more."

So again, we have, in terms of effort:

1.Fighting evil
2.Serving God
3.Fighting God (resisting the Holy Spirit)
4.Going along with evil

I don't see how one could leap from 4 over 2 and 3 to conclude that going along with evil requires less effort than fighting evil. I understand this from the standpoint that we have sinful natures, which, of themselves, are inclined towards self, and that it takes discipline etc., but it seems to me we need to be cognizant of the fact that God is actually doing something here. He doesn't just sit back with His arms crossed twiddling His thumbs.

As the SOP puts it, God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves. It takes effort to "go along with evil" because God loves us, and doesn't want us to be lost.

As I said earlier, if it were an integral part of serving God, the unfallen beings wouldn't be able to serve God. Besides, if fighting evil was an integral part of serving God, then going along with evil would have to be an integral part of resisting God (or resisting God would have to be an integral part of going along with evil), and this is clearly not true.


No, I don't see this from the standpoint that we have sinful natures. It's easier to go along with evil than to fight it because of the pressure Satan and this evil world exert upon us. As I said, while God tries to convince us, Satan tries to fool us or to intimidate us. While God tries to woo us, Satan tries to allure us. As I said earlier, which is more difficult: to resist a person who tries to convince you with arguments, or to resist a person who tries to convince you with a gun?

This is certainly faulty reasoning. It's an integral part of *our* serving God. It's not an integral part of unfallen beings serving God because they haven't sinned.

By using the same reasoning you used here, one could argue that repentance is not an integral part of serving God either, or prayer, or disciplining our fallen natures, or a whole host of other things. Most of what we do as we serve God could be excluded using this reasoning.



No, this doesn't follow either.

Here's the logical construct:

A = fighting evil.
~A = going along with evil.

B = serving God
~B = resisting God.

Your argument comes down to (A=>B) => (~A=>~B), which is an invalid argument. This should be (A=>B) => (~B=>~A). This is the contra-positive, which is a valid conclusion. Your conclusion is not.

Here's an example. Getting enough rest is an integral part of being healthy. This doesn't imply that not getting enough rest is an integral part of not being health, which is what your argument is tantamount to.



This would be true if God were not exerting influence in the other direction, in addition to putting within us a desire of holiness and for that which is good.



Regardless, if your premise is true, that serving God involves less effort than fighting God, then it follows that fighting evil involves less effort than going along with it, because fighting evil requires less effort than serving God (since fighting evil is a part of what's involved in serving God, which is "much more"), and fighting God (which one must do to go along with evil) involves more effort than not fighting God.

I think in these discussions what's being underestimated is what God is doing compared to what Satan is doing. That is, Satan is conceived of using the influence of something akin to a gun, whereas God is conceived of as using a much less powerful influence. But in reality, God uses great influence to reach us, the influence of love. Is love stronger than hate? Is light stronger than darkness? Is truth stronger than error?

God made His creatures to serve Him, not to fight temptation (resisting evil). Sin is an intruder in God's universe and so is temptation. So temptation is an obstacle you have to deal with in order to continue serving God (in the same way a stone is an obstacle you have to deal with in order to continue driving). If you overcome it, you continue serving God. If you don't, you serve Satan. At least this is how I see things.


?
What I said is, if serving God encompasses resisting evil (which is what you are saying), then resisting God should encompass going along with evil - if B=>A, then ~B=>~A; or: if serving God encompasses resisting evil, then going along with evil should encompass resisting God - if B=>A, then ~A=>~B. I gave the two options.
Are you saying the first argument is invalid? I don't know why, but anyway. The second one would be a contra-positive, as you say. Does it express what you believe?


You are not saying that A=>B, but that B=>A.

As for me, I don't compare the first pair with the second. As I pointed out earlier, saying that driving the car is more difficult than removing the stone makes no sense to me. So in fact I'm just saying that A>~A and ~B>B. Besides, A>~A because of the effort involved, while ~B>B because of the pain involved. So there is no way the two pairs can be compared.

Regarding serving God, since the fall, serving God has dynamically changed. It involves many things, such as repentance, prayer, confession, apologizing, to name a few, which didn't exist before sin. It also involves fighting evil. Fighting evil, and these other things, are a part of serving God, in the reality in which we live, as sinful human beings, and, as such, serving God requires more effort than merely fighting evil would.

I'm totally not understanding how you could conceive of serving God as not involving fighting evil.

Regarding the logical fallacy, I thought I explained it pretty well. The error you're making is to think that if A involves B, then not A involves not B. This simply isn't the case. I gave you an example to consider, involving health and rest, which may make it clear if you think about it.

Given that serving God encompasses fighting evil, the logical conclusion we could make from this is that if one is not fighting evil, one is not serving God, and that's it. We cannot conclude that not serving God encompasses not fighting evil (or, using synonyms, that resisting God encompasses going along with evil).

Just time for a quickie.

Statement 1: If A then B.
Statement 2: If not A then not B.
It is a logical fallacy to conclude #2 from #1. The 2nd statement might still be true, but it cannot be logically derived from the 1st statement.

