I cited the following inspired quote:



Excellent counsel! An alternative suggestion is that she expected her reader to follow this counsel!

My whole life I've never encountered anyone who's interpreted her writings on this subject like you are. Perhaps this is evidence that you're reading into her writings something she didn't expect someone would do, hence she didn't cover it. That's possible, isn't it?



FOTAP



I've pointed out several times now that you also agree with me on this point, which makes it rather ironic you would respond this way.

Sabbath-breaking is one I've mentioned. Drinking and smoking are two others. Living with someone is another. Polygamy is another. Divorce is another one that comes to mind, although I don't know if I've mentioned this before.

I've mentioned Luther and someone else, Spurgeon, that's it, and William Miller. You dismissed these as being in the "Dark Ages," although Spurgeon was born after Ellen White, IIRC.

No, it's not possible. But it makes sense that you think so. You'd have to since you believe common sense dictates it. Such a position, though, is built on sand. If the idea is so common one would be tempted to think inspired writers would at least mention it in passing. But, as you are quick to admit, not one inspired person mentioned it.


Are you implying common sense dictates that of course some of the sins listed in the passages I posted above are practiced ignorantly by certain born again believers?


Of the sins you listed above which ones do you believe were excluded in the passages I posted above? Actually, I'll repost them here:

Mark
7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Romans
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Galatians
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Interesting! It's not possible that you're reading something into her writings! It helps me understand some of the things you've written in the past, where you perceive me as being very sure of myself and unwilling to admit the possibility of error (since we tend to view others according to our own view of things).

Speaking for myself, there are a number of things I have believed in the past that I felt absolutely sure were true that I no longer believe, so I am guarded in both my own understanding of things and how I express myself. For example, I'll say things "this makes no sense to me" and explain why. But to assert that it's not possible that I'm in error is a bit much for me to swallow.

But I'm glad you clarified this, as, again, it helps to understand your behavior.

If you think you're incapable of error, it would seem that your comments in regards to things I should to do influence you to change your mind are a bit ingenuous. If you're incapable of being in error, how could you change your mind?

Tom, man oh man did you ever end up on the wrong side of the road on this point. My response to your question has nothing whatsoever to do with me claiming infallibility. I was simply disagreeing with your idea that Ellen never wrote about it because she took it for granted. By "it" I mean your idea she assumed her readers understood her to mean (in the following types of passages) that people are born again still practicing some of the old man sins and habits they cultivated prior to rebirth.


Since it isn't clear in these types of passages that she assumed we would interpret them to agree with your idea, please post passages which clearly say it, namely, passages that clearly say people are born again practicing some of the old man sins and habits they cultivated prior to rebirth. Nor am I talking about passages you believe infer or imply your view.

I'm asking you to post passages where she clearly says people are born again nowadays practicing some of the old man sins and habits they cultivated prior to rebirth. I realize you think the fact people like Luther will be in heaven proves Ellen expected her readers to interpret passages like the one quoted above to mean people are born again still practicing some of the old man sins and habits they cultivated prior to rebirth; however, since it doesn't specifically say so, please passages that do not require what you believe amounts to logical deduction.

Are you implying common sense dictates that of course some of the sins listed in the passages I posted above (and again below) are practiced ignorantly by certain born again believers?


Do you think any of the sins you just listed above were excluded in the passages I reposted below? If not, do you think the kind of people you named above were ignorant of the fact they are prohibited in the passages below? If so, why didn't God enlighten them? Didn't it matter to God that they were ignorantly doing the very things these passages say will keep people out of heaven?

Mark
7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Romans
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Galatians
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Regarding #109445, no, MM, this isn't the point.

I wrote:



So the context is a view of yours which nobody else holds. Now everybody believes that born again people give up sins of which they are aware when they believe in Christ. What's the view you hold that nobody else holds? (that I'm aware of) It's that people give up sins of which they aren't aware.

Here's your argument:



Now the sins a born again person has before being born again can be split into two categories:

1.Sins of which they are aware.
2.Sins of which they are not aware.

When Ellen White says they no longer practice the sins they practiced before conversion, I'm assuming she means sins of which they are aware, which is so intuitively obvious that she felt no need to clarify that she didn't have in mind sins of which a person is not aware, because how can one give up a sin of which one is not aware?

So, since you have a unique viewpoint on this question, I'm asking if it's possible that you might be reading something more into what she wrote than she intended.



The only alternative would be that Luther's not in heaven, wouldn't it be? What's wrong with logic deduction?



What's wrong with following this advice?

In Luther's case, we know he continued to drink, and do other questionable things (e.g. his attitude towards Jews). So, don't we either have to conclude that Luther wasn't born again, or your view on this is wrong?

