1. I did not understand your answer. Please elaborate. Also, please answer my question. Thank you.

2. It is in this sense Jesus was sinful, defective, and imperfect.

3. If I recall right you said, no, Peter was not abiding in Jesus when he dissembled. You also said. no, Peter was not ignorant of his sin. Is this what you believe? The reason I ask is because you cited this story as an example of a born again, converted believer retaining a cultivated sinful trait of character, of ignorantly breaking one of the last six commandments.

4. "Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. {HP 146.5} Does this promise only apply to the 144,000?

5. Do you have an example of a egocentric motivation that is sinful and requires repentance?

I never had this happen before. I was just finishing a long answer to this, and the applications I had open just closed. I completely lost my session. Everything gone, poof!

First of all, you've got the first post on a new page, without any reference to anything before. So I have no idea what 1 or 2 is talking about, without going back and looking. Assuming your post in on a new page for you as well, this should be obvious for you as well as for me, and it would be a courtesy to provide a context for your reader. If this isn't the first post on a new page for you, please disregard my comment.

Regarding 1, you asked:



I answered:



You asked this again. I pointed out I answered it, and where. Now you're asking it a third time, and asking that I answer your question, a question I already answered, and pointed out where it was answered.

I see that you are also asking for an elaboration, that you didn't understand my answer. But in this case, if you need an elaboration, then it is clear that you understand that I answered your question, since you're asking for an elaboration of that answer.

So I don't understand your request that I answer your question.

My answer made three points:

1.Our reception of truth is not dependent solely upon what God reveals.
2.As an example of this, it depends upon the reception of that truth.
3.As a further example, the beginning of the latter rain started in 1888, but that truth was not received.

Regarding if the 144,000 will know more truth than we do, certainly the answer must be yes. The truth that God started giving us in 1888 was never received. Surely the 144,000 will know that truth. This was the beginning of the light which is to fill the earth with glory. They must know the beginning, middle and end of this light. The beginning was aborted. At some point, it will be recovered, and built upon. The 144,000 will embrace all of that light, which is light we haven't even seen yet, so it is clear they will know more truth than we do.




Yikes! Jesus was sinless, without defect, and perfect. The human nature which Christ assumed was sinful, defective and imperfect, but Christ did not wholly consist of His human nature. EGW speaks of this point when she says that Christ was not "altogether human, such an one as ourselves."

I know what you mean, MM, but we are counseled to be very careful in how we phrase these things, and I don't think the way you've put it here is careful. It's very liable to be misunderstood.

Regarding 3, I drew a distinction between Peter's unknown sin of prejudice and his known sin of abandoning the Gentiles. Regarding your statement that I cited this story as an example of a born again, converted believer retaining a cultivated sinful trait of character, I'm sure I didn't cite Peter in this context. I wouldn't have cited anyone as an example of what you are asking for, because such an example cannot exist, as you define your terms. I've made this point to you many times.

Regarding citing Peter as an example of ignorantly breaking one of the last six commandments, that I would agree with.

Regarding 4, I looked at the context of the statement you cited, and given that context I would answer your question "no."

Regarding 5, an egocentric motivation to do anything would be sin, wouldn't it? Egocentric means focused on self. Christo-centric would be focused on Christ. An egocentric desire to follow Christ would be an example of what you are asking for. Indeed, this is just what Christ's disciples had, right before Christ's death on the cross.

1. Okay. I hear you saying God was unable to finish revealing the truth necessary to fully experience the gospel because people back 1888 did not receive the beginning of it. Did I hear you right?

2. Okay. I hear you saying "The human nature which Christ assumed was sinful, defective and imperfect . . ." Did I hear you right? I also understand that Jesus wasn't altogether human like we are. He was also God. Certain aspects of His human nature were sinful, defective, and imperfect. But not His character. There was nothing sinful, defective,or imperfect about His character.

3. You wrote, "I drew a distinction between Peter's unknown sin of prejudice and his known sin of abandoning the Gentiles." Are you saying Peter was ignorantly prejudiced against the Gentiles by the time he dissembled and Paul rebuked him? You also wrote, ". . . a born again, converted believer retaining a cultivated sinful trait of character . . . such an example cannot exist, as you define terms." What about the 144,000? Will they retain cultivated sinful traits of character?

