We’re talking about “sinful practices”, not the zillions of sins people commit before they experience rebirth. We both agree the zillions of different ways people sin fall under a handful of headings and subheadings. So, once again, you have not addressed a critical point and question. Please, Tom, do me a favor and address this point, answer the question. Again, here's the question:

Finally, the thing that I am having the hardest time understanding, the one thing you have yet to plainly explain, is why you interpret insights like the following one to mean the Holy Spirit does not reveal to people all of the sins they practiced before rebirth, that insights like this one mean the Holy Spirit waits to reveal certain sinful practices until some time after they are reborn: "The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man." (SD 300)


You did it again, Tom. You totally avoided my earnest request. I am begging you, please, please, please, honor my request. In the past you have posted quotes to prove Ellen believed people are born again with some of their former sinful habits and practices in tact, that is, unrevealed, unconfessed, and uncrucified; but it turns out that’s not what she was saying at all.

Instead, in those quotes you have posted in the past, she is describing the fact that even after rebirth, even while abiding in Jesus, believers must still continue to labor, agonize, wrestle, and strive to keep under control, to rein in, to prevent their hereditary and cultivated weaknesses, defects, and tendencies from resurfacing, from regaining control of them.

However, she never once says having these hereditary and cultivated weaknesses, defects, and tendencies is a sin, or having to rein them in is a sin. Being tempted from within by these unhappy aspects of fallen nature is not a sin; having to fight every minute of every day to beat them back, to withstand their attacks, to prevent them from gaining the ascendancy is not a sin. Successfully keeping them under the control of a sanctified will and mind is what it means to overcome as Christ overcame. It’s not something believers must eventually rid themselves of to achieve righteousness or sanctification.

Sanctification is the work of a lifetime including eternal life. Sanctification is the eternal process of becoming more and more mature in the fruits of the Spirit. But some people seem to think sanctification is the gradual process of sinning less and less until they cease sinning altogether. But this view is not found or supported in the Bible or the SOP.

Again, it would be extremely helpful if you would supply inspired quotes from the Bible and/or the SOP which plainly say (by “plainly say” I mean quotes which do require any type of interpretation or extrapolation) people who experience genuine rebirth continue practicing some of their former sinful habits because the Holy Spirit thought it best, for whatever reason, not to reveal those particular sinful practices to them.


Yeah, I know what you mean about this issue being a bad virus that won’t go away. I’ve repeatedly asked it and you normally say you’ve answered it dozens of times, and yet I cannot find them. I do recall, however, you naming things like self-pity, polygamy, smoking, and social drinking as examples of sinful practices the Holy Spirit often waits to reveal until some time after they experience rebirth and baptism and join a church. You claim reality supports your view, but you have never actually posted inspired quotes to support your assertions. I'm asking now. You can put this virus to rest by simply posting inspired quotes which clearly state your position (by “clearly state” I mean quotes which do require any type of interpretation or extrapolation). Thank you.


See what I mean? You just reiterated what I recalled you saying in the past about this issue. The idea that the biblical definition of sin excludes sins committed in ignorance is unbiblical. True, God does not impute guilt and condemnation in cases involving sins of ignorance, but this insight in no way implies no sin has been committed. The fact such things are referred to as “sins” of ignorance makes it clear they are considered sins.

Also, pointing to Christians who smoke and drink and break the Sabbath as proof people are born again before they confess and crucify such sinful practices puts the cart before the horse, it begs the question. One could just as easily “prove” Sabbath-keeping is no longer required by pointing out the fact most Christians do not keep it. Just because people do something doesn’t prove it is right or wrong. The law of God is the great standard of right, the revealer of righteousness and the detector of sin. Just because the majority of Christians sin doesn’t mean sinning is right or normal.


Amen! Yes, Jesus came to set the record straight about the character and kingdom of God. No doubt about it. And, yet, we are still here 2,000 years later. Why? The fact we are still here implies Jesus has not yet won the GC. He said the end will come when everyone everywhere decides for or against the gospel. It doesn’t matter as much, then, what Jesus did 2,000 years ago, what matters more is what Jesus is doing now.

