Wouldn't a person with no uncrucified sinful habits be perfect? So aren't you asking if a person who is born again is perfect?

Another way of addressing your question is that you are implying Rosangela wasn't born again at the time this happened. I disagree with this idea.

The entire discussion is in reference to sins of ignorance. For example, Rosangela said she had "a vague notion." This is a reference to a sin of ignorance.



So it's not something that the born again person has. So I repeat my questions. What happens in heaven? Does the person in heaven now spontaneously and consistently love others? Is he given a shot of momentum at the resurrection? Does his character change?

Regarding the thief on the cross, I agree with EGW's comments.

I believe he was converted, but not perfect. For example, I've been discussing cursing on another thread. I described to Arnold a process whereby one goes from cursing to not cursing. I won't repeat it here, as I'm assuming you've seen it (if you want me to post it, I will). It seems likely to me that the thief on the cross would have used cursed words. It seems unlikely to me that he would have at his conversion been instantly changed so that he wouldn't even think of these words.

I wouldn't characterize this as an uncrucified habit though. I would characterize it as something that he would have needed to work on, and which he would have overcome with time, which he didn't have.

Yes to the first question, and no to the last one.


Rosangela confessed - "I had a vague notion it was sinful, but since I was suffering I thought I had the right to indulge it." Can born again believers justify sinning? Of course they can. Being born again doesn't mean losing the ability to sin. However, born again believers do not justify or excuse sinful behavior while abiding in Jesus. Instead, they reign in their sinful tendencies. "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." 1 John 3:6.

I'm sure Rosangela agrees with these insights.

Your question is if people are born again with uncrucified sinful habits. Since you say the answer to the question "Wouldn't a person with no uncrucified sinful habits be perfect?" as "Yes," it's pretty easy to see that your question, "Is a born again person born with uncrucified sinful habits?" is indeed asking if such a person is perfect.

Regarding Rosangela and self-pity, your theology would demand that Rosangela was not converted. I doubt Rosangela would agree with this. You could ask her.

Here's how she stated the matter - "I had a vague notion it was sinful, but since I was suffering I thought I had the right to indulge it." It doesn't sound to me like she was ignorant. Instead, it sounds like she was excusing it.


Character is the result of conscious, repetitious choices and corresponding behavior. This takes time. So, in the case of believers who die the day they experience rebirth, I suppose it is safe to say the character they are resurrected with is limited in comparison to the character Paul will be raised up with. They will gain the momentum and develop the traits of character in heaven they didn't have time to here. But the point is they will not come up with uncrucified sinful traits of character.

What do you think of the following insights:


I'm especially interested in your thoughts on #4 above. I hear her saying one uncrucified defective trait of character closes the gates of heaven. How does this tie in with your idea that people often go into the grave with uncrucified defective traits of character?


Are you saying the thief might have been guilty of cursing in his mind? Or, are you saying curse words might have entered his mind as temptations? Certainly it is not a sin to be tempted to own the curse words that enter the mind.


What do you mean by "overcome"? I thought overcoming something meant keeping it under the control of a sanctified will and mind. It sounds like you are implying it means reaching a point where it no longer comes into mind, no longer tempts.

My question on this thread is - Will Jesus change our character when He returns?

But, yes, I believe people who experience rebirth in God's appointed way are born again without cultivated sinful traits of character. True, they are born again with sinful flesh nature, but they are not born again with their former sinful traits of character, that is, they do not practice the same sinful habits they cultivated before they experienced rebirth. "The sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man." SD 300.


Again, being born again or converted does not mean people lose the ability to excuse or indulge sin. Indeed, only people who are abiding in Jesus are truly free to sin. People who are not abiding in Jesus cannot not sin. “All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin.” (SC 59) Believers must choose daily, moment by moment, to abide in Jesus; otherwise, they are no better off than before they were reborn, no better off than unbelievers.

Didn't she volunteer this as an example of a sin of ignorance?



What does "gain momentum" mean? How is what you're saying here different than my position? (You may wish to quote something I've said).



Please don't use characterizations like "your idea" without quoting something I've said. It is not my idea that people "often go into the grave with uncrucified defective traits of character." I looked over this entire thread, and don't see myself saying anything even close to this.

I see you used the word "defective" a couple of dozen times. I used it only a couple of times, and always in the context of responding to your use of it. We're clearly dealing with an idea of yours here, not mine. So for you to pass this off as an idea of mine is not cricket.

