Neither have you presented proof disproving it. You haven't cited one single person who was completely ignorant of the second half of the law. No such person exists.


None of these examples disprove the point. Naming nuances of the law does not prove a thing. The point is - Everyone knows when they are dishonoring their parents, murdering someone, cheating on their spouse, stealing something, telling a lie, and coveting something. No one is ignorant of these things. They know it instinctively. Thus, no one can be born again without confessing and crucifying the cultivated sinful habits which violate the second half of the law.


"Sinful habit" includes any and all habits that violate the second half of the law. And, depending on the situation, it can include the first half of the law. For example, the "savages" Ellen and Paul spoke of experienced rebirth before they knew about the first half of the law. But those who learn about the whole law before they are born again must confess and crucify the sins which violate both halves of the law before rebirth can occur. Of course, the Sabbath is an exception in some cases.


Yes, you have misunderstood me. During the wooing process, which ends in rebirth, people see all of their sinful habits in light of the cross. They experience rebirth the instant they choose to crucify them. They do not crucify them one at a time. Listen:

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}


I agree. However, we differ as to which sinful habits are repented of at the foot of the cross prior to experiencing the miracle of rebirth. I believe "every spot of defilement . . . the deformity and defects of the human character" are seen in their true light at the cross. You seem to think none of them are revealed or repented of before rebirth occurs.


Actually, I can truthfully say I got baptized and joined the church before I experienced rebirth. I fell into the following category:

The new birth is a rare experience in this age of the world. This is the reason why there are so many perplexities in the churches. Many, so many, who assume the name of Christ are unsanctified and unholy. They have been baptized, but they were buried alive. Self did not die, and therefore they did not rise to newness of life in Christ. (6BC 1075)

Your heart needs to be purified, cleansed, sanctified, through obedience to the truth. Nothing can save you but a thorough conversion, a true sense of your sinful ways and a thorough transformation by the renewing of your mind. (2T 95)

Brother E needs a thorough conversion. It is not enough for men to profess the truth. They may acknowledge the whole truth, and yet know nothing – have no experimental knowledge in their daily life – of the sanctifying influence of the truth upon the heart and life, or of the power of true godliness. (2T 639)

You must have a thorough conversion. Unless you do, all your past efforts to obey the truth will not save you nor cover up your past wrongs. Jesus requires of you a thorough reformation; then He will help, and bless, and love you, and blot out your sins with His own most precious blood. You can redeem the past. You can correct your ways and yet be an honor to the cause of God. (2T 304)

MM is back! Yay!



If you present a theory that is original, the onus is on you to present proof.



Your logic is off here. I don't need to present a person who is completely ignorant of the second half of the law, but merely a person who is ignorant of *any* portion of it. These are two completely different things.

Your claim is that *no* sin of ignorance can be committed which involves the second table of the law. To disprove this it is only necessary to present a single counter-example, not produce someone who is totally ignorant of it.



Nuances are exactly the thing that sins of ignorance are comprised of.



Asserting something is not proof! To prove something, you need to present some assumption or assumptions and then argue in logical steps to arrive at your conclusion. You're simply asserting the thing you think is true, that people know all things related to the second table of the law instinctively.

I've presented a number of arguments to disprove this.

1.Paul says he would not have known coveting except for the law. Thus he is affirming that he did *not* know it instinctively.

2.I cited a number of examples of sins of ignorance related to the second table of the law.



That they know about.



We've been through this. What about polygamy? What about living with someone with whom you are not married? What about smoking or drinking? Are you going to assert that no one will be in heaven who smoke or drank? I've brought up Luther to you several times, but don't recall your answering the question of whether you believe Luther won't be in heaven (he drank beer).



This is just arguing in a circle. Every sinful habit they give up are ones they know about. For example, a person in another culture could be born again without knowing that polygamy is a sin. Or, before the ill effects of tobacco became widely known, one could have smoked. Or, nowadays, one could drink coffee (assuming you consider drinking coffee a "sinful habit"; do you?)



I think the ones that are made known to a person by the Holy Spirit are repented of. I don't think He makes known every sinful habit a person has, or no one would be born again. No one could bear this. I think you are vastly underestimating our sinfulness, MM.

MM, do you see that an experience like the publican who prayed, "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner" is a part of the experience of being born again? Do you think it is right for Christians to pray this prayer?

Thank you. We hung out at Zion National Park for the week. Did some sweet hikes and rappels. My favorite park. Awesome.


Actually, I first got it from secular sources, namely, psyc classes in college. This enabled me to see it in the Bible and the SOP. I’ve quoted the passages numerous times.


You have done neither.


None of the nuances you posted disprove the point.


We’ve addressed both of these points and still you haven’t disproved the point. Again, Paul did not say how or when he knew coveting was unlawful. You seem to be assuming he didn’t know it until he learned it from a reading of the law. I believe he knew it because God wrote the law upon every fiber and function of his being at conception.


They instinctively know the second half of the law.


1. Polygamy. The law does not condemn lawful polygamy.
2. Cohabitating. The law prohibits adultery.
3. Smoking and drinking. The law forbids murder.