So, what is Jesus doing now? What are His goals? What must He do before He can win the GC? Does it depend on what He does in heaven? Or, does it depend more on what He does in and through saints and sinners on earth? I believe it is the latter. To win the GC, to restore paradise lost, to put an end to sin and sinners – Jesus must produce His bride, a church without spot or wrinkle. Listen:

"When the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come." Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69.1}

We can study what Jesus did 2,000 years ago for the next 10,000 years and it wouldn’t make the end come any sooner. It is not enough to study what Jesus experienced while He was here, we need to experience it, too. Until we do, we shall have to continue wandering in the wilderness of sin.

“One subject of emulation must swallow up all others--who will most nearly resemble Christ in character? who will most entirely hide self in Jesus? {6T 42.2} “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” That’s what it’s all about. Not, as you seem to think, Jesus by Himself apart from us. “Abide in me, and I in you . . . that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.” (John 15:4, 8)


Since studying with you I have changed my mind about 1 John 3:9. I now believe John is describing a fully justified and sanctified born again believer. I do not believe he is referring to Christians who have not yet attained unto perfection of character, who have not yet learned how to obey everything Jesus commanded, who are still ignorantly violating certain commandments and requirements. So, again, we may agree it is possible to abide in Jesus while sinning ignorantly, it’s just that I do not believe John is talking about this in 1 John 3:9. So again, our greatest disagreement has to do with what constitutes and qualifies as a sin of ignorance.


But it’s not an example of a sin of ignorance, is it? I mean, how can it be if they are without excuse, if they know God? What you just wrote could be taken to mean there is no such thing as sins of ignorance. Here’s the question again: Can you name a sin that under no circumstances could qualify as a sin of ignorance?

Clearly these are sins the person being converted is aware of. He can't put away sins he's not aware of. That there are such sins are clear in that there have been Christians who drank (e.g. Luther), smoked (e.g. Charles Spurgeon), didn't keep the Sabbath (William Miller).



I've cited some examples. There was a time when Ellen White didn't keep the Sabbath, so there's another one.



There's an inspired quote that says that William Miller will be in heaven.



No. What do you mean?



I'll probably do the same thing when you ask me about it again.



No it's not. The meaning of words depends upon their context. "Sin" may or may not mean a sin of ignorance. In the case quoted above, "sin" clearly does not include sins of ignorance. Indeed, this point could not be more clearly articulated than it was: "there is no sin."



The statement "there is no sin" implies that there is no sin.



Saying that William Miller will be in heaven even though he did not give up the sinful practice of breaking the Sabbath is not putting the cart before the horse. We both know that Sabbath-breaking is a sinful practice. That's not under dispute. You have a theory of instant sanctification, that people, when born again, no longer commit sinful practices, but William Miller is a perfect counter example to this theory. We have inspired evidence that he will be in heaven, yet he did not give up this sinful practice.

I think it's very likely Luther will be in heaven, don't you? He drank.

I think it's likely Spurgeon will be in heaven. He smoked.

This doesn't mean that smoking, drinking, or Sabbath-breaking are not sinful practices, but that these are sins of ignorance which born-again people may commit, which disproves your theory.

Regarding your comment from Amen on, I didn't understand your point. Especially this:



Where did you get such a goofy idea? I've not in the 5 or 6 years we've been discussing things suggested such an idea in any way.



John says, "whosoever is born of God." You think this means not "whosoever is born of God," but "some of those who are born of God"?



Actually, I think we agree on this. A sin which one does in ignorance is a sin of ignorance. You agree with this, right?

Where we disagree is that you don't think a properly indoctrinated SDA can commit any sins of ignorance, or, to state the matter in a different way, any possible sin which can be committed is known by any properly indoctrinated SDA. It is because you hold this view that I think your view of sin is woefully inadequate. You also don't believe any person whatsoever can commit a sin of ignorance which involves the last 6 commandments, to which I would make the same observation.



No, it's an example of a sin which cannot be a sin of ignorance, which is what you asked for (see underlined portion).



Here's the answer again: Romans 1 speaks of no one being without excuse for acknowledging God and giving Him thanks, because He has made Himself known.