4. "Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. {HP 146.5} Does this promise only apply to the 144,000? To this question you answered, No. Is this experience available to us now? Has it been available to everyone since the fall of A&E? If so, why? If not, why not?

5. Okay. I hear you saying wanting to love and obey Jesus merely to reap the benefits of joy, peace, and happiness, and to escape being miserable now and to escape hellfire at the end of time are egocentric motivations and as such are sinful. Did I hear you right? If so, does God expect them to eventually repent?

1.God began to give the loud cry of the third angel's message, the latter rain, in the form of a message. Here's how A. G. Daniels put it:



2.Christ's assumed human nature was identical to ours; it's what one receives from the "great law of heredity" which Christ accepted. This nature is referred to as "degraded and defiled by sin." It is also called "offending," as well as "sinful" or "fallen." However, Jesus Christ Himself was none of these things, so it would be a great mistake to says that Jesus Christ was "sinful" or "defiled" or anything like that.

3.Regarding Peter, it was actually Rosangela who gave Peter as an example. I think these questions wanting to go into greater depth should be addressed to her. But I believe the general idea is that Peter was prejudiced against the Gentiles in a way that he was unaware of.

4.I think you need to read the whole context of what Ellen White wrote, and not just pluck a sentence out of it. Regarding the 144,000, God began to give a message, the purpose of which was to obtain a harvest, which is the 144,000. Without the message, there can be no harvest. So we cannot have the experience of the 144,000. Now this is not the same thing as saying that it's inevitable that we sin. EGW speaks of some few in every generation who have had experiences similar to Enoch or Elijah (I can't remember exactly how she puts it). But in regards to experiencing what the 144,000 experience, only the 144,000 experience this, so it is necessary to take part of the 144,000 to experience it. They have a special experience, which is spoken of in both Scripture and the SOP.

Without the message that prepares the harvest, it is not possible for anyone to experience what the 144,000 experience, because there can be no 144,000 without the message which produces the harvest.

5.I said they were childish. I gave an example. I quoted the following from the SOP:



I haven't characterized these motivations as "sinful." "Sinful" is a loaded word, so it can mean different things depending on how it's understood.

I asked you the question if an egocentric motivation to do something would not be sin. But you didn't answer my question. So I think for the time being I won't go beyond what I've already said, lest my meaning be interpreted differently than what I'm intending. So what we can get on the same page, let me as again, do you thing that an egocentric motivation to do something is sin? ("egocentric" meaning centered on self).

1. Do we have the light and truth necessary to fully experience the gospel now? Or, do we lack the light and truth we need now to fully experience the gospel? Is it possible to fully experience the gospel with the light and truth we now have?

2. Do you think my last comment agrees with your last comment? Do you think they are saying the same things? If not, why not?

3. I am interested in what you believe, Tom, that's why I'm asking you. So, you believe Peter was ignorantly prejudiced against the Gentiles (when he dissembled and Paul rebuked him) after God revealed it to him in a dream and through a personal experience with Cornelius?

4. I agree the 144,000 will experience things no one else will experience. However, my question doesn't concern this. Instead, I would like to know if you believe the 144,000 are the only ones who can "reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression"?

"He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in his power his people might also lead lives of sinlessness. {AU Gleaner, January 17, 1906 par. 5}

"He came to be tempted as man is tempted, to pass through the vicissitudes through which human beings are called to pass, and to live a life of sinlessness, showing to all the "better part" that they may obtain by living for God, through the grace received from heaven. {ST, December 20, 1905 par. 1}

5. ". . . do you thing that an egocentric motivation to do something is sin?" Paul said, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." He also said, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith." Apparently there is a healthy way to focus on self.