No. I'm pointing out that your question is based on an assumed premise, which is that the sin of which the born again person is unaware is on the list. When you ask "which" that assumes existence, which is an assumed premise.



This is another example of the same thing. Note the use of "which." These type of questions are like the question, "Did you stop beating your wife?" (which assumes you were beating your wife to start with)



Much better! Yes, I do. I think when a person is converted, it's like an onion. The top layers are peeled off, which corresponds to that which is known. But there are sins we can commit of which we are not aware, of which Luther, Spurgeon and Miller are examples.



Our paradigms don't change overnight. For example, you don't believe Moses clearly explained the meaning of Christ's death. You also don't believe that Jesus Christ did so, nor John, nor Paul. Before you can see that Moses was clear (a huge paradigm shift) you would need to see that Jesus did so (a much smaller paradigm shift). Similarly before God can tackle more subtle things, the more overt things are dealt with.

Apparently you have the idea that God can reveal all of our sins at once. This is based on, IMO, on a superficial view of sin.

Are you sure everybody believes this way? I ask this question because most people I meet are of the opinion that believers gradually outgrow their known old man habits of sin (i.e. spiritual devolution).


Well, then, you'll be happy to learn that I do not think people must first confess and crucify the sinful habits they are unknowingly cultivating before they can experience the miracle of rebirth.


This division is too vague. I prefer the following classification of believers:

1. Born again believers who continue to ignorantly practice some of the sinful habits they cultivated prior to rebirth, who have not yet learned how to live in perfect harmony with everything Jesus commanded.

2. Born again believers who are living in perfect harmony with everything Jesus commanded, who are imitating His sinless example.


I'm glad you admit this idea is based on an assumption. I think it assumes she is describing the first class of believers I described above. The question is - Why do you insist she had this class of believers in mind when she wrote, "The sins that were practiced 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} How do you know she wasn't referring to the other class of believers?


Here you seem to think your assumption above is true and right. But how can you be so sure?


There is the other alternative you haven't thought of yet, namely, that she wasn't describing someone like Luther, that she was instead describing someone like Peter, Paul, James, and John. Such a view doesn't require higher education or the use of fanciful deduction.


Again, there is the other alternative you haven't thought of yet.

I'll rephrase my question. Do you think it is possible for someone to ignorantly practice one or more of the sins listed above after they experience the miracle of rebirth? Please elaborate.


Thank you for answering my question.


Do you think it didn't matter to God that they were ignorantly doing the very things the passages above say will keep people out of heaven? This, of course, assumes you believe those passages do indeed say doing such things will keep people out of heaven - do you?


Apparently you have misunderstood what I believe about it. I do totally believe Moses, Jesus, John, and Paul understood and clearly taught it. It's just that it wasn't written down in the Bible. Do you see the difference between what you think I believe and what I actually believe?


Once again you'll be happy to learn I do not believe God overwhelms people by showing them the sinfulness of their cultivated sinful habits in light of the cross in one fell swoop. Although He does it gently it, nevertheless, is still very painful for them. 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}

If you'll recall, I happen to believe that God created people with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong, that they know when they are cultivating habits that go against their conscience and convictions, and that whether they know it or not the resulting character traits are in violation of the last six commandments.

As such, no one can do anything that breaks one of the last six commandments without realizing they are doing something morally wrong (which is not to say they know about the law in the Bible). The difference during the process of conversion, before they experience rebirth, is that the Holy Spirit reveals their cultivated sinful habits in light of the cross. It is this revelation that can result in rebirth.

Whether or not a person is in the first or second classification I named above depends on several factors, namely, if they've learned how to live in perfect harmony with everything Jesus commanded or not. BTW, seeing their cultivated sinful habits in light of the cross does not leave them with a shallow view of the sinfulness of sin, as the SC passage I posted above clearly says.

I was referring to people on this forum. I'm not aware of anyone on this forum who does not believe that a born again person gives up their known sins when converted.



This isn't vague at all. It's precise.



Now this is vague! A sin of which one is not aware is something that anybody can understand. What you're talking about is as clear as mud.

To try to clarify, where does Luther fit into this? Was he born again under your definition or not?



Which is what? This class includes people like Luther, William Miller and Spurgeon?



For the reason I pointed out. It's common sense that a person can't give up a sin of which he is not aware. How could one think otherwise?



This doesn't answer my question. Please, answer my question, and then ask yours.



But I'm asking about Luther. So this isn't an alternative. Will Luther be in heaven or not? That's a simple enough question.



You're simply avoiding the question. What's your answer to the question?