Clearly? Not so. "The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man." (SD 300) She obviously is talking about Christians who were fully informed of everything Jesus commanded us to obey. She could not have been talking about believers who lived during the Dark Ages like the ones you named. It is unsound and dangerous to dismiss the obvious meaning of her words in favor of your personal view. It is always and only safe to let the prophets speak for themselves. Therefore, please post passages where she interprets these words to mean what you say they mean. Thank you.


Pointing to the sins Christians committed during the Dark Ages as proof Ellen didn’t mean what she wrote is hardly fair to her. It borders on blasphemy. I do not trust you to be unbiased. There is too much at stake. I need to hear it from her. Therefore, please post passages where she interprets these words to mean what you say they mean. Thank you.


Your quote (see below) is dealing specifically with whether the Sabbath should commence at 6pm or at some other time. The meaning of “even” in relation to the Sabbath had not yet been made clear to the young Adventists.


The truth never changes. And the truth is it is a sin to violate the Sabbath even by one minute. It does not matter if it is violated in ignorance. As with all sins of ignorance God does not impute guilt or condemnation. Nevertheless, sin happens. We cannot twist this quote to mean sin does not happen if people have no idea what they are doing is a sin. Ignorance does not cancel sin.


Again, just because people during the Dark Ages experienced rebirth before they learned how to obey everything Jesus commanded does not prove the SOP quotations which depict believers being born again without the sinful practices they cultivated prior to rebirth should be interpreted to mean the Holy Spirit often waits nowadays to reveal certain sinful practices until sometime after they experience rebirth. That’s what we’re really talking about here.

You wrote, “You have a theory of instant sanctification, that people, when born again, no longer commit sinful practices . . .” Do you have proof of this accusation? I can assure you I do not believe this way.


Here’s what I wrote: We can study what Jesus did 2,000 years ago for the next 10,000 years and it wouldn’t make the end come any sooner. It is not enough to study what Jesus experienced while He was here, we need to experience it, too. Until we do, we shall have to continue wandering in the wilderness of sin.

“One subject of emulation must swallow up all others--who will most nearly resemble Christ in character? who will most entirely hide self in Jesus? {6T 42.2} “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” That’s what it’s all about. Not, as you seem to think, Jesus by Himself apart from us. “Abide in me, and I in you . . . that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.” (John 15:4, 8)

This was written in response to what you wrote. “The world became dark with misunderstanding in relation to God. In order to set things straight, God sent His Son, with healing in His wings, to reveal the truth about God. In ST 1/20/90 she says this was the "whole purpose" of His mission on earth. I understand the atonement in this context. I understand all the statements you quote from her in this context.”

You stated this so strongly it made me think you believe everything needs to be interpreted in the context of what Jesus did to disprove Satan’s accusations and to prove the truth about God’s character. Turns out I was wrong. You think such an idea is goofy. Now I know. However, I still don’t know what you believe. I believe the focus of everything is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”. Do you agree?


It's talking about those who are born again without their former sinful practices. This obviously doesn’t apply to those who are born again nowadays with some of their sinful practices in tact.


As I said, “Our greatest disagreement has to do with what constitutes and qualifies as a sin of ignorance.”


Okay, I misread what you wrote. So, I hear you saying no one can ignorantly fail to acknowledge God or give Him thanks. That is, everyone knows God and not giving Him thanks is inexcusable. Is this the only example you can think of? In other words, can you name any other sin that under no circumstances could qualify as a sin of ignorance? Or, can you argue that all other sins can, under the right situation, qualify as a sin of ignorance?


You did it again, Tom. You totally avoided my earnest request. I am begging you, please, please, please, honor my request. In the past you have posted quotes to prove Ellen believed people are born again with some of their former sinful habits and practices in tact, that is, unrevealed, unconfessed, and uncrucified; but it turns out that’s not what she was saying at all.

Instead, in those quotes you have posted in the past, she is describing the fact that even after rebirth, even while abiding in Jesus, believers must still continue to labor, agonize, wrestle, and strive to keep under control, to rein in, to prevent their hereditary and cultivated weaknesses, defects, and tendencies from resurfacing, from regaining control of them.

