JB: Your concept about imputed and imparted righteousness has no basis in reality and is just an empty cloud.

MM: Where does that leave you and me regarding this study?

TE: I thought (according to your view) it was the death of Christ which gave God the legal right to pardon us. Now you are saying that it is repentance which is necessary for God to have the legal right to pardon us?

MM: Please recall that I believe the death of Jesus gave God the legal right to offer repentance and pardon.

I don't recall you saying that the death of Jesus gave God the legal right to offer repentance. I think that's new.

I do recall you're saying the death of Jesus gave God the legal right to pardon. If this is the case, then how can repentance give God the legal right to do something He had already obtained by the death of Jesus?

TE: Why does God not already have the legal right to pardon us, by virtue of being God? How did He lose this right? To whom did He lose it? How does our repenting allow Him to get it back?

MM: Law and justice determines what God can and cannot do.

Isn't this backwards? Isn't it the character of God, what He does and does not do, which determines law and justice?

Also, You didn't answer my questions. Justice isn't an actual person, so the question still remains as to from whom God obtained the legal right to pardon, and how He could have lost such a right in the first place.


TE: Another thing I'm not understanding is the statement that once a born again believer commits a known sin, he can do nothing but sin until he repents. How are you defining sin? You seem to view people as either always sinning or never sinning.

MM: We are lost until we choose to repent.

This is a different issue. If one is in rebellion against God, he would hardly be happy to spend eternity with God in heaven. As the SOP points out, it is not the occasional good deed or misdeed which determines the character, but the trend of the life. This statement makes clear that a lost person is capable of the occasional good deed, and the saved person is capable of the occasional misdeed.

The reason repentance is necessary is that the broken relationship must be repared. But there is nothing in this obvious necessity which implies that a born again person, who commits a known sin for whatever reason, can do nothing but sin from that point on.

If we refuse to repent we commit an unpardonable sin. We either all of His and free of sin or we are none of His and full of sin. There is no neutrality. Sin is the transgression of the law.

Given that sin is transgression of the law, if the born again person in your hypothetical example commits a sin, why would that make it so he could no longer keep the law? I can see some sense in what you're saying if you conceptionalize things in terms of a relationship which needs to be healed, but if it has to do with rules which are broken, I don't see how what you appear to be saying makes sense.

Romans
8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

A person doesn't all of a sudden lose the Spirit of God because he commits a known sin. God is not that easy to get rid of.

Let's give a specific example. Let's say a (born again) person is moving some furniture, loses his grip on a piano, says a bad word, and before he gets a chance to repent, the piano falls on him and kills him. Is he lost?

TE: I do recall you're saying the death of Jesus gave God the legal right to pardon. If this is the case, then how can repentance give God the legal right to do something He had already obtained by the death of Jesus?

MM: The death of Jesus does not give God the legal right to pardon someone who refuses to repent.

TE: Isn't it the character of God, what He does and does not do, which determines law and justice?

MM: Law and justice is based on the character of God, but the kingdom of God is under obligation to abide by the law of God.

TE: Justice isn't an actual person, so the question still remains as to from whom God obtained the legal right to pardon, and how He could have lost such a right in the first place.

MM: Law and justice is the personification of God’s character. It requires God to punish and destroy sinners the instant they sin. It cannot grant mercy or pardon. In this way law and justice does not reflect the character of God. He lost the legal right to pardon sinners the moment they sinned.

God earned the right to offer sinners pardon when Jesus became sin for us and died as our substitute. Law and justice is satisfied because sin and sinners were punished and destroyed in the person of Jesus Christ.

TE: As the SOP points out, it is not the occasional good deed or misdeed which determines the character, but the trend of the life. This statement makes clear that a lost person is capable of the occasional good deed, and the saved person is capable of the occasional misdeed.

MM: When a lost person does a “good” deed it is as filthy rags in the eyes of God, and, as such, it does not count as a good deed. It is tainted with selfishness.

TE: … there is nothing in this obvious necessity which implies that a born again person, who commits a known sin for whatever reason, can do nothing but sin from that point on.

MM: A backslider who refuses to repent is in a lost state, and in such a state all he can do is sin. People who refuse to confess and forsake even one sin are incapable of anything else but sin. They must repent, or else they cannot be like Jesus.