"encompasses" does not necessarily mean "must always include"

"It is a logical fallacy to conclude #2 from #1" means precisely "#2 cannot be logically derived from #1." "To conclude" is "to logically derive."

Definition of "conclude":

I'm glad you agree with me.

Repentance and confession only occur after you've ceased serving God (for some moments at least), and they indicate you wish to return to God’s service. I think the same could be said about apologizing because, in order to serve God, you must be in harmony with your neighbor. As to prayer, I agree it is an integral part of serving God. But prayer is speaking to God, communing with Him - the same thing the unfallen beings do, except for the fact we can't see God.


Yes, I see it now. But I consider that you argument is also invalid. You said:

If serving God involves less effort than fighting God, then it follows that fighting evil involves less effort than going along with it, because fighting evil requires less effort than serving God (since fighting evil is a part of what's involved in serving God, which is "much more"), and fighting God (which one must do to go along with evil) involves more effort than not fighting God.

The problem is with the proposition “fighting God (which one must do to go along with evil).” You don’t have to fight God (resist the Holy Spirit) in order to go along with evil. Satan doesn’t do it.

I came across the following referenced in the March Review:
This seems to me to say that following God is harder. However, there is a qualifier saying, by uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit. If one doesn't unite with and partake of the world's spirit, could it be a possibility that it is easier to follow God?

Most of the foregoing discussion in the past few pages here amounts to a waste of time with a logic war which has no hope of resolving anything. I don't care to continue it.

It seems clear to me, from the scriptures which have been presented (thank you Mike and others), that it is not as easy to follow God, but the end result of doing so is much less troublesome.

The way to salvation may be hard, but the punishment of the lost is harder. Furthermore, the way of sin may be easier (no need to resist temptation, or peer pressure, or be any different from the world--i.e. go with the flow), but the results are rather difficult to bear (sorrow, pain, misery, death).

The path of life is hard. It is not easy to resist the devil. But it is very rewarding.

Thus, I conclude that the argument of "easy" versus "difficult" here is really focused on two things. A table illustrates this well.

	Path to Heaven	Highway to Hell
Difficulty of Journey	Hard; uphill battle	Easy; Go with the flow
Results & Effects	Easy; burden is light, reward is precious	Hard; kicking against the pricks, leads to misery and death

Therefore, in terms of labor, the path to Heaven is hardest. In terms of rewards, the path to Hell is terrible. Far easier overall to take the more difficult road, though temporarily (this life) it is the tougher experience.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok, I'm glad you see it.



This is confusing the validity of an argument with the conclusion. The argument I presented is valid. That means that the logic from one step to another is sound, and if the assumptions are true, then the conclusion is true. You can take issues with the assumptions, in which case the conclusion might not be true.



You appear to be arguing that we, as humans, don't have to fight God in order to go along with evil because Satan doesn't have to do so. This isn't a reasonable argument to make because there are many things that don't apply to Satan that apply to us. Satan has long since passed the point of no return. He's committed the unpardonable sin. I suppose one could argue that a person who has committed the unpardonable sin doesn't have to resist the Holy Spirit to go along with evil, but every one else has to. That's because the Holy Spirit doesn't want anyone to be lost. He doesn't just allow people to go along with evil without pricking their consciences.

I'm curious as to what you're thinking here. You're saying one can go along with evil without resisting the Holy Spirit. Why do you think this?

The MB passage I cited earlier says that God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves. This seems to me to be equivalent to saying that one must resist the Holy Spirit to go along with evil. These seem to be speaking of the same thing. How is it that God's love makes it difficult for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves? Isn't it by the agency of the Holy Spirit? Aren't the "heedless" ones those who are "going along with evil"? (That's pretty much what "heedless" means).

I note the following:



This is dealing with the journey itself, which is clear from the context. It says, "Do not therefore conclude that the upward path is the hard and the downward road the easy way." "Easy way" is dealing with the journey.

Secondly, when Jesus said His yoke was easy and His burden light, this is clearly talking about the journey. This is how anyone would take what He said. He said to come to Him that we might find rest. This is the journey. We find rest in Christ.



Above we read, "Yet do not therefore conclude that the upward path is the hard and the downward road the easy way." So the "difficult road" is the downward one. The "tougher experience" is the downward road, just as proverbs tells us, "The way of sinners is hard."

Yes, I'm questioning the assumption that one must fight God in order to go along with evil. Although this is true in most cases, this is not true in all cases.


You are basing your conclusion in terms of the effort involved. But if there is no effort involved in resisting the Holy Spirit (in the case of those who committed the unpardonable sin), you can't say that for them it's difficult to be lost. OTOH, we would still say it's difficult for them to be lost, because of the pain involved - which is what the MB passage is all about:

Yet do not therefore conclude that the upward path is the hard and the downward road the easy way. All along the road that leads to death there are pains and penalties, there are sorrows and disappointments, there are warnings not to go on. God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves. (MB 138)

There are only 2 spirits: God/Jesus or Satan/world/self. We either partake of one or the other.