However, she never once says having these hereditary and cultivated weaknesses, defects, and tendencies is a sin, or having to rein them in is a sin. Being tempted from within by these unhappy aspects of fallen nature is not a sin; having to fight every minute of every day to beat them back, to withstand their attacks, to prevent them from gaining the ascendancy is not a sin. Successfully keeping them under the control of a sanctified will and mind is what it means to overcome as Christ overcame. It’s not something believers must eventually rid themselves of to achieve righteousness or sanctification.

Sanctification is the work of a lifetime including eternal life. Sanctification is the eternal process of becoming more and more mature in the fruits of the Spirit. But some people seem to think sanctification is the gradual process of sinning less and less until they cease sinning altogether. But this view is not found or supported in the Bible or the SOP.

Again, it would be extremely helpful if you would supply inspired quotes from the Bible and/or the SOP which plainly say (by “plainly say” I mean quotes which do require any type of interpretation or extrapolation) people who experience genuine rebirth continue practicing some of their former sinful habits because the Holy Spirit thought it best, for whatever reason, not to reveal those particular sinful practices to them.


Yeah, I know what you mean about this issue being a bad virus that won’t go away. I’ve repeatedly asked it and you normally say you’ve answered it dozens of times, and yet I cannot find them. I do recall, however, you naming things like self-pity, polygamy, smoking, and social drinking as examples of sinful practices the Holy Spirit often waits to reveal until some time after they experience rebirth and baptism and join a church. You claim reality supports your view, but you have never actually posted inspired quotes to support your assertions. I'm asking now. You can put this virus to rest by simply posting inspired quotes which clearly state your position (by “clearly state” I mean quotes which do require any type of interpretation or extrapolation). Thank you.

No she's not. She's talking about people who are born again, the same as the passage to Nicodemus. She's not talking about a special subset of those who have had Bible Studies by properly indoctrinated SDA's.



William Miller, Dark Ages? Until recently, there were many Christians who smoked. It wasn't widely known that there was anything wrong with smoking until the 1960's. That's here. Other countries lagged behind.



If these were the obvious meaning of her words, shouldn't everyone share your point of view regarding them? I can't think of anyone who does. This isn't an argument that your view is incorrect, but it certainly demonstrates that it's not "obvious."



Why don't you post some passage which presents the view you are suggesting? There aren't any. Since there aren't, all I can do is present passages which present what she actually says, like this one:



Here is a simple, easy to understand explanation of how one is saved. None of the things you're suggesting are included here.

Going back to the passages you quotes, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that she had in mind some subset of people, that the principles she was speaking of didn't included people like Luther, Spurgeon, or William Miller who lived in the "Dark Ages."

I don't understand this. First of all, Ellen White did not live in the Dark Ages. Neither did Spurgeon or William Miller. Secondly, I'm not offering proof that Ellen didn't mean what she wrote, but that your interpretation of what she wrote is wrong. Thirdly, why would presenting counter examples of your ideas be blasphemy? Fourth, I've presented statements of her explaining what's involved in conversion. For example, DA 175. You are the one going beyond this to suggest things she never said. Under your view, no one who smokes or drinks can be born again. This isn't true even in post Dark Ages time. If it were true in Dark Ages time, that fact alone would be sufficient to disprove your ideas in regards to conversion, because the principles of conversion haven't changed since Adam fell.



This whole thread you've been arguing that born again Christians have no sinful practices. At least, this is what I've been understanding you to say. If this isn't what you believe, please cite for me some sinful practice that you believe born again Christs have.



I'm not sure what you would say this. Surely you're aware of the following:





I don't understand why you feel this is a point worth making.



I've never written anything that would warrant your comment "Not, as you seem to think, Jesus by Himself apart from us." We've been discussing things for more than 5 years now, I think, and I can't believe you've been so careless in reading what I've said not to know that I believe in victory over sin. There's hardly any point in dialoging if you can't reach that level of understanding from our conversations.