Regarding the last statement that you are particularly interested in, it seems clear to me that this involves the sin of rebellion. A person is convicted something is contrary to God's principles, and is determined to do this anyway. I believe such behavior ties into this:



Here's a comment by Ty Gibson:



I agree with Ty's explanation here (evidently inspired by DA 764).

Regarding the thief and pure speech, I'm saying it's likely that the thief's speech would have involved bad language, as that was likely to a part of the world in which he lived. He, like other Christians, would have had to learn pure speech.



No, I'm not talking about temptation. I'm talking about speech (which can be internal; before one speaks, one thinks of what one is going to say).

Anyone who is familiar with what the SOP wrote about this and believes what she wrote would say no. The question then becomes, what is it that characterizes our character. I would say that it is characterized by decisions that we knowingly make. So when you say that we aren't raised with "uncrucified sinful traits of character" I would agree with this if by this you meant sins that are knowingly committed, knowing they are contrary to God's principles. It seems to me that you include any sins, except sins you characterize as "mental" sins, such as the Sabbath. Actually, I could agree with this, if "mental" sins were a broader characterization than you seem to have in mind. I would include sins which are committed of which one is unaware, or "vaguely" aware of, to use Rosangela's word.



I disagree with this because of unknown sinful traits of character. What happens to them? They are overcome with in time, as one begins to walk in the Spirit and become known to the believer.



I would say this clearly refers to known sins. How could unknown sins be put off? They need to be made known, which happens during one's walk with Christ.

One needn't be perfect to be born again. One need simply believe in Christ. Then one begins the work toward perfection.

Here's what she wrote: Don't you think there are things in our lives that we didn't see as sins for a period but that from a certain moment onward we began to see as sins? For instance, there was a time in my life I didn't see self-pity as a sin. God brought me to a circumstance which showed me self-pity as part of my character. I had a vague notion it was sinful, but since I was suffering I thought I had the right to indulge it. Today I see it as a sin in a way I didn't see before, but it took me some years to really come to see things in this light. How would you classify this kind of sin?


People are born again with all the righteous traits of God character. Not one is missing. These traits are not, however, mature and fully developed at the time Jesus implants them. The more times a particular behavior is repeated the easier it is to do again. A certain momentum is accrued. Regularly "perfecting holiness" establishes a momentum, which makes it easier to be like Jesus in those particular ways. This differs from what you are saying in that I'm not talking about gradually realizing certain habits and practices are sinful.


You didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it. Do you agree that one cherished character defect will prevent someone from entering heaven?

Also, as you see it, what is the difference between sinful trait of character and defective trait of character? And, do think people often go into the grave with one but not the other?


Here's the quote I posted: "A well-balanced character is formed by single acts well performed. One defect, cultivated instead of being overcome, makes the man imperfect, and closes against him the gate of the Holy City." (FLB 44) I agree with you that she is talking about willful sinning.

Regarding Ty's comment: "On the day of unveiled encounter, they will experience psychological and emotional meltdown in God's immediate presence." Where else is this scenario described? I've read where the same unveiled glory of God's radiant presence consumes sinners and rubbish alike. For example:

". . . the manifestation of His glory is to them a consuming fire." (GC 37) "Fire comes down from God out of heaven. . . . While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. . . . The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth." (GC 672-674)

How can the fire of God's unveiled radiant glory burn up rubbish but only have an emotional effect on sinners? I can understand why it wouldn't burn up things in heaven or burn up sinless beings, but how can it burn up rubbish but not burn up sinners?


Does having a heavy history of cursing mean a person born again yesterday did not crucified the sin of cursing? What are you saying? What does it matter what a person was like yesterday if they experienced the miracle of rebirth today? What do past mistakes have to do with present realities so far as rebirth and salvation are concerned?


Yeah, that's what I meant. With this in mind, are you saying the sin of cursing isn't overcome until curse words no longer pop into mind? Are people guilty of sinning every time a curse word enters their mind?

If so, can this principle be applied to all the sinful thoughts and feelings that come into mind? That is, is it an evidence a certain sin or defect hasn't been overcome if temptations related to it still come into mind?

You prefaced your interpretation by saying, "I would say", but it would be more meaningful to me if she said it. Please post quotes where she says it. IOW, post quotes where she says people are born again first, and then they begin the gradual process of discovering and putting away the sins they practiced before they were reborn. Thank you.