TE: I agree with what Sister White wrote, that [baptism] is a sign of entrance into the kingdom. I do not agree that it is necessary to enter into the kingdom, if entering into the kingdom means being converted (in the inward sense).

MM: Then what does “cannot enter” (John 3:5) and “must comply” (FLB 145) mean to you?

What does, "Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone" mean to you? What I believe is that what is necessary, the one thing necessary, is faith in Jesus Christ. If faith and something else are required, then salvation is not by faith, right? So faith is necessary, but true faith will be evidenced by works, including baptism. This has been our viewpoint ("our" = SDA church) since we've been a church. It's also what Sister White wrote, as well as what Jesus tautght and what Paul taught)

Whatever “enter into the kingdom of God” and “who wish to be acknowledged as under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” means, it is clear to me that “cannot enter” and “must comply” means baptism is required, that it is not an option.

"Required" for what? It by "required" you mean as a sign of acknowledgement, as Sister White put it, that's right. Baptism is required, as circumicision was in the past, in order to publicly be accepted as a member of the believing community.

…………………………

MM: God prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages. Deut 14:26 is not an exception. The rules and principles that regulate how God can legally and justifiably save sinners are not mine.

TE: Glad you recognize this!

MM: Actually, I never doubted it. I have always believed that God prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages, and that Deut 14:26 is not an exception.

TE: The principles that regulate how God saves sinners are simple. "Thou shalt believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Salvation if by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

MM: This is only part of the formula, Tom. “You state this matter too strongly.” “God saves us under a law …”



I've simply quoted her! Would you admonish her with her own words? That *she* (not I) is stating the matter "too strongly"? I'm simply agreeing with her that salavation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

MM: True conversions are rare. “The new birth is a rare experience in this age of the world.” Peter, Paul, and John are just a few who experienced the miracle of rebirth in accordance with SC 29. That is, “every” sinful cultivated habit was revealed and confessed and crucified by the time they were born again.

TE: SC 29 does not say that. Also, it's an absolute statement. It doens't have exceptions. It's describing the process of actual conversions.

MM: The SC 29 quote describes what happens prior to conversion. Here it is again:

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

Where in this statement is there any mention of exceptions?

MM: Again, this rare experience does not overlook certain sinful cultivated habits that God plans to reveal to them later on when it is more convenient for them. Such an idea implicates God. It teaches that God is culpable, that God is to blame for the sinful cultivated habits they retain.

Yet you allow for exceptions which do the very things you say implicate God. That's odd. I know you say it's God that allows for exceptions, not you, but it is you have stated that God makes exceptions for smoking and polygamy. God never stated that. So why do you claim they are God's exceptions and not yours?

You're trying to construct a theological structure which just doesn't work. It's self-contradictory. On the one hand, how God saves is regulated by His character. On the other hand, there are exceptions to the rules. Yet God's character does not change.

Why not just stick to what the church has always taught, that salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and true faith will be manifest on works?

MM: No sinful cultivated habits were overlooked by God to be revealed to them later on, after years of sinning ignorantly.

TE: Like smoking, drinking, or polygamy? or baptism (for those who lived before Christ made it known publicly that baptism had become a requirement). Or divorce? Or breaking the Sabbath? Or taking the Lord's name in vain? (e.g. saying "gee!" without realizing that this is short for Jesus.) Or not taking care of one's body? (e.g. not exercizing properly, or poor dietary habits)?

MM: Let’s examine your list more closely:

I'll just address one, drinking. Is it your contention that no one who drinks (not a drunkard, but drinks occaisonally) will be in heaven?

TE: Regarding the years of sinning ignorantly, there's no need for these things to take years, but they will take some time. God dispenses truth as fast as we are willing and able to accept it. But He doesn't give it to us all at once. That would blow us away. He reveals things to us as we are willing and able to accept them.

MM: I believe this gracious, gradual process of revelation occurs during the long, “patient, protracted process” of conversion – before we experience the miracle of rebirth.

And stops then? The "patient, protracted process" of conversion is to lead one to the point to where they will accept Christ as their Savior. It's not to get them to the point to where they've exhausted some list. Our salvation is in Christ!

………………………..

MM: Only God can make exceptions to the rules and principles that regulate how He can legally and justifiably save sinners who died before He was able to reveal to them all of their sins of ignorance.

TE: Where is there any statement in Scripture (or elsewhere) that says that God makes exceptions to how He saves people?

MM: Romans 2:13-15. Luke 23:39-43.