The idea I labeled as "goofy" is your original comment, which I noted by "especially," not this new thing you're saying here. I agree with what you're saying here (the part underlined). The SOP tells us that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. I'm simply saying that I interpret everything in the light of what was identified as being the whole purpose of His mission. Is there anything wrong with that?



I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting people nowadays are born again differently than when John was writing? I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Please flesh it out.



I just responded to your request. You asked for an example, so I gave you one.



Why should I MM? What's your point? Suppose I name another one, and then you say "Are these the only two you can think of?" And then I name a third, and you say, "Are these the only three you can think of?"

You asked for an example, and I gave you one. I suppose you had some reason for asking for the example, so I gave you one in good faith without asking why. Now you have your example. Please make whatever point you wanted to make once you had an example.



I'll wait for your comment on the example I gave before giving more.



You've accused me of this quite a few times, but I've never admitted to it. So I'm ignoring this request, and the rest of the paragraphs following, since you're asking me to substantiate something I've not claimed.



Why not save them somewhere where you have ready access to them?



This is poorly stated.



This is incorrect.



There's the quote of Ellen White that William Miller will be in heaven. William Miller broke the Sabbath.

By the way, I would appreciate it if you would quote something and ask me questions about that, as opposed to stating something in you own words as if that's what I believed, and asking me questions about that (unless you're asking me if you're correctly understanding what I believe). It is this sort of thing that causes me to respond with the FOTAP comments. When you do this, I can't respond to your question without tacitly agreeing to your implicit assumptions as to what my position is.

Ellen is here saying the same thing she says elsewhere, namely, people repent of their sins before they experience rebirth. Please notice she specifies what she means by saying "the sins that have crucified the Saviour." I have no reason to believe she is excluding a subclass class of sins that did not crucify Jesus, that do not require repentance, that can wait to be revealed and confessed and crucified until some time after they experience rebirth. You seem to take it for granted that's what she means, and yet nowhere does she say such a thing. If she had written such a thing you would be quoting it over and over again.

The Dark Ages did not end until some time after God raised up the Remnant Church. You are the one disregarding the obvious meaning of the quote I posted. Here it is again: The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." {SD 300.3}

No unbiased reader can read this and conclude she obviously intended for us to understand that certain “sins that were practiced before conversion” will continue to be practiced after they experience rebirth. There is absolutely no reason to think she didn’t mean “the sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man.”


I have been talking about the SD 300 quote. Here it is again: The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. With the new man, Christ Jesus, are to be put on "kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering."

There is nothing instantaneous about sanctification. “Sanctification is not the work of a moment, an hour, a day, but of a lifetime. . . Sanctification is the result of lifelong obedience.” {AA 560.3} “This sanctification is a progressive work, and an advance from one stage of perfection to another.” {ML 250.4} This “work of progression will not cease, but will continue throughout eternity.” {HP 186.6}

I get the impression you believe the progressive work of sanctification described above includes outgrowing some of the sinful habits that were practiced prior to rebirth. If so, please post inspired passages to substantiate this assertion. Thank you.


So, you agree with the following summary of what you believe: “You believe everything needs to be interpreted in the context of what Jesus did to disprove Satan’s accusations and to prove the truth about God’s character.” This is precisely what I disagree with.

I do not agree with you that “everything” must be interpreted in light of what Jesus did. The plan of salvation is not all about God. The focus is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”. It’s all about God saving mankind. In the process of saving sinners, the Universe learns the truth about everything else.


The people in John’s day were instructed to how obey everything Jesus commanded. That’s what he’s talking about in 1 John 3:9. During the Dark Ages many truths were lost sight of, and people began to experience rebirth before learning how to obey everything Jesus commanded. Then God raised up the Remnant Church to “restore the breach”.

Once again people can now, by studying with a qualified SDA, learn how to obey everything Jesus commanded before making a decision for baptism. In such cases 1 John 3:9 describes them. Of course people nowadays can still experience rebirth before they learn how to obey everything Jesus commanded.