DA 313
If one sin is cherished in the soul, or one wrong practice retained in the life, the whole being is contaminated. {DA 313.1}



TE: Given that sin is transgression of the law, if the born again person in your hypothetical example commits a sin, why would that make it so he could no longer keep the law?

MM: If he refuses to confess and forsake that one sin, he is in a lost state, he is no longer abiding in Jesus, thus, he is no longer partaking of the divine nature, the only thing that can empower him to “go, and sin no more.”

TE: A person doesn't all of a sudden lose the Spirit of God because he commits a known sin. God is not that easy to get rid of.

MM: The reason he commits a known is because he has lost the Spirit of God. We do not and cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus, while walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man.

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

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

TE: Let's say a (born again) person is moving some furniture, loses his grip on a piano, says a bad word, and before he gets a chance to repent, the piano falls on him and kills him. Is he lost?

MM: Do you know of such an incident? Did you watch someone die suddenly before they had time to repent of cursing? Was it their habit to repent under such circumstances? That is, did they always repent of unintentional sins? If so, then I suspect the following insight would apply to them in judgment. It is character that decides our destiny during judgment.

SC 57, 58
The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts. {SC 57.2}

RC 124
Let us never forget that by the characters which we are forming day by day, we are deciding our future destiny. Those whose hearts are filled with the love of Christ will find in the heavenly courts a glad reception. {RC 124.7}

TE: I do recall you're saying the death of Jesus gave God the legal right to pardon. If this is the case, then how can repentance give God the legal right to do something He had already obtained by the death of Jesus?

MM: The death of Jesus does not give God the legal right to pardon someone who refuses to repent.

You're using the phrase "legal right to pardon" in a strange way. Let me give you an example. The Governor of a state has the legal right to pardon any state criminal. He is conferred that right by the constitution. He can legally pardon whoever he wants; guilty, unrepentant people; whatever. Now if God somehow lost the right to legally pardon people by virture of being God, and regained it when Christ died, then He had it. He has the legal right to pardon whomever He wishes.

I think what you really mean to say is that it would be out of harmony with the principles of His character, which are the principles espoused by the law, to forgive someone who was unrepentant.

TE: Isn't it the character of God, what He does and does not do, which determines law and justice?

MM: Law and justice is based on the character of God, but the kingdom of God is under obligation to abide by the law of God.

Is God under obligation to something or someone outside of Himself?

TE: Justice isn't an actual person, so the question still remains as to from whom God obtained the legal right to pardon, and how He could have lost such a right in the first place.

MM: Law and justice is the personification of God’s character.

That's correct! That's why the phrase "the law demands punishment" means "God demands punishment."

It requires God to punish and destroy sinners the instant they sin.

This means "God requires that He punish and destroy sinners the instant they sin." Aside from being obviously not true, since God has never actually done this even once, why do you think this is the case?

It cannot grant mercy or pardon.

This means "God cannot grant mercy or pardon," given that what you say is true, which is that law and justice are the personification of God's character. I suppose what you really mean is that law and justice are the personification of a portion of God's character, and that part of His character doesn't allow Him to grant mercy or pardon.

In this way law and justice does not reflect the character of God.

I suppose here you mean fully reflect His character. Obviously it reflects His character, since you earlier wrote that it is the personification of His character. It could hardly be the personification of His character if it didn't reflect it.

He lost the legal right to pardon sinners the moment they sinned.

This doesn't make sense. It would be like saying that the Governor of a state loses the power to pardon a criminal the moment the crime takes place. God, like any of the rest of us, has the right to forgive anyone who sins against Him. We are free to forgive, or not, just like God is.

God earned the right to offer sinners pardon when Jesus became sin for us and died as our substitute.

God did not lose the right to offer sinners pardon when sin was committed. Why do you even think it makes sense to say this? How could God lose any right that He has to do anything? The rights God has are inalienable.

Law and justice is satisfied because sin and sinners were punished and destroyed in the person of Jesus Christ.

There's some truth to this idea, (although it's not well stated; particularly the part that sinners are destroyed in the person in Christ; that's not very clear), although I'm sure we'd understand the meaning quite differently.

TE: As the SOP points out, it is not the occasional good deed or misdeed which determines the character, but the trend of the life. This statement makes clear that a lost person is capable of the occasional good deed, and the saved person is capable of the occasional misdeed.

MM: When a lost person does a “good” deed it is as filthy rags in the eyes of God, and, as such, it does not count as a good deed. It is tainted with selfishness.