Following God is not just easier when partaking of God's Spirit; it is inevitable. It is impossible to walk in the flesh while filled with the Holy Spirit.

But the worldly side is "easier" regardless of the spirit one has. Note this:

Corruption requires "no effort." That's the easy way. It cannot get easier than "no effort."

The opposite direction - God's way - requires patient endeavor. It needs more effort than "no effort."

I agree. The MB quote's point regarding the "downward road" is that it is hard to BE there, not that it's hard to GET there. There are many inspired statements that tell us it takes a lot of work to get OUT of there. I haven't yet seen one quote that says that the wide road requires much work to get to.

Arnold,

That sums up what I was trying to say. There's a difference between process and results. The results of the sinful road are hard to bear, but the road itself is the easy slide down. The results of the road to Heaven are easy on the eyes and on the weary traveler, who has been wearied by the difficulties along the way. So basically, we have a choice: weary road for blessed results, or easy road to a rotten end.

In the "Pilgrim's Progress," this journey is well illustrated. The portion dealing with the two children is thought-provoking: the one getting a reward early, and mocking and laughing at the other child while cavorting in his things, while the other child must patiently wait for his reward, for it has not come yet. Those looking on feel that the child with nothing has been treated unfairly. But in the end, his reward is far the better of the two. "Here is the patience of the saints." "He that endureth to the end..." receives the crown of life.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, you seem to be arguing sinners are saved by default if they do not consciously reject their salvation. You also seem to think it is easier to be saved than it is to be lost. Several pages ago I posted a bunch of SOP statements which articulate the opposite in no uncertain terms. I didn't see where you addressed those quotes.

Also, there is the following plain insight:


1. "When the soul surrenders itself to Christ, a new power takes possession of the new heart. A change is wrought which man can never accomplish for himself. It is a supernatural work, bringing a supernatural element into human nature. The soul that is yielded to Christ becomes His own fortress, which He holds in a revolted world, and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. A soul thus kept in possession by the heavenly agencies is impregnable to the assaults of Satan."

This insight refutes the idea that sinners enter this world in a saved state. Otherwise, there would be no need for rebirth.

2. "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. It is not necessary for us deliberately to choose the service of the kingdom of darkness in order to come under its dominion. We have only to neglect to ally ourselves with the kingdom of light. If we do not co-operate with the heavenly agencies, Satan will take possession of the heart, and will make it his abiding place."

Again, rebirth is requisite. Why? Because we are born lost.

3. "The only defense against evil is the indwelling of Christ in the heart through faith in His righteousness. Unless we become vitally connected with God, we can never resist the unhallowed effects of self-love, self-indulgence, and temptation to sin. We may leave off many bad habits, for the time we may part company with Satan; but without a vital connection with God, through the surrender of ourselves to Him moment by moment, we shall be overcome. Without a personal acquaintance with Christ, and a continual communion, we are at the mercy of the enemy, and shall do his bidding in the end."

Once again, she makes it clear - our natural state is to be lost. We must experience rebirth or we are serving sin, self, and Satan.

No, I'm not. I'm basing my conclusion based on the words used: "Do not therefore conclude that the downward path is the easy way." I'm going on the usage of the word "easy" to conclude that the downward path is not the easy way.

Similarly, Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden light.



This is overlooking the great deal of effort was involved for them to reach that point. What also seems to be being not taken into consideration is how much God loves those who would be lost. He doesn't allow them to be easily be lost.



What the passage is all about seems to me to be highlighted especially in the last sentence here. "God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves." This is why it's hard to be lost.

This is precisely the error that it's vital that we not fall into. It's not an "easy slide down." It's not just the result of the sinful road that are hard to bear, but the road itself.



This isn't dealing with the results, but the road itself. It says, "All along the road that leads to death there are pains and penalties, there are sorrows and disappointments ..." "Pains and penalties," "sorrows and disappointments." This is dealing with the way itself. "All along the way" is the journey, not the results. The journey itself is hard, as Scripture says, "The way of the transgressor is hard."

On the other hand, Jesus says:



Jesus reveals the Father to those who wish to learn of Him; He provides "rest unto our souls." His yoke is easy, and His burden light.

I disagree. Why do you think I seem to be arguing this? Please quote something I've said, or present some argument I've made to this effect in our discussion here. I don't think I've said anything like this. I've been arguing that we should not conclude that the downward path is the easy way, that Christ's yoke is easy and His burden light, that God's love has made it hard for the heedless to destroy themselves, and that one must resist the Holy Spirit in order to be lost. Do you disagree with any of these points?

Tom,

I think you misunderstand my point. Let me use a different illustration, which I think better illustrates what I am trying to say.