The fact is I do not agree with the example you gave. That is, I do not agree with you that everyone knows God and not giving Him thanks is inexcusable. There are no doubt millions of people who have lived and died without ever knowing God. Paul did say everyone everywhere knows God. I have demonstrated to you elsewhere what Paul was addressing in Romans 1 and 2. But rather than redress the issue, I opted to ask you for another example of a sin that can never qualify as a sin of ignorance. I suspect you can argue that any sin can be committed in ignorance by someone somewhere sometime.


That’s it? You’re not going to set the record straight? You’re going to just leave me hanging here not knowing what you believe? Are you saying people are *not* born again with some of their former habits of sin in tact? Or, are you saying Ellen never said it? Why must you keep me in the dark about what you believe?


Again, Tom, we’re talking about two quotes, namely, SD 300 (quoted above) and 1 John 3:9. Do you apply these two passages to William Miller's situation of not embracing the Sabbath? If so, please explain your position so that a child can grasp your meaning. Thank you.

Of course people must repent. Repentance means a change of mind. Before seeing the cross, man is at enmity with God. One cannot become a member of God's family while being at enmity with Him. It's necessary to be reconciled, and repentance is necessary for reconciliation to take place.



Yes you do. You've already admitted that not every sin that one commits is included in this repentance, so you do see a reason to believe she is excluding a subclass of sins.



You do too.



I've quoted this over and over again, because it's clear, and describes conversion simply and accurately. There's no need to quote something else.

I've also quoted the conversion of the publican a number of times. That's also an excellent explanation.

As you can see, even considering Luther as a part of the Dark Ages is a stretch.



MM, I'm not disagreeing with the obvious meaning of the quote, but with your interpretation. You say "no unbiased reader," but as far as I'm aware, no one shares your interpretation of this quote, which would mean there are no unbiased readers but you. I'm not discounting the possibility that you many not have uncovered some truth that others haven't seen, but surely the reason wouldn't be that it's because your the only unbiased reader, wouldn't you agree?

In order to disprove your interpretation of the quote, I've posited Luther, William Miller, and Spurgeon as counter-examples.



You seem to believe that when one is born again, if properly indoctrinated, one does not commit any sins. Most people (I think, actually, everyone) would call this "sanctification." If it happens the instant one is born again, then this is "instant sanctification." That you can site a statement from the SOP explaining that sanctification is not instantaneous should be cause to discard the theory you're suggesting.



Ok, we disagree about this. I think the Plan of Salvation *is* all about God. I think "Christ in you, the hope of glory" comes under this heading as well.



Ok, so you are saying that conversion is different depending upon the time period involved. You don't believe that 1 John 3:9 applies to people of the "Dark Ages" like Luther, William Miller, Ellen White, or Charles Spurgeon.



Ok, then we can discuss the example, but that's not a reason to ask me for another one without commenting on the one I gave.



What Romans 1 says is that people are without excuse for not giving thanks to God because the truth regarding God is known to them, because God has made it known to them. Therefore it is not possible for this sin to be a sin of ignorance.



I don't see why you would suspect this when I've given proof this isn't true.



MM, you wrote:



I deny that I've posted this. It's up to you to substantiate your allegation.

I've repeatedly asked you to post things I've actually written. If you will do so, and wish for some clarification, I'm happy to oblige.



I don't believe that a person must confess every sinful practice before being born again. I believe that people can sin in ignorance. I believe that when people are born again, they begin a walk with God, wherein God reveals truth to the believer, and former sins of ignorance are put away, by the grace of God.

You undermine her meaning by excluding a host of sins that were practiced prior to rebirth and insisting they are carried over into the new life. You are implying "the sins that have crucified the Saviour" do not include certain sinful habits and practices. She has never said anything that alludes to this interpretation. If she had, you would be quoting it repeatedly.


No I didn’t. Like 1 John 3:9 I believe Ellen is referring to believers who were thoroughly indoctrinated in obeying everything Jesus commanded. “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Do you also think Jesus intended for us to interpret His words here to mean certain sinful habits and practices will be continued afterward in the new life?


Really? Coming from someone who aggressively argues elsewhere we must take everything she wrote on a particular topic into consideration before arriving at hardcore conclusions, I’m surprised you feel this way here.