I'll just treat this one, at least for now (if you wish, we can look at the other one later on). How do you figure this as an exception? Paul argues that it's NOT an exception, but an example. The Gentiles show the work of the law "written in their hearts". This is the same as Paul argues elsewhere, and is echoed in Psalms (Ps. 19, for example), and John (the light which ligthens every man). Paul is arguing here that the Gentiles are without excuse because they have a knowledge of what is right and wrong. Where is the exception here?

…………………………

TE: Any evidence of this? In particular, that God could not wink at sin until Christ paid the death penalty? This seems to be the exact opposite of what happened.

MM: Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of world – His death was efficacious before our first parents sinned.

TE: This points out that God had a plan in place to meet the sin problem, should it arise. But it says nothing about God earning the right to be able to wink at sins of ignornace.

MM: I believe it gives God the legal right to handle the sin problem in all its forms.

Why? Why would God need a legal right to forgive sins of ignorance? Who gives God the right to forgive? Isn't that just something He can do because He's God?

…………………………..

TE: You must not be talking about the turn the other cheek rule, or the walk the second mile rule, or the forgive seventy times seven rule, or the love your enemies rule, or the "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" rule.

MM: Such rules and principles are based on the fact Jesus paid our sin debt.

TE: The rules I've mentioned? They're not based on the fact that Jesus paid our debt. They're based on God's character. They're based on the fact that God is kind and gracious, merciful and compassionate. Jesus' death for us is based on God's character as well. Everything God does is based on His character.

MM: If Jesus had not paid our sin debt from the foundation of the world, God would have been forced, by law, to punish and destroy our first parents before the rest of us were born.

TE: Nothing is above God. God does what He pleases, based on the attributes of His character. The law is an expression of that fact. Let's not get the cart before the horse! The law does not sit above God telling Him what He can or cannot do.

MM: It’s how God established things. It is necessary to have a third party, as it were, to establish what is right and righteous. Otherwise, the Devil could accuse God of making up the rules to serve Himself. As such, the law is an unbiased witness.

The devil accuses God of doing this anyway. How does God writing a law down help anything? I don't see any sense in this. In fact, this is doing the very thing you say it's designed to prevent. The law is not an unbiased witness, but rules which God made up. Why can't the devil just say that? After all, God is the one who gave the law.

TE: Regarding Jesus' buying us probation, what I believe is that had Christ not come to earth, sin would have wiped out the entire human race. For this reason, we each one, owe even our physical lives to Jesus Christ.

MM: Amen! The “entire human race” consisted of two people – Adam and Eve.

And everyone who would come from Adam. "Adam" in fact means "the human race" (that is, that's how "Adam" is most often translated, as it usually applies to the race, rather than to just the one man.)

TE: I do not agree that [baptism] is necessary to enter into the kingdom, I …

MM: Jesus didn’t add “if”, He simply said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

TE: I've simply quoted her! Would you admonish her with her own words? That *she* (not I) is stating the matter "too strongly"? I'm simply agreeing with her that salavation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

MM: The SOP makes it clear that the “faith” by which we are saved is faith that works by love and purifies the soul. Faith is never without good works.

TE: Where in [SC 29] is there any mention of exceptions?

MM: This quote reflects the “rule”. But “exceptions” are an inherent characteristic of God, not the “rule”.

TE: Why not just stick to what the church has always taught, that salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and true faith will be manifest on works?

MM: Because there are times when God doesn’t save sinners in the normal way. See Rom 2:13-15 and Luke 23:39-43.

TE: I'll just address one [on the list of sinful behavior], drinking. Is it your contention that no one who drinks (not a drunkard, but drinks occaisonally) will be in heaven?

MM: The Bible clearly prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages. There are no exceptions. If, in spite of what the Bible says about it, a person chooses to drink alcohol, then whether or not they will be in heaven is up to God.

TE: And stops then? The "patient, protracted process" of conversion is to lead one to the point to where they will accept Christ as their Savior. It's not to get them to the point to where they've exhausted some list. Our salvation is in Christ!

MM: Yes, the process of conversion stops when they are converted. However, they must continue to choose daily to remain dead to self, to keep their eyes on Jesus, to abide in Him, to walk in the Spirit and mind of the new man. They do not work on the “list” while abiding in Jesus in the sense that God reveals more sinful cultivated habits when it is convenient for them.

TE: Paul is arguing [in Rom 2;13-15] that the Gentiles are without excuse because they have a knowledge of what is right and wrong. Where is the exception here?