Imagine a fast-flowing mountain stream, whose edges may be a little calmer, with the exception of a few back-eddies, but whose center is swift and tumbling over sharp rocks. Some human "decoys" laugh and play in it as if they were river otters, while tumbling, sliding, and drifting downstream through the rapids and currents of the ever-broadening river. But those who are either enticed to follow these "decoys" or who are caught in the valley of indecision are alike swept along by the currents, receiving numerous cuts and scrapes as they pass over the sharp rocks and getting pounded at times by the waters which fall more precipitously. They think they are having some fun, in spite of the pains, not realizing the massive waterfall that looms squarely in their path at some distance ahead.

A small group of people are not so easily led to join the partying throng in their downward course. They follow a shaft of light upstream, at times inching their way carefully up over the narrow path whose steps are perilously near the rushing waters, and made slippery in their spray. Those in the midst of the stream at times seductively call to and invite the climbers to join them in their water play. At times they laugh and hurl insults at them instead. Buckets of water and even stones from the riverbed can come hurtling at the climbers, who do not always survive the abuse. Some give up, and slip into the waters. Eventually, they may join their new companions in deriding the climbers. Others glance away from the shaft of light in a moment of temptation, and lose their step. The abuse from the stream knocks some off their feet who had not firmly laid hold on the Rock. A few perish under the volley of stones cast their way, their blood staining the upward trail, at the same time becoming a landmark by which others can better mark the upward path.

Those who reach the top are richly rewarded with a wonderful paradise of comfort and joy in lush surroundings. Their enjoyment of the place is made so much the sweeter for the effort that it took to reach it. A holy joy can be seen on their faces as the Master of that place tells them "Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of thy Lord."

Those in the midst of the stream feel the upward way is too hard. They would rather enjoy the dubious comforts of the easy slide down, in spite of its frequent injury and certain end. They reason away their folly by saying things like "If we took the upward trail, we'd likely fall off near the top anyway, and then have so much the more downward journey to go through. Besides, I don't want to shed my blood on that miserable path." In fact, such reasonings, justifications, and excuses for their course come in almost as many shades of variety as there are travellers in the stream. No one needs to tell them that life is not all joy. They are keenly aware of this, and some of them hasten to the waterfall to get it over with. Yet they all feel that the stream requires less effort than the wearying trail by which only the "fools" would attempt to make passage. "Besides," say they, "who knows if there really is such a paradise at the top as is rumored? Better to have some fun while life lasts."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

By arguing everyone was justified on the cross aren't you arguing everyone is born saved?

Also, the SOP quotes I posted awhile ago make it clear it is easy to be lost and hard to be saved.

PS - I'll repost the quotes.

It is no easy matter to gain the priceless treasure of eternal life. {Mar 47.3}

The gaining of eternal life is no easy thing. {TMK 21.5}

It is difficult to depart from old customs and established ideas. {CT 392.1}

It is easier to learn evil than to eradicate it after it is learned. {CG 457.4}

It is easier to invite the enemy into your hearts than to dismiss him after he has the ground. {3T 325.3}

It is difficult to hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end; and the difficulty increases when there are hidden influences constantly at work to bring in another spirit, a counterworking element, on Satan's side of the question. {Mar 28.2}

In this time of special danger for the young, temptations surround them on every hand; and while it is easy to drift, the strongest effort is required in order to press against the current. {Ed 293.2}

It is difficult to arouse them to a sense of the shame and grievous nature of sin. {ML 146.3}

It is difficult to hold fast Christian integrity. {TMK 352.2}

Let self break in pieces before God. It is hard to do this; but we are warned to fall upon the Rock and be broken, else it will fall upon us, and grind us to powder. {HP 30.2}

Into the experience of all there come times of keen disappointment and utter discouragement--days when sorrow is the portion, and it is hard to believe that God is still the kind benefactor of His earth-born children; days when troubles harass the soul, till death seems preferable to life. It is then that many lose their hold on God and are brought into the slavery of doubt, the bondage of unbelief. {ML 328.2}

In many cases the moral powers seem deadened, and it is difficult to arouse them to a sense of the shame and grievous nature of sin; they slip easily into habits of prevarication, deceit, and often open lying. {CG 388.1}

We have trained ourselves to engage with earnestness and power in worldly business, until it is easy for the mind to take that turn. This is why Christians find a religious life so hard and a worldly life so easy. {2T 263.4}

To resist Satan's desires is no easy task. It demands a firm hold of the divine nature from beginning to end, or it cannot be done. {1SM 342.3}

It is easy for you to drop Christ out of your experience. {5T 586.3}

It is easy to rebel, easy to give battle before considering matters rationally, calmly, and settling whether there is anything to war against. {1T 527.1}

It is easy for the enemy to work through those who, themselves needing counsel at every step, undertake the guardianship of souls in their own strength, without having learned the lowliness of Christ. {AA 279.1}

Temptations surround them on every hand; and while it is easy work to float with the current, the strongest effort is required to press against the tide of evil. {4T 421.3}

The strongest evidence of man's fall from a higher state is the fact that it costs so much to return. The way of return can be gained only by hard fighting, inch by inch, hour by hour. In one moment, by a hasty, unguarded act, we may place ourselves in the power of evil; but it requires more than a moment to break the fetters and attain to a holier life. The purpose may be formed, the work begun; but its accomplishment will require toil, time, perseverance, patience, and sacrifice. {MH 452.2}

GC, I loved your river vs. trail analogy. Did you write it? Reminds me of Ellen's narrow way vision.