In cases involving “savages” or people who come to Jesus through non-SDA means it is possible to experience rebirth before certain truths are understood. Your examples fall into this category. But again this doesn’t disprove my point.


Yes, drinking coffee and caffeinated beverages is wrong. True, some people are so far removed from biblical truths that certain practices are no longer perceived as sinful. But this doesn’t disprove my point. People are born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally and right wrong as defined by the second half of the law. “God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” (Romans 12:2)

“As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart. (RC 106) The human mind is endowed with power to discriminate between right and wrong. (DA 458) His law is written by His own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every fiber of our being, upon every faculty which has been entrusted to man. (OHC 266)



Again, it depends on if people are prepared for baptism by a SDA or a non-SDA. No, I do not underestimate the deceitfulness of sin. I am very much aware of how systemic and pervasive sin can be.


Yes, I think this prayer is appropriate for sinners and saints alike. However, it does not mean they are guilty of sinning. It is a prayer of repentance, which means they have confessed and crucified sin, that they are not practicing willful sin. So long as believers are abiding in Jesus, walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, they do not and cannot a known sin. “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not. For his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin.” (1 John 3:6, 9) This description, this promise, is true while believers are abiding in Jesus and living up to the light they have embraced. Otherwise, it is not true.

I don't recall you ever quoting anything from either the Bible or the SOP suggesting a distinction between the first and second table of the law in relation to sins of ignorance. You haven't done this, have you?



Neither what? There's only one thing to do here ("neither" implies more than one): present counter-examples. Many counter-examples have been presented.



They all do. (gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied)



I don't understand what point you're wanting to make here. Paul said apart from the law, he would not have known coveting was a sin. Therefore he didn't know it by instinct, which disproves your assertion. When Paul learned this is immaterial. The fact that he had to learn it means it was not known to him instinctively.



He said he wouldn't have known it apart from the law. He doesn't say from "a reading of the law," but surely someone must have read the law for him to know it. How else would the knowledge have gotten from the law to him?



That's very clever! A bit contorted, but clever.

Here's a statement from the SOP which looks to counteract your clever idea:



If the knowledge were instinctive, then one would not expert her to write, "Even some ministers who are advocating the law of God have but little knowledge of themselves." If it's known by instinct, everybody has the same level of knowledge, and if *no* sin of ignorance can be committed, that level of knowledge would have to be very high indeed.

Notice, by the way, she writes "They do not see their errors and sins." Again, if there were no sins of ignorance related to the second half of law, she could not write this.

Notice also, in explaining why they don't know their sins, it is "because they do not...compare them with the sacred, holy law of God." This indicates, again, that this knowledge is instinctive.

To cap it off, she quotes the statement of Paul I've been referencing, indicating it wasn't instinctive for him either.



There are sins no known for the reasons pointed out in the quote I just cited.



Lawful polgamy? That would be like "lawful adultery" or "lawful blasphemy". There is no such thing!



Things contrary to God's will are not lawful.



To make this even more explicit, polygamy is "a violation of the law of God," so unless violations of the law of God can be lawful, polygamy is not lawful.



You didn't answer my question. My question is if you are saying that no person who smoked or drank will be in heaven. I asked you specifically about Luther.



Luther was hardly a "savage."



If you think simply being prepared for baptism by an SDA would make you sinless, I would assert the same thing, that I think you are vastly underestimating our sinfulness.



I think you could be making the assertions you are if a gross underestimation of sin were not taking place.



I agree with this.



What about unknown sins?



This doesn't distinguish between known and unknown sins, but you are. Why?

Good point. I was listening to 1 John last night and the same question came to mind. Perhaps John is talking about fully indoctrinated believers. If so, then no distinction is necessary.

Even fully indoctrinated believers have unknown sins. So there would still be a distinction.

Please cite an example of a sinful habit a fully indoctrinated SDA believer could be ignorantly guilty of. Thank you.

PS - Will the 144,000 numbered and sealed saints be ignorantly guilty of sinful habits?

Self pity. Regarding 144,000, no. Point of clarification, your definition of "sinful habits" seems to be referring to known sins, so this would include any born again person. I believe the 144,000 will not have any sinful habits, whether in the first table of the law or second, or known or unknown.

Why do you think a thoroughly indoctrinated SDA can be guilty of self pity? And, what is the difference between a thoroughly indoctrinated SDA and one of the numbered and sealed 144,000 saints? Why are they totally free of any and all sinful habits and not a thoroughly indoctrinated SDA?

PS - It is not possible to ignorantly develop a sinful habit which results in the cultivation of sinful traits of character. The cultivation of sinful traits of character is the result of consciously doing things repeatedly that are known to be wrong.

Rosangela gave this as an example, and I believed here.



Here's one thing. In 1888 God sent a "most precious message" for the purpose of ripening the harvest, the "beginning of the later rain." Most indoctrinated SDA's know nothing of the message.



Unknown sins is the big thing. Much of our unknown sins ties into wrong theology, which impacts things like our motivation.



Actually, it's a deeper issue than this. For example, one can do the "right" thing with a wrong motivation.