MM: He’s talking about people who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible. That’s the exception.

TE: Why? Why would God need a legal right to forgive sins of ignorance? Who gives God the right to forgive? Isn't that just something He can do because He's God?

MM: God is obligated to save sinners in accordance with the rules He established.

TE: The devil accuses God of doing this anyway. How does God writing a law down help anything? I don't see any sense in this. In fact, this is doing the very thing you say it's designed to prevent. The law is not an unbiased witness, but rules which God made up. Why can't the devil just say that? After all, God is the one who gave the law.

MM: Satan can say whatever he wants to, but in the end he will bow down and confess he is wrong. The law will vindicate God.

TE: And everyone who would come from Adam. "Adam" in fact means "the human race" (that is, that's how "Adam" is most often translated, as it usually applies to the race, rather than to just the one man.)

MM: How long do you think God would have delayed punishing and destroying Adam and Eve if He hadn’t given Jesus permission to pay our sin debt? Why would He allow them to live a second longer in a hopeless state, let alone bear children? To what purpose?

MM: John, where do you stand? Does God wait to reveal certain sinful cultivated habits until it is convenient for baptized church members to confess and crucify them? to acquire or accumulate the necessary "faith" (you mentioned above) to confess and crucify them?

JB: No MM, your whole angle misses the mark. The way of your talk is the way of self-righteousness; precisely what the Lord is seeking to save from.

MM: Baseless accusation!

JB: He who has set his eyes on the Lord, does not look on himself to see how many cultivated habits were overlooked or overcome. Faith looks to the Lord and lives by him. Faith, by nature of faith takes the eyes off of oneself, to dwell in the Lord.

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

JB: In him we have our being, and his strength is made perfect in weakness. The victory over sin is to lose ourselves in him. God does not want us to focus on our habits, but that we should lose sight of ourselves and see only him. That is faith.

MM: Yes, staying in relationship with Jesus, keeping our eyes on Him, fellowshipping with Him, is how we overcome temptation. It is also how we mature in the fruits of the Spirit, how we become more and more like Jesus.

TE: I do not agree that [baptism] is necessary to enter into the kingdom, I …

MM: Jesus didn’t add “if”, He simply said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

MM, please don't cut up my posts and make them appear to say something I'm not saying. My "if" was for clarification as to what the meaning of what Jesus was saying was. It wasn't a conditional "if," as you are implying. Your not responding in a reasonable way here. You simply can't remove the "if" from my sentence! That's just not right.

TE: I've simply quoted her! Would you admonish her with her own words? That *she* (not I) is stating the matter "too strongly"? I'm simply agreeing with her that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

MM: The SOP makes it clear that the “faith” by which we are saved is faith that works by love and purifies the soul. Faith is never without good works.

Which is just what I said. Faith is evidenced by good works. That's what I wrote.

TE: Where in [SC 29] is there any mention of exceptions?

MM: This quote reflects the “rule”. But “exceptions” are an inherent characteristic of God, not the “rule”.

So it doesn't say anything about exceptions. Hence you can hardly use it to support a theory that has exceptions. Find a quote where she talks about exceptions in how God saves people. You won't find one. It doesn't work that way. Salvation is based upon God's character, which doesn't change.

TE: Why not just stick to what the church has always taught, that salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and true faith will be manifest on works?

MM: Because there are times when God doesn’t save sinners in the normal way. See Rom 2:13-15 and Luke 23:39-43.

I already remarked that Rom. 2:13-15 is not presenting any exception at all. Paul's language is arguing for the fulfillment of a rule (if you want to look at things in terms of rules), not as an exception to a rule.

TE: I'll just address one [on the list of sinful behavior], drinking. Is it your contention that no one who drinks (not a drunkard, but drinks occasionally) will be in heaven?

MM: The Bible clearly prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages. There are no exceptions. If, in spite of what the Bible says about it, a person chooses to drink alcohol, then whether or not they will be in heaven is up to God.

So this is another exception. There's so many exceptions, that the rule isn't worth much. Is there even one example you can site where someone is on record as having been converted by having every sinful habit cultivated since birth revealed and then confessing them all? I don't know where you got such an idea from. You site sources such as SC 29, which are very well known, but no one else who reads this has the understanding about it that you have. Do you think it's possible you might be reading something into it?

TE: And stops then? The "patient, protracted process" of conversion is to lead one to the point to where they will accept Christ as their Savior. It's not to get them to the point to where they've exhausted some list. Our salvation is in Christ!