Yes, I wrote it. Sometimes allegories can better convey the sense of meaning, and in this case I felt this depiction would better portray the concepts I wished to express than my prior attempt at logic. I did think of Ellen White's vision, but it is only focused on the righteous, and makes little mention of the lost. The lost, however, would naturally be going in an opposing direction to that of the righteous, so if the righteous are climbing upward on an ever-narrowing path bordered by precipitous drops (precipices), then it must be assumed that the wicked are travelling downward, more in the valley (where waters flow).

Both journeys involve pain and hardship. Where the trip to Heaven is especially hard, as opposed to the easy life on the trip to Hell, is where we speak of "willpower." It takes no will to be lost. But to be saved, one must strive unto blood. The reward of the saved makes the trip worth it all, and Heaven "cheap enough."

To think that one need not exert himself/herself in any wise to obtain the victor's crown is what I would call a "cheap grace" religion. This is the error that Mrs. White vigorously combats in the quotes you have brought here, Mike.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It doesn't appear to me that you're reading what I'm saying. Please quote something from this thread where I've said something along the lines of what you're saying. I don't think I have.



Ok, if you choose to believe this, that's your prerogative. I'll choose to believe that we shouldn't conclude that the downward path is the easy way, that the yoke of Jesus is easy that His burden is light, that the love of God has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves, and that the way of the transgressor is hard.

I think this is wrong.



The point that I keep bringing up which is either being missed or disagreed with, I'm not sure which, is that God isn't being idle. He doesn't sit by with His arms crossed twiddling His thumbs (to mix metaphors) while the lost slide their way to hell. "God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves."

The light shining from the cross draws each lost one to Christ, and unless he resists, he will be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for his sins.



It takes willpower to refuse to come to Christ.



Not the reward of the saved, but the reward of Christ. That is, His reward, His honor, His glory, makes following Him cheap enough.

Tom, why would anyone conclude it is easy to be saved and hard to be lost based on what Ellen White wrote above (see passages quoted in my last post)?

Why do you think she clearly says "it is easy to rebel . . . to float with the current . . . to resist Satan's desires is no easy task . . . the gaining of eternal life is no easy thing . . . it is difficult to hold fast Christian integrity . . . it is difficult to hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end."

"The strongest evidence of man's fall from a higher state is the fact that it costs so much to return. The way of return can be gained only by hard fighting, inch by inch, hour by hour. In one moment, by a hasty, unguarded act, we may place ourselves in the power of evil; but it requires more than a moment to break the fetters and attain to a holier life. The purpose may be formed, the work begun; but its accomplishment will require toil, time, perseverance, patience, and sacrifice. {MH 452.2}

Do you have an inspired quote to back up your thoughts which proves this is wrong? (And it would need to place in proper perspective those quotes which Mike has presented as well, else it seems the evidence is contrary to your thinking.)

So, do you believe God's love is fickle? That He loves some into salvation, and hates others (like Esau) out of it? If God were truly busy, and not "twiddling His thumbs," don't you think everyone should be saved? especially considering it is supposedly easier to be saved?


How much willpower? Find even one statement of Mrs. White or the Bible to back this up.

Resistance does not always require willpower. In fact, to the contrary resistance is often human nature. For example, Corrie Ten Boom naturally resisted forgiving the Nazi guard from the concentration camp. It took real willpower to overcome said resistance. Resistance is often natural, and requires no will.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. The reward coming from Christ or to Him? To me, this is just picking at straws. Ellen White is the one who tells us the redeemed will say Heaven is cheap enough, and that their former trials seem like nothing in comparison with it. Do you agree with her?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Because they didn't read the other passages, or consider the words of Jesus Christ.



Because she had a context in mind.

"Yet do not therefore conclude that the upward path is the hard and the downward road the easy way" is too clear to be misunderstood, and is explicitly dealing with the subject being discussed.

Yes, the ones I've quoted.



I think the quotes I provided are dealing explicitly with the subject at hand. I don't think MM's are (as EGW wouldn't contradict herself).

And Jesus Christ Himself said, "My yoke is easy, my burden is light." What more do we need that this?



You're concluding that because I make the point that God doesn't sit idly by to allow one to be lost, that God's love has made it hard for the heedless and headstrong to destroy themselves (which is actually a quote), that I believe God's love is fickle? Please explain your reasoning here.



What are you trying to say here? God does nothing to try to save the lost? I'm not understanding your point here.

To answer your questions, I believe God is truly busy (I guess you don't?) and the reason not everyone is saved is because not everyone chooses to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit.



Isn't this clear that God is truly busy, and that it does not follow that because God is busy that all will be saved, as well as explaining why not?