A person can choose to a good thing, although lost, such as give his life for another. Many have. What God is concerned with is not "counting" deeds, but with the person committing the deed.

TE: … there is nothing in this obvious necessity which implies that a born again person, who commits a known sin for whatever reason, can do nothing but sin from that point on.

MM: A backslider who refuses to repent is in a lost state, and in such a state all he can do is sin. People who refuse to confess and forsake even one sin are incapable of anything else but sin. They must repent, or else they cannot be like Jesus.

The quotes you provided are dealing with cherished sin. What I wrote was, "there is nothing in this obvious necessity which implies that a born again person, who commits a known sin for whatever reason, can do nothing but sin from that point on." You haven't considered what I wrote, but a subset, specifically cherished sin.

TE: Given that sin is transgression of the law, if the born again person in your hypothetical example commits a sin, why would that make it so he could no longer keep the law?

MM: If he refuses to confess and forsake that one sin, he is in a lost state, he is no longer abiding in Jesus, thus, he is no longer partaking of the divine nature, the only thing that can empower him to “go, and sin no more.”

It's not the occasional good deed or misdeed that determines the character. Committing one sin does not cause you to be lost. (Cherishing a sin is not merely committing a sin, but committing many sins). God might not even bring it to the believer's mind. Think of Luther as an example.

TE: A person doesn't all of a sudden lose the Spirit of God because he commits a known sin. God is not that easy to get rid of.

MM: The reason he commits a known is because he has lost the Spirit of God.

This is backwards. If a person doesn't commit a known sin, how could he lose the Spirit of God?

We do not and cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus, while walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man.

You must mean something different than what your saying. I'm guessing what you really mean to say is that one cannot continue to abide in Jesus while comitting sin. Your statement, as actually written, is clearly false, as it would imply that you lose free will when you abide in Jesus, no longer having the ability to sin.

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

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

TE: Let's say a (born again) person is moving some furniture, loses his grip on a piano, says a bad word, and before he gets a chance to repent, the piano falls on him and kills him. Is he lost?

MM: Do you know of such an incident?

Why would this make a difference?

Did you watch someone die suddenly before they had time to repent of cursing? Was it their habit to repent under such circumstances? That is, did they always repent of unintentional sins?

What the point in asking these questions? What possible difference could my witnessing an incident make?

If so, then I suspect the following insight would apply to them in judgment. It is character that decides our destiny during judgment.

Good answer!

SC 57, 58
The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts. {SC 57.2}

RC 124
Let us never forget that by the characters which we are forming day by day, we are deciding our future destiny. Those whose hearts are filled with the love of Christ will find in the heavenly courts a glad reception. {RC 124.7}

JB: Your concept about imputed and imparted righteousness has no basis in reality and is just an empty cloud.

MM: Where does that leave you and me regarding this study?

You might wish to consider the other parts of his post.

Here is the patience of the "saints"!

That depends on what your interest is.

After several years and your 7000+ posts; it is somewhat consistent that you are quick to speak and slow to hear. It would be nice from time to time to get a real connect so we can know that we are communicating. I think you commonly reply way too quickly and do not give it careful thought and consideration, to see if you are hearing what is being said.

Jam 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
Jam 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

TE: The Governor of a state has the legal right to pardon any state criminal. He is conferred that right by the constitution. He can legally pardon whoever he wants; guilty, unrepentant people; whatever.

MM: There is absolutely nothing “lawful” about it. Pardoning a guilty, unrepentant criminal is criminal.

………………………….

TE: I think what you really mean to say is that it would be out of harmony with the principles of His character, which are the principles espoused by the law, to forgive someone who was unrepentant.

MM: The law cannot pardon. It makes no provision for pardon. The law requires death for sin. It shows no mercy. Not even God can get around it. According to law and justice, sinners cannot be pardoned, they must die. “There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted.” (6BC 1070)

In this way, the law is not a transcript of God’s character. The law does not reflect the fact God is merciful and willing to pardon. If mercy was inherent in the law, then mercy would cease to be mercy. The fact the law is merciless, exacting penalty instead of pardon, means mercy is necessary to save us. God, not the law, is merciful. But mercy and pardon are unlawful unless the death penalty is exacted.

Justice demands death. God cannot ignore this requirement and pardon sinners just because He is merciful. Someone has to die for the sins we commit. There is no way around it. God cannot pardon sinners without a substitute. Jesus had to die because the law requires it. God must satisfy Justice, and Justice will not allow God to save sinners without the death of Jesus.