MM: Yes, the process of conversion stops when they are converted.

Big disagreement here. Maybe worth a thread.

However, they must continue to choose daily to remain dead to self, to keep their eyes on Jesus, to abide in Him, to walk in the Spirit and mind of the new man. They do not work on the “list” while abiding in Jesus in the sense that God reveals more sinful cultivated habits when it is convenient for them.

TE: Paul is arguing [in Rom 2;13-15] that the Gentiles are without excuse because they have a knowledge of what is right and wrong. Where is the exception here?

MM: He’s talking about people who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible. That’s the exception.

Paul doesn't say anything in Rom. 2:13-15 about God's saving people in a different way than He normally does, which was what I was asking for a reference for.

TE: Why? Why would God need a legal right to forgive sins of ignorance? Who gives God the right to forgive? Isn't that just something He can do because He's God?

MM: God is obligated to save sinners in accordance with the rules He established.

You say He is obligated to save sinners according to rules He has established, but that He makes exceptions to these rules. Since He's God, He can do whatever He wants, which He obviously does, since He makes exceptions to the rules He made up. That sounds pretty arbitrary, just like Satan alleges.

TE: The devil accuses God of doing this anyway. How does God writing a law down help anything? I don't see any sense in this. In fact, this is doing the very thing you say it's designed to prevent. The law is not an unbiased witness, but rules which God made up. Why can't the devil just say that? After all, God is the one who gave the law.

MM: Satan can say whatever he wants to, but in the end he will bow down and confess he is wrong. The law will vindicate God.

Except for the exceptions God makes.

TE: And everyone who would come from Adam. "Adam" in fact means "the human race" (that is, that's how "Adam" is most often translated, as it usually applies to the race, rather than to just the one man.)

MM: How long do you think God would have delayed punishing and destroying Adam and Eve if He hadn’t given Jesus permission to pay our sin debt? Why would He allow them to live a second longer in a hopeless state, let alone bear children? To what purpose?

I don't see any connection whatsoever between what you are writing and what I'm responding to. What are you talking about? How does this have any relation about what we were talking about?

To answer your question, sin brings its own punishment, which is death. If God had not taken action to allow Adam and Eve to exist, they would have perished right away, and we would have perished along with them.

TE: I do not agree that it is necessary to enter into the kingdom, if entering into the kingdom means being converted (in the inward sense).

MM: Jesus didn’t add “if”, He simply said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

TE: My "if" was for clarification as to what the meaning of what Jesus was saying was. It wasn't a conditional "if," as you are implying.

MM: Jesus included both baptism of water (outward) and of Spirit (inward). He did not say “if”.

TE: Which is just what I said. Faith is evidenced by good works. That's what I wrote.

MM: Okay. But I believe you state it “too strongly”.

TE: So [the SC 29 quote] doesn't say anything about exceptions. Hence you can hardly use it to support a theory that has exceptions. Find a quote where she talks about exceptions in how God saves people. You won't find one. It doesn't work that way. Salvation is based upon God's character, which doesn't change.

MM: The onus upon you to supply a quote that teaches people are born again with all manner of sinful cultivated habits unrevealed and uncrucified. The SC 29 quote confirms the rule, that is, that “every” (not some or most) defective trait of character is revealed prior to rebirth. Exceptions have nothing to do with it (i.e., the rule). The rule is what it is.

…………………………..

TE: I already remarked that Rom. 2:13-15 is not presenting any exception at all. Paul's language is arguing for the fulfillment of a rule (if you want to look at things in terms of rules), not as an exception to a rule.
MM: Yes, “a” rule (i.e., exceptions to “the” rule”), but not “the” rule (i.e., the usual way people experience the “patient, protracted process” of conversion).

………………………..

MM: The Bible clearly prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages. There are no exceptions. If, in spite of what the Bible says about it, a person chooses to drink alcohol, then whether or not they will be in heaven is up to God.

TE: So this is another exception.

MM: Possibly. But I doubt it. If someone understands and rejects what God says about drinking alcohol, and insists on drinking it, they are guilty of willful, deliberate sin. Such are not living in a saved state. If they should die in this state they will not be in heaven. Do you disagree? Please answer the question – yes or no. Thank you.

TE: There's so many exceptions, that the rule isn't worth much.

