in rereading that book it also seemed motivational to me. i hadnt seen it that way before.

mountain man, the minute you were born did you pop out knowing how to walk, talk, feed yourself, dress yourself, or did you have to develop into being able to do those things?

I figured you were employing the art of understatement. However, I'm not entirely clear what you believe. Do you think believers (not including the 144,000) can reach the point here and now where they are living in perfect harmony with everything Jesus commanded? "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Or, do you believe that such a state is impossible except for the 144,000?

Eternity isn't long enough for us to exhaust our potential to become more like Jesus. Becoming more like Jesus has nothing to do with discovering unknown sins and overcoming them. On the contrary, it means maturing more and more in the fruits of the Spirit. You seem to be implying it means gradually outgrowing sinful habits. Or, have I misunderstood your view? Please explain.


You have yet to post anything that supports the idea that Ellen White meant what you are saying about it. She was not saying they are guilty of sinning. The requirements of the law envision the level of maturation Jesus reached during His earthly sojourn. The law doesn't merely forbid sinning; it also requires absolute perfection. Eternity isn't long enough for us to reach a point where the law no longer points us to a higher and holier state of righteousness. You don't seem to agree with this insight and/or interpretation of what Ellen White wrote about it. Why?


We post-laps also believe sin includes issues that reach to the core of man and motive. However, we do not believe a person is guilty of sinning simply because they exist. Of course this is the root of the problem between pre- and post-laps as it pertains to whether or not Jesus is like us.

I'm glad you're willing to admit that "sinfulness" and "moral deformity" do not necessarily mean people are sinning. Which is precisely how I reconcile her comments about moral defects, weaknesses, imperfections and my comments about moral perfection. Again, merely having these sinful things within us and actually indulging them in sinful ways are two entirely different realities. Do you agree?

For example, having a sinful predisposition to drugs or drink does not constitute sinning. We are not guilty of sinning until we act out our inherited propensities (inclinations, tendencies). Sinful flesh can beg us all day long to express and experience our innocent and legitimate needs in sinful ways without corrupting us. The clamorings of sinful flesh do contaminate us or cause us to be guilty of sinning in the sight of God. You seem to disagree with this interpretation. Why?

Elsewhere you have implied that believers are born again ignorantly practicing some of the sins they cultivated prior to rebirth. You quote 1 John 3:6-9 to prove it. You said something to the effect that we must "insert" this idea when reading descriptions of believers like the one in 1 John 3:6-9. So, let me ask - Where in the Bible do you think it describes believers who do not sin either willfully or ignorantly?


Do you think they experience and manifest love like Jesus did? Or, do you think the fact they are ignorantly breaking the law of God prevents them from fully experiencing love like Jesus did? Please bear in mind the following insight - "Love is the fulfilling of the law."

PS - Please understand that I'm *not* saying Christians who ignorantly break the law of God are incapable of experiencing love. All I'm saying is that ignorantly breaking the law prevents them from fully experiencing love like those who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus". Do you see what I mean?

I had to develop them. But I don’t understand how this addresses the points I’ve been making in response to your comments and queries. I assume you mean to imply newborn babes in Christ are not born again with the ability to walk in the Spirit and sin not. Do you know where in the Bible or the SOP this idea is advocated? If so, please post it here.

Peter wrote the following description of a newborn babe:

1 Peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.

Peter describes newborn babes as those people who have tasted that the Lord is gracious and have laid aside “all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings”.

John describes people who have “no guile” in the Revelation. He wrote, “And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.” (Rev 14:5)

James describes people who “offend not in word” and concludes that such people are “perfect”. He wrote, “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.” (James 3:2)

Peter, John, and James are describing the same experience. Peter applies this experience to newborn babes. From Peter’s perspective newborn babes are very functional Christians. In fact, they are imitating Jesus’ example. He wrote, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:21, 22)

You seem to be implying newborn babes come far short of what Peter says about them. Or, did I misunderstand you? Please understand that I'm *not* saying the type of newborn babes Peter described have no more room to grow in grace or to mature in the fruits of the Spirit. Instead, like Jesus, they begin perfect (sinless) and become perfect (mature more and more in the fruits of the Spirit). Do you see what I mean?

No, this is your language, not mine. I've not, of mine own volition, spoken in these terms. You've asked me questions which I've responded to. AFAIK my thoughts on this matter are like yours in regards to people in "Group 1," people you say are not "fully informed."



No, MM, these are not my thoughts. I don't think 1 John 3:6-9 has anything to do with this subject.



Some do. ("like" meaning in a similar manner; of course we all fall short of Christ).



Some Sunday-keepers are wonderful Christians. I think any Christian, whether Adventist or not, would only benefit by having a better understanding of God's character, and of course, the law is a transcript of God's character.



I don't think ignorantly breaking the law is really the crucial thing so much as misunderstanding God's character. Do you see what I mean?

Tom, do you agree with the following description of newborn babes?

Peter wrote the following description of a newborn babe:

1 Peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.

Peter describes newborn babes as those people who have tasted that the Lord is gracious and have laid aside “all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings”.

John describes people who have “no guile” in the Revelation. He wrote, “And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.” (Rev 14:5)

James describes people who “offend not in word” and concludes that such people are “perfect”. He wrote, “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.” (James 3:2)

Peter, John, and James are describing the same experience. Peter applies this experience to newborn babes. From Peter’s perspective newborn babes are very functional Christians. In fact, they are imitating Jesus’ example. He wrote, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:21, 22)

You seem to be implying newborn babes come far short of what Peter says about them. Or, did I misunderstand you? Please understand that I'm *not* saying the type of newborn babes Peter described have no more room to grow in grace or to mature in the fruits of the Spirit. Instead, like Jesus, they begin perfect (sinless) and become perfect (mature more and more in the fruits of the Spirit). Do you see what I mean?

I'm not following you. ASAIK my view is the same as yours in reference to how you see "Group 1" people. Do you see some difference in our views? If so, what is it?

Tom, I do not believe Peter is describing Group 1. I believe he is describing Group 2. The only place in the Bible, that I know of, where it talks about some of the people in Group 1 is Rom 2:13-15.

We disagree regarding this, as I think there's only one group, what you call Group 1. However, regarding the characteristics of Group 1, I don't think we disagree.

Actually, I could see having a Group 2, which, for me, would incorporate the 144,000. However, I wouldn't see Peter as dealing with this group.

True.


"Sin is in every fiber of our being by nature." Does this require consent or volition?