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith." Many . . . may immediately respond, "Why, yes; I am in the faith, I believe every point of the truth." But do you practice what you believe? Are you at peace with God and with your brethren? Can you pray with sincerity, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors"? ... Is there no bitterness in your hearts, no envying, no jealousy, no evil surmising? ... Is there no emulation, no desire for special favor and honors, no wish to have the supremacy? . . . {OHC 336.2}

We do well to examine ourselves to see what manner of spirit we are cherishing. Let us learn to speak gently, quietly, even under circumstances the most trying. Let us control not only our words, but our thoughts and imaginations. Let us be kind, be courteous. {OHC 336.3}

Many are sensible of their great deficiency, and they read, and pray, and resolve, and yet make no progress. They seem to be powerless to resist temptation. The reason is, they do not go deep enough. They do not seek for a thorough conversion of the soul, that the streams which issue from it may be pure, and the deportment may testify that Christ reigns within. All defects of character originate in the heart. Pride, vanity, evil temper, and covetousness proceed from the carnal heart unrenewed by the grace of Christ. If the heart is refined, softened, and ennobled, the words and actions will testify to the fact. When the soul has been entirely surrendered to God, there will be a firm reliance upon His promises, and earnest prayer and determined effort to control the words and actions. {OHC 336.4}

According to the SOP, the 1888 message was the beginning of the loud cry of the third angels message, the beginning of the latter rain. She writes:



A. G. Daniels reaffirmed this, and pointed out that the message was never received and communicated as it should have been. This is just the beginning of the latter rain, MM. Do you think it's possible for the Gospel to be fully experienced without the latter rain?



I don't know what comments you are referring to.



Your question looks to be self-contradictory. God revealed that the Gospel was to go to the Gentiles as well. He didn't reveal to Peter in this dream that Peter was ignorantly prejudiced against the Gentiles, which looks to be what your question is implying.



If you have in mind by "reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression" the same thing EGW was talking about in the quote from which this phrase is taken, no, the 144,000 aren't the only ones.



I wouldn't characterize this as focusing on self. I think we're better of focusing on Christ. I'm sure Paul would agree with this. However, in the process of focusing on Christ, it is inevitable that the Holy Spirit will reveal things about our own character (e.g. egocentric motivation) which are un-Christlike. Indeed, this revelation is a part of the process of the cleansing of the sanctuary.

I don't understand what your question here has to do with being egocentric, however. If you were examining yourself to make sure you were OK, so that you could go to heaven, that would egocentric. If you were examining yourself to make sure you weren't dishonoring God's holy name, that would not be egocentric.

It's not the actions which make a thing egocentric, but the motivation. Why are you doing what you are doing? If it is for the exaltation of self, then that's not a good motivation.

1. "Do you think it's possible for the Gospel to be fully experienced without the latter rain?" Yes. People must reach a "condition of sinlessness" before they can receive the LR and give the LC. The LR does not empower SDAs to live without sinning. That's what the FR does. The LR empowers SDAs to boldly proclaim the 3AMS and to call people out of Babylon into the Remnant Church.


Again, do you think we (as the Remnant Church) possess the light and truth necessary to fully experience the gospel now? Or, do we need light and truth we do not now possess?

2. I wrote: Okay. I hear you saying "The human nature which Christ assumed was sinful, defective and imperfect . . ." Did I hear you right? I also understand that Jesus wasn't altogether human like we are. He was also God. Certain aspects of His human nature were sinful, defective, and imperfect. But not His character. There was nothing sinful, defective,or imperfect about His character.

In response to this, you wrote: Christ's assumed human nature was identical to ours; it's what one receives from the "great law of heredity" which Christ accepted. This nature is referred to as "degraded and defiled by sin." It is also called "offending," as well as "sinful" or "fallen." However, Jesus Christ Himself was none of these things, so it would be a great mistake to says that Jesus Christ was "sinful" or "defiled" or anything like that.

So again, do you think my last comment agrees with your last comment? Do you think they are saying the same things? If not, why not?

3. You wrote: He didn't reveal to Peter in this dream that Peter was ignorantly prejudiced against the Gentiles, which looks to be what your question is implying.

Do you think Peter was still ignorant of his prejudicial feelings against the Gentiles after his dream and experience with Cornelius? Do you think he was ignorant of his prejudices when he dissembled and Paul rebuked him?