MM: Tom, that’s what “grace and mercy” is all about, isn’t it? In other words, God does not hold us accountable. Instead, of punishing and destroying us the instant we sin, like the rule of law requires of Him, God offers us pardon and grace through the shed of blood of Jesus Christ. Certainly we cannot say this “isn’t worth much”.

TE: Is there even one example you can site where someone is on record as having been converted by having every sinful habit cultivated since birth revealed and then confessing them all?

MM: Again, please consider Peter, Paul, and John. They were born again without unrevealed, uncrucified sinful cultivated habits.

TE: And stops then? The "patient, protracted process" of conversion is to lead one to the point to where they will accept Christ as their Savior. It's not to get them to the point to where they've exhausted some list. Our salvation is in Christ!

MM: Yes, the process of conversion stops when they are converted.

TE: Big disagreement here. Maybe worth a thread.

MM: This is one of those cases where a sentence extracted from its context is misleading. Here is what I posted:


MM: Here’s what Sister White wrote about it:


MM: Here it is line by line. Do you agree with the points I’ve posted in response to each line?

1. “So with the work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart. It can no more be explained than can the movements of the wind.”

MM: She says it cannot be explained. It can, however, be experienced. Do you have any problem with her saying it “cannot be explained”? Yes or no, please.

2. “A person may not be able to tell the exact time or place, or to trace all the circumstances in the process of conversion; but this does not prove him to be unconverted.”

MM: There is a process which ends in conversion. The process ends. It does not go on indefinitely.

3. “By an agency as unseen as the wind, Christ is constantly working upon the heart. Little by little, perhaps unconsciously to the receiver, impressions are made that tend to draw the soul to Christ.”

MM: During the process of conversion Jesus draws the person to Himself. During the process of conversion, the person is not saved or converted.

4. “These [impressions] may be received through meditating upon Him, through reading the Scriptures, or through hearing the word from the living preacher.”

MM: During the process of conversion, before the person is saved or converted, he may do many things that Christians typically do, but they do not mean he is saved or converted.

5. “Suddenly, as the Spirit comes with more direct appeal, the soul gladly surrenders itself to Jesus.”

MM: The person is saved and converted the instant they surrender themselves to Jesus. This “surrender” is full and complete. Nothing is unrevealed or uncrucified. All sinful cultivated habits were revealed and confessed. Here is how Sister White describes it elsewhere:


MM: She clearly says, “There is not a stain in the character because God is enthroned in the heart and Christ does not war against Christ.” No defective trait of character is unrevealed or uncrucified when a person completes the process of conversion.

6.” By many this is called sudden conversion; but it is the result of long wooing by the Spirit of God,--a patient, protracted process.”

MM: The long, patient, protracted ends in conversion. Conversion is the end product of the process of conversion. It does not go on indefinitely.

TE: Paul doesn't say anything in Rom. 2:13-15 about God's saving people in a different way than He normally does, which was what I was asking for a reference for.

MM: I believe it reflects a difference. People who have never heard of the name of Jesus and yet will be saved in heaven is very much different than people who consciously received Jesus into their hearts as their personal Saviour.

TE: You say He is obligated to save sinners according to rules He has established, but that He makes exceptions to these rules. Since He's God, He can do whatever He wants, which He obviously does, since He makes exceptions to the rules He made up. That sounds pretty arbitrary, just like Satan alleges.

MM: The exceptions God makes to “the” rule to save people do not violate “the” rule.

…………………….

TE: And everyone who would come from Adam [would have died if Jesus had not paid the sin debt]. "Adam" in fact means "the human race" (that is, that's how "Adam" is most often translated, as it usually applies to the race, rather than to just the one man.)

MM: How long do you think God would have delayed punishing and destroying Adam and Eve if He hadn’t given Jesus permission to pay our sin debt? Why would He allow them to live a second longer in a hopeless state, let alone bear children? To what purpose?

TE: I don't see any connection whatsoever between what you are writing and what I'm responding to. What are you talking about? How does this have any relation about what we were talking about?

MM: It’s simple. If Jesus had not volunteered to pay our sin debt the human race would have ended with the punishment and death of Adam and Eve. You included “everyone who would come from Adam”, which is impossible. There would have been no offspring.

TE: To answer your question, sin brings its own punishment, which is death. If God had not taken action to allow Adam and Eve to exist, they would have perished right away, and we would have perished along with them.

MM: Again, there would have been no “we”. How can “we” perish with them since “we” did not exist?

TE: I do not agree that it is necessary to enter into the kingdom, if entering into the kingdom means being converted (in the inward sense).