I just quoted them.



Why do you think anyone is saved? Because they have willpower? Where did the get it from? What about the lost? Why didn't they have the willpower that the saved had?



His reward: what He deserves, the reward He will receive.



It's crucial that we understand the difference between egocentricism and agape.



The redeemed are following Christ for egocentric reasons. Ellen White was clear about this. My comment was directed to what you said, not what she said.

Here's an example from her words regarding the point I was making:

The ones you quoted did not mention the will.


I am glad you see that the quotes are in tension with each other. I disagree with you that they are unrelated to this subject.

Tom, it's simple. You believe it is easier to be saved than to be lost. You have supported this belief with a corollary belief which says the first one is true because of God's love which is not "idle." Here's the problem: Vast numbers of people will be lost, while only a small remnant are saved. If I held your beliefs, I would be forced to conclude that God's love is fickle or ineffective.

Fortunately, I do not believe that God's love alone is what saves us.

Of course I believe that God is busy. All of Heaven is busy. But God's "busyness" is not sufficient to keep all sinners on the straight and narrow, would you agree? Have you ever prayed that God would help you stop sinning while you were sinning? Was that prayer answered? God may present the right way to your moral senses, but it is fully up to the decision of your own will whether or not you will follow it. God's love is not powerful enough to prevent you from choosing sin if you wish to choose it. In fact, the temptation can be rather strong. No need to speak of addictions here, but God's love, while it may encourage ever so much, can never force us to do right, nor does it promise to make the right easy.
That's not speaking of God forcing the will, is it? Which way does the sinner's will incline: toward good or toward evil? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Does God's love change this? If so, how come it does not treat all men equally, and save all?

Not yet, you haven't. Where do your quotes speak of willpower?

I'll answer this from Mrs. White:


And here's an interesting one...it appears that God allows those who do not place themselves on His side to be forced to do wrong: "Everyone may place his will on the side of the will of God, may choose to obey Him, and by thus linking himself with divine agencies, he may stand where nothing can force him to do evil."

In other words, if you do not place yourself on God's side, you will be forced to do evil. God may not force, but Satan does force. That is the core of the issue here, and the reason it is less than easy to be saved.

You're not making sense here. Why are the redeemed following Christ egocentrically?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, please consider the two types of people described in the following passage:


You seem to be referring to the "favorably organized" type of people who "do not labor half so hard . . . because it is natural for them", whereas I am referring to the other type of people.

They speak of two paths, and the implications of choosing one or the other. How does one choose, if not by using the will?



Because of the perspective of God you have, I'm not surprised you would see things in this way. That is, I would expect you to find following God, based on how you perceive His character to be, to be difficult.



I've not said this. I think this is quite likely to be misunderstood. I've quoted statements from the SOP and Scripture and commented on those statements, which I think is a more prudent course.



Please re-read what I actually said. I don't think I've done what you're alleging. You could quote something to support your idea, but I believe I've done what I stated above, which is to quote from Scripture and the SOP and make comments regarding those quotes. I don't believe I've even stated that belief you say I have, let alone try to support it.



You seem to be in direct disagreement to EGW's statement, as direct as it's possible to be, because it is precisely the logic you are using that she is arguing against.

She says that many will use the downward path, but one should not conclude from this that the upward path is the difficult one, which looks to be exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.



It's really hard to understand you here. You say, "fortunately" as if I "unfortunately" believed that God's love alone saved us, which I obviously don't. So what's your point?



I don't see how what you're writing her is responsive to my question. You said:



This looks to be saying that if God were truly busy, then everyone would be saved. Is this what you believe? If not, then what did you mean to say here?



It's speaking of God's NOT forcing the will, which is why I quoted it, to counter the point you looked to be making.



Some people choose to respond to the Holy Spirit, while others choose to resist Him. Are you wishing to make some point other than this?



They speak of choices one makes, which involve resisting the Holy Spirit and refusing to come to Christ. That this involves the will seems obvious. Are you thinking it's not? Are you thinking that God saves people apart from their will?



There is an upward path, which "few" choose, and a downward path which "many" choose. It appears you are saying that the upward path is the difficult one because Satan will force people who are on the downward path, whereas God will not force those who are on the upward path. I've understood you correctly?

MM, I didn't have "favorably organized" type people in mind.

Tom, do you believe unfavorably organized people find it just as easy as favorably organized people to resist sinning and to mature in the fruits of the Spirit?

I think the issue is more resisting the Holy Spirit than resisting sinning. Why would an "unfavorably organized" person be more inclined to resist the Holy Spirit than a "favorably organized" person?

Which is harder for unfavorably organized people - 1) resisting the Holy Spirit wooing and influencing them to be like Jesus, or 2) resisting the internal and external temptations influencing them to be unlike Jesus?

Regarding your question, Ellen wrote: "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}

Unfavorably organized people have twice as many unhappy traits of character to battle against. They must labor twice as hard to overcome them and to live the life of a Christian. As such, they are disadvantaged. It is harder for them to cooperate with the Holy Spirit and to mature in the fruits of the Spirit.