4. How do you explain the phrase "will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression" in following quote? "Those who believe on Christ and obey His commandments are not under bondage to God's law; for to those who believe and obey, His law is not a law of bondage, but of liberty. Everyone who believes on Christ, everyone who relies on the keeping power of a risen Saviour that has suffered the penalty pronounced upon the transgressor, everyone who resists temptation and in the midst of evil copies the pattern given in the Christ life, will through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ become a partaker of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. {HP 146.5}

Does this quote teach that a "condition of sinlessness" is available to us now? If not, what does it mean?

5. You wrote: It's not the actions which make a thing egocentric, but the motivation. Why are you doing what you are doing? If it is for the exaltation of self, then that's not a good motivation.

Can a born again believer, who is abiding in Jesus, be guilty of having sinful egocentric motivations? Is it possible to abide in Jesus and be sinfully egocentric?

Do you agree that the following description applies to new born babes in Christ? If not, why not?

I think what's lacking is precisely the Gospel. One cannot proclaim what one does not know. God has been seeking to communicate to us what we need to know, starting in 1888.

God started to communicate a message, a message whose was to prepare a harvest, which is the 144,00. That message was not received. Was God mistaken? Is this message not needed? Assuming God was not mistaken, the message is needed, and the harvest cannot occur without it.



The issue isn't best understood in terms of sinning/not sinning IMO, but in terms of God's character.

[qutoe]It is the darkness of misapprehension of God that is enshrouding the world. Men are losing their knowledge of His character. It has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. At this time a message from God is to be proclaimed, a message illuminating in its influence and saving in its power. His character is to be made known. Into the darkness of the world is to be shed the light of His glory, the light of His goodness, mercy, and truth....

Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.(COL 415)[/quote]

The determining thing which drives everything is the message. The reason Christ hasn't returned yet is simple: the message which prepares for His coming has never been proclaimed. When that message is proclaimed, He will come quickly, just as EGW outlined in 1SM 234, 235.

Regarding Christ's human nature, I think you and I are on the same page regarding this. I took issue with something you wrote which I perceived as a bit careless, in the sense that it could give someone else a wrong impression. But in terms of what you actually think regarding this, I think we're quite close. I wasn't disagreeing with your last comment, which I think is fine, but trying to make clear my own understanding.

More later.

Again, this would be better asked of Rosangela, since it is her example, but I think this is possible.



It looks like she is referring to this:



This is a long sentence!! The next sentence seems to be speaking of the same thing as this long sentence, so it looks to be referring to every believer, since her thought starts "Everyone who believes on Christ."



I'll rephrase the question slightly: "Can a born again believer, who is abiding in Jesus, have sinful egocentric motivations?" Yes, this happens.



I'm not sure what you mean by "sinfully egocentric," but given how I think you would define it, I'll answer no.

Do you agree that the following description applies to new born babes in Christ? If not, why not?[/quote]

Yes. I believe in perfection of character, and victory over sin, as I've mentioned on a number of occasions. There are just some unique ideas you have that I have questions about.

1. Amen! I agree with you that what the world needs now is an accurate and righteous demonstration of the love and character of God. Such a thing is the fruit of abiding in Jesus in truth and righteousness and true holiness. But my question to you is - Do we as a church possess the truths necessary to demonstrate the love and character of God? Or, are we still waiting for God to resume revealing it (assuming He was unable to finish revealing it in 1888)?

2. Yeah, I though we were in agreement on the human and divine natures of Jesus. Thank you for sharing your concerns over the way I expressed it. We cannot be too careful.

3. ". . . I think this is possible." Please consider the following passage as to whether or not Peter was still ignorant of prejudicial feelings by the time he dissembled and Paul rebuked him:


4. I agree she is talking about all believers. But how do you explain the phrase "will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression" in that quote? Does this apply to all believers? Will all believers reach a condition of sinlessness if they continue to abide in Jesus? Or, do some die before they reach it? Also, how long does it take the average believer to reach it?

5. "Yes, this happens." While abiding in Jesus? How is that possible?

6. You wrote - "I believe in perfection of character, and victory over sin, as I've mentioned on a number of occasions. There are just some unique ideas you have that I have questions about." Please describe these unique ideas. Thank you.