This is a question one could ask, but so are the questions I've been asking. For example, which path is the difficult path? I've been hearing you say the narrow path is the difficult one. I don't believe this is in harmony with inspiration.

Also Jesus tells us His yoke is easy and His burden light. I believe this is good news! I'm not hearing this being said, but rather how difficult it is to serve Christ.



Where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. It's God's job to counteract the efforts of the enemy, so that it's a fair fight, and a person can make a free and fair decisions. God is very good at His job.

In terms of pain, the broad path is the difficult one. But, in terms of effort, in my opinion the narrow path is the difficult one. Resisting God brings pain, but I don't think it requires more effort than resisting Satan. If there are two people trying to convince you to do opposite things, and one of them reasons with you, but the other one is threatening you with a gun and torturing you, who is more difficult for you to resist to?
Ellen White does speak of an easy religion which is not that of the narrow path:

We hear a great deal about faith, but we need to hear a great deal more about works. Many are deceiving their own souls by living an easy-going, accommodating, crossless religion. But Jesus says, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." {NL 38.1}

The desire for an easy religion that requires no striving, no self-denial, no divorce from the follies of the world, has made the doctrine of faith, and faith only, a popular doctrine. {Mar 232.2}

Let no one talk of an easy religion. Let no one imagine that the path to Heaven is smooth and pleasant, that there is nothing to do but to believe. We are to be workers together with God; and through diligent and painstaking effort alone, can the conditions of the promises be met. The words of inspiration declare that "faith without works is dead, being alone." We are exhorted to "fight the good fight of faith." We are to wrestle with unseen foes, to labor, to watch, to strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many will be content with simple seeking, and will fail of an entrance. "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat;" but "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." {ST, July 20, 1888 par. 8}

The religion of many is altogether too comfortable, too easy. They seem to think that if they copy the life of their neighbors, they will be safe. I tell you, we are not safe in copying any one but Jesus. {RH, July 7, 1891 par. 6}


I agree that following Christ is easy, is sweet. "The longer I serve Him, the sweeter it grows." The difficulty doesn't come at all from serving Christ, but from the machinations of the enemy.

Here's the SOP statement I've been referencing:



Please note the underlined sentence. This is the point I've been making.

The narrow path is not the difficult one because God's love makes it difficult for those who would be lost to destroy themselves.

I agree with that perspective. But I understand it's not the only one we have to approach the subject.

While Christ is in you, according to John, you CANNOT sin, Satan has no power over you. As long as you are filled with the Spirit, you will always walk as Jesus walked.

And how did Jesus walk? Always in the Spirit. In that condition, He wasn't going to fall into temptation.

However, it is possible for Christians to sin. He just has to separate from God first. But humanity combined with divinity does not sin.

No, my claim was not false. My claim was a summary of the plan of redemption.

Ditto.

Arnold, according to the logic of your argument, Christ could not have fallen into temptation, right? If you disagree with this conclusion, please explain to me, given the assumptions you're making, how this could have happened.

Also, to make clear what we're discussing, here's what you said:



My statement was in regard to a converted person, any converted person. I was qualifying a converted person as one who knows Christ, has Him as a personal Savior, and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which is true of any converted person. Do you agree with this? Or do you think it's possible to be converted without one or more of these qualifying statements applying?

If you agree, then based on your statement, you look to be saying that a converted person cannot sin. Is this really what you mean to say? When you say, "in that condition" do you mean something other than the condition of being converted" (because being converted is the context of my statement that you were responding to).

Ok, so both Arnold and Rosangela are agreeing with the perspective that the narrow path is not the difficult one? The agreement is in respect to this point?

Jesus could have fallen into temptation, but only if He decided to stop depending on the Father and the Holy Spirit. But while dependent and submitted to God, man cannot sin, including Jesus.


I agree that every converted person "knows Christ, has Him as a personal Savior, and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit." If one of these aspects is missing, he is not converted.


Yes. Whoever is born of God (converted) does not sin. Whoever walks in the Spirit (converted) will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.


I mean the condition of "knowing Christ and having Him as one's personal Savior, and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit" - converted.

And going back to the original context, that condition is not something one must achieve in order to be saved, but a description of one who is already saved.

I'll speak for myself: The narrow path is not more difficult, but it requires more effort. A lot more.