Everybody has issues to deal with. The "favorably organized" people, for example, may have more of an issue of pride to deal with, since their Christian walk appears to be more effective than others.

Being organized is not the crux of being a Christian. Being a Christian has to do with responding to the love of God revealed in Christ, letting it subdue and melt the heart. Anyone who does this can be saved.

Consider the following:



This is just as easy for an "unfavorably organized" person to do as a "favorably organized" person. Don't interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate the grace of God! This is what we are called to do, whether favorably organized or not, and if we do this, then God will make us like unto Christ, in accordance with the command/promise, "Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

It looks as though we shall have to disagree. Thanx for the discussion.

It's your idea that it's easier for "favorably organized" to be saved than for "unfavorably organized" people? I'm trying to see that I'm understanding you correctly. Out of curiosity, which class to you see yourself in?

Are you familiar with Jung, or Myers-Briggs viz a viz personality types? (in particular, the "J" type).

I think you've really misunderstood her point, and are trying to make her say something she had no intention of saying. She wasn't commenting on the difficult of being saved in regards to having a certain personality trait, but on having love for the erring. Here's what she wrote:


(Start)
Chap. 8 - Love for the Erring

I was shown that while Sister J and Brother and Sister K have seen wrongs in others, they have not made efforts to correct those wrongs and help those whom they ought to have helped. They have left them too much alone, and held them off at arms' length, and felt that it was of no use to try to do anything for them. This is wrong. They commit an error in
74
so doing. Christ said: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The Lord would have us help those who most need help. While you have seen the errors and wrongs in others, you have shut yourselves too much to yourselves, and have been too selfish in your enjoyment of the truth. God does not approve this being satisfied with the truth and making no sacrifice to aid and strengthen those who need strength. We are not all organized alike, and many have not been educated aright. Their education has been deficient. Some have had a quick temper transmitted to them, and their education in childhood has not taught them self-control. With this fiery temper, envy and jealousy are frequently united. Others are faulty in other respects. Some are dishonest in deal, overreaching in trade. Others are arbitrary in their families, loving to rule. Their lives are far from being correct. Their education was all wrong. They were not told the sin of yielding to the control of these evil traits; therefore sin does not appear to them so exceedingly sinful. Others, whose education has not been so faulty, who have had better training, have developed a much less objectionable character. The Christian life of all is very much affected for good or for evil by their previous education. {2T 73.1}

Jesus, our Advocate, is acquainted with all the circumstances with which we are surrounded and deals with us according to the light we have had and the circumstances in which we are placed. 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
75
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. They may not labor half as hard to watch and keep the body under, yet at the same time they compare their lives with the lives of others who are unfortunately organized and badly educated, and flatter themselves with the contrast. They talk of the failings, errors, and wrongs of the unfortunate, but do not feel that they have any burden in the matter, farther than to dwell upon those wrongs and shun those who are guilty of them. {2T 74.1}

The prominent position which you as a family occupy in the church makes it highly necessary for you to be burden bearers. Not that you are to take burdens for those who are able to bear their own and also to aid others; but you should help those who stand most in need of help, those who are less favorably situated, who are erring and faulty, and who may have injured you and tried your patience to the utmost. It is just such ones that Jesus pities, because Satan has more power over them and is constantly taking advantage of their weak points and driving his arrows to wound them where they are least protected. Jesus exercises His power and mercy for just such pitiable cases. When He asked who loved most, Simon answered: "He to whom he forgave most." Thus it will be. Jesus did not shun the weak, unfortunate, and helpless, but He helped such as needed help. He did not confine His visits and labors to a class more intelligent and less faulty, to the neglect of the unfortunate. He did not inquire whether it was agreeable for Him to be a companion of the poorest, the most needy. These are the ones whose company He sought, the lost sheep of the house of Israel. {2T 75.1}

This is the work you have neglected. You have shunned disagreeable responsibilities and have not gone to the erring
76
and visited them, and manifested an interest and love for them, and made yourselves familiar with them. You have not had a spirit of Christlike forgiveness. You have marked out just such a course that all must come up to before you could throw over them your mantle of charity. You are not required to cloak sin, but to exercise that pitying love for the erring which Christ has exercised toward you. {2T 75.2}

You are placed under the most favorable circumstances for the development of good Christian characters. You are not where you feel pinching want, or where your souls are galled and distressed with the conduct of disobedient, rebellious children. In your family there is no dissenting voice. You have all that heart can wish. Yet, notwithstanding your favorable surroundings, you have faults and errors, and much to overcome in order to be free from spiritual pride, selfishness, a hasty spirit, jealousy, and evil surmisings. {2T 76.1}
(End)

By taking a sentence or two out of context, we can come up with odd ideas, which have nothing to do with the intent of the author. We should read with the context in mind, to see the point that the author is wanting to get across. This applies to any author, but we would be especially advised to follow this procedure when dealing with inspired writings.