“[1] Christ on the cross not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law--for whom God pardons He first makes penitent -- [2] but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body, satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made.” (1 SM 341)

……………………

TE: This means "God requires that He punish and destroy sinners the instant they sin." Aside from being obviously not true, since God has never actually done this even once, why do you think this is the case?

MM: The plan of salvation puts it on pause. Sinners will not pay for their sins until after the second resurrection.

…………………………………

TE: The quotes you provided are dealing with cherished sin. What I wrote was, "there is nothing in this obvious necessity which implies that a born again person, who commits a known sin for whatever reason, can do nothing but sin from that point on." You haven't considered what I wrote, but a subset, specifically cherished sin.

MM: Before we are born again, all sins are considered cherished sins. Are you suggesting that born again believers do not cherish certain sins? Also, are you suggesting that believers who fall into sin, and who refuse to repent, can continue to live without sinning? The following quote teaches us that one sin, unrepented of, separates us from the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit all we can do is sin.

“Sanctification is a daily work. Let none deceive themselves with the belief that God will pardon and bless them while they are trampling upon one of His requirements. The willful commission of a known sin silences the witnessing voice of the Spirit, and separates the soul from God. Whatever may be the ecstasies of religious feeling, Jesus cannot abide in the heart that disregards the divine law. God will honor those only who honor Him.” (LHU 144)

…………………………

TE: Committing one sin does not cause you to be lost.

MM: Adam and Eve committed one sin. It caused them to be lost.

………………………………………..

MM: The reason he commits a known is because he has lost the Spirit of God.

TE: This is backwards. If a person doesn't commit a known sin, how could he lose the Spirit of God?

MM: He can’t. Of course, we are talking about born again believers who are abiding in Jesus.

MM: We do not and cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus, while walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man.

TE: You must mean something different than what your saying. I'm guessing what you really mean to say is that one cannot continue to abide in Jesus while comitting sin. Your statement, as actually written, is clearly false, as it would imply that you lose free will when you abide in Jesus, no longer having the ability to sin.

MM: Yes, “one cannot continue to abide in Jesus while comitting sin” is true. It is also true they cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus. That’s what the Bible says. No, it does not mean we lose the ability to choose to stop abiding in Jesus. We are always free to stop abiding in Jesus. But if we choose to stop abiding in Jesus we cannot stop sinning. Thus separated, we lose the ability to choose not to sin. To stop sinning we must first choose to abide in Jesus.

5T 515
But you must remember that your will is the spring of all your actions. This will, that forms so important a factor in the character of man, was at the Fall given into the control of Satan; and he has ever since been working in man to will and to do of his own pleasure, but to the utter ruin and misery of man. {5T 515.1}

JB: Your concept about imputed and imparted righteousness has no basis in reality and is just an empty cloud.

MM: Where does that leave you and me regarding this study?

JB: That depends on what your interest is.

MM: I'm listening. Why is it an "empty cloud"?

First part. You're confusing terms here. Having a legal right to do something has nothing to do with whether or not the act the one with the legal right performs is lawful or not

Second part of what you wrote, it just looks like you're repeating the same things you've said many times before. I've addressed this many, many times already. I've quoted many times from Waggoner, Fifield and Ellen White on this, without your ever commenting on the quotes I provided, as far as I can remember. I'm not seeing the point of responding.

Third part:



The devils weren't destroyed either, and there was no plan of salvation in place. No sinner has ever died the instant they sinned. This has never happened. It's odd to assert that God must do something He has never done.

Fourth part:



That's stop here a second. Where do you get this from?

Fifth part: Adam is not lost. (I'm not sure about Eve. Do we know for sure she'll be in heaven?) Adam proves my point, not yours. God is a God of forgiveness. He does not cast anyone aside for one sin, even at infinite cost to Himself.

Sixth part:



If a born again person can't lose the Spirit of God without sinning, and can't sin without losing the Spirit of God, then no born again person can sin. But born again people have sinned, so this theory is false.

Final point. The "cannot sin" is present continuous. It means one cannot continue to sin, as several versions translate. It doesn't mean "commit a sin." John himself, earlier in the epistle, stated we are to go to Jesus Christ our advocate if we sin (he said, "if anyone sin") so he was certainly aware of the possibility of our sinning.