MM: Jesus didn’t add “if”, He simply said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

TE: My "if" was for clarification as to what the meaning of what Jesus was saying was. It wasn't a conditional "if," as you are implying.

MM: Jesus included both baptism of water (outward) and of Spirit (inward). He did not say “if”.

I agree with what Sister White wrote. Baptism is a sign of one's having acknowledged Christ's principles. It, like circumcision, is a sign of the righteousness one has by faith. As she stated, salvation if by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Such faith is evidenced by works, but salvation is not procured by the works which accompany faith.

TE: Which is just what I said. Faith is evidenced by good works. That's what I wrote.

MM: Okay. But I believe you state it “too strongly”.

I just quoted her! If I state it "too strongly," then she states it "too strongly."

TE: So [the SC 29 quote] doesn't say anything about exceptions. Hence you can hardly use it to support a theory that has exceptions. Find a quote where she talks about exceptions in how God saves people. You won't find one. It doesn't work that way. Salvation is based upon God's character, which doesn't change.

MM: The onus upon you to supply a quote that teaches people are born again with all manner of sinful cultivated habits unrevealed and uncrucified. The SC 29 quote confirms the rule, that is, that “every” (not some or most) defective trait of character is revealed prior to rebirth. Exceptions have nothing to do with it (i.e., the rule). The rule is what it is.

If you are going to invent some new theory which our church has never taught, the onus is on you to support it.

…………………………..

TE: I already remarked that Rom. 2:13-15 is not presenting any exception at all. Paul's language is arguing for the fulfillment of a rule (if you want to look at things in terms of rules), not as an exception to a rule.
MM: Yes, “a” rule (i.e., exceptions to “the” rule”), but not “the” rule (i.e., the usual way people experience the “patient, protracted process” of conversion).

I asked for some Scripture backing up you assertion that God made exceptions to His principles in saving people, which I maintain is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. You suggested Rom. 2:13-15, but this says nothing about exceptions to how God saves. Paul says nothing about the Gentiles being saved in some other way than by faith in Christ.

………………………..

MM: The Bible clearly prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages. There are no exceptions. If, in spite of what the Bible says about it, a person chooses to drink alcohol, then whether or not they will be in heaven is up to God.

TE: So this is another exception.

MM: Possibly. But I doubt it.

You cannot doubt it, unless you are willing to assert that nobody who drinks, even socially, will be saved.

If someone understands and rejects what God says about drinking alcohol, and insists on drinking it, they are guilty of willful, deliberate sin. Such are not living in a saved state. If they should die in this state they will not be in heaven. Do you disagree? Please answer the question – yes or no. Thank you.

The vast majority of Christians see nothing wrong with social drinking. See the drinking exception which apply to a great majority of Christians. There are only a very few denominations which teach abstinence, such as ours.

Of course no one who is practicing willful, deliberate sin is in a saved state, but my point is that of the sins which constitute all the sinful habits we have cultivated since birth, but a few are among those we are aware of. A few sins are recognized and repented of when one is converted; not the hundreds that would be necessary if your idea were correct. I know of no one whom God put through a vast list of recognizing sins and confessing them. The whole idea doesn't make sense. God is interested in our heart, in a willingness to learn of Him and be taught. He has no interest in overloading us all at once. His yoke is easy, and His burn is light, not overwhelming.

TE: There's so many exceptions, that the rule isn't worth much.

MM: Tom, that’s what “grace and mercy” is all about, isn’t it? In other words, God does not hold us accountable. Instead, of punishing and destroying us the instant we sin, like the rule of law requires of Him, God offers us pardon and grace through the shed of blood of Jesus Christ. Certainly we cannot say this “isn’t worth much”.

What's not worth much is the "rule" that God must reveal every cultivated sinful habit since birth.

TE: Is there even one example you can site where someone is on record as having been converted by having every sinful habit cultivated since birth revealed and then confessing them all?

MM: Again, please consider Peter, Paul, and John. They were born again without unrevealed, crucified sinful cultivated habits.

What's your grounds for asserting this? Peter was born again as recorded in John 2. ("This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him." (John 2:11). He had all sorts of problems. The same could be said of John.

Paul was converted in a moment, on the road to Damascus. There is no record of him spending the necessary hours it would have taken to confess every sinful habit he had acquired since birth. Indeed, he went away to study in the light of his conversions. No doubt God revealed many things about himself, including cultivated habits, during the time he was in Arabia.