I'm not talking about salvation. Instead, I'm talking about resisting sin, self, and Satan. It's harder for unfavorably organized people to be like Jesus. They must work much harder.

This isn't what she said. This is an obvious oversimplification. What one could say is if person A were exactly like person B in every conceivable detail, except that A were more "unfavorably organized" than B, then it could be harder for A then B, if one didn't take into account that where sin abounds grace does much more abound. That is, God takes into account people who have disadvantages (she specifically makes this point! not here, but elsewhere, and it's in the Scripture I cited as well) and gives them grace to overcome. So it would be more difficult, if God didn't do anything special about it, but He does, so it's not.

However, people aren't like this. They are not alike in every detail. A has certain weaknesses, and B has others.

Also, this isn't even what she's talking about!! I quoted the whole testimony for you to see this.

If you read the context of what she wrote, and consider what she's actually trying to say, this should prevent taking a phrase or two out of context and coming up with a theory she wasn't espousing.

Tom, it is very clear to me that Ellen made the point that it is easier for favorably organized people to imitate Jesus' godly example than it is for unfavorably organized people. Yes, she made other points as well, but she did not contradict herself. I also agree with you that all of us labor harder to be Christlike for different reasons because of our unique set of weaknesses. And, yes, God's grace is more than enough to empower us to be more than conquerors.

But if we are children of God, why does He let us fall...it just seems....unfair somehow...

How could He prevent it? It's a result of our free will power. However, every time I sin, this makes me hate sin a little more and thirst for righteousness a little more. So God turns defeat into victory.

Sometimes I wish Jesus would send, just before I blow it, a holy angel to encourage me not to blow it, to fight the good fight of faith, to keep my eyes on Jesus. Yes, I know holy angels are all around us invisibly working to influence us to stay faithful to Jesus, and I definitely appreciate all the hard work they invest on our behalf. But I'm talking specifically about them making themselves visible to me. Somehow I think it would be more successful than remaining invisible. Do you know what I mean?

Yes, I wish He did that, too. But if He could do that, He would have done it to help Adam and Eve. Certainly if God did that, Satan would cry foul.

I think there's an issue of free will here. It's an interesting question.

If we put our children in a walker forever, to keep them from falling, they would never learn to walk. That would be unfair.

So, God gives us freedom to walk in His light, but that also requires the freedom fall into darkness if we choose. Without the freedom to fall, we would be mere automatons.

Maybe their invisibility is part of what we need to learn to walk by faith and not by sight.

Jesus could have come in all the splendor humanity can accommodate, but He did not because He wants our allegiance to be based on faith. An overt display of His majesty would have circumvented the need to trust His word over our eyes.

So, while Satan can come appearing as an angel of light to tempt us into sin, ironically, the true angels of light must remain in the dark so that we can learn true holiness.

Yes, the invisibility of heaven's agents is for good reason. I do not doubt it. However, if we were to exercise our free will and gave them permission to appear to us in physical form . . . You know what I mean?

So how do you know its not one of evils minions, many have been given 'angels' to 'show' them what to do, Joseph Smith, the Jesuit Leader Loyola, and of course you cant forget all the new age gurus who channel their 'spiritual guide' to the waiting throngs or the charismatic leaders Jim Jones and David Koresh's who assured others they had a divine mandate and fooled so many. Satan can present himself as a shining angel and take anyone down a path to his domain with others close to them in tow. Be careful what you wish for.....

Rick, yes, we have to be on guard against the deceitfulness of evil people and angels. No doubt about it. However, when was the last time an evil angel appeared to you in physical form and attempted to deceive you? Can evil angels lead people astray who are living in harmony with the 28 fundamental beliefs?

Well let me tell you a short story, when I lived on the islands as a child, I woke up and saw a 'form' and it came in and roamed about the house and I could hear it as it moved things about. Well I am no wimp or shrinking violet, but I was shook up and never told anyone till many many years later and somehow my brother happened to hear, and guess what....he had seen it also and had kept it for all those years till he heard me mention it. Satans minions do roam about showing themselves and appearing as angels or 'virgin mary' or whatever form they think will impress humankind, and there are many that have been deceived and taken down the path to destruction, or worship the 'virgin' whenever she has appeared and make it a shrine, or follow the teachings of the 'angel' as the Mormons have....Be careful as in the end these 'angels' will take whatever form and do whatever miracles and will deceive 'even the very elect if'...so dont you doubt for a second that you can be led astray, Satan and his 'angels' will try with more power than you can imagine, and better not to test whether he can bend you to his will.....pray that your guardian angels will keep you from the appearance and challenge Satan and/or his minions are capable of.......

Rick, yes, evil angels do appear in physical form. Sorry you had to deal with that as a child. And, yes, it will happen more and more as time winds down. However, do you believe people who are faithfully and diligently living in harmony with the 28 fundamental beliefs can be lead astray by evil angels personating loved ones or whomever? Wouldn't they first have to abandon the the truth?

Refer to last post.