M: Tom, thank you for the response above. To be clear, do you agree with Ellen's view on baptism as described in MR 373 (posted earlier on this thread)? Her explanation is too clear to be misunderstood. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Do you agree with her?

T: I think what she wrote is good counsel. Is there any reason you would think I would disagree with something she wrote?

M: Also, do you think one or more of the 28 fundamental beliefs may contain errors that later on will be corrected?

T: I don't think I would put it that way. I think there is light yet to shine that hasn't been explained in the fundamental beliefs.

M: And, do you think the Holy Spirit is withholding truth waiting for the right time to reveal it?

T: I don't know if I would put it that way either. It's not so much that the Holy Spirit withholds truth as He needs people that are willing to respond to it. I think He's constantly working to shine as much light as possible. That being said, there are certainly times when light shines in a special way, such as 1888.

M: If so, will it enable us to cease sinning in ways we are now ignorant of?

T: I think there is much more involved in the cleansing of the sanctuary than what people are aware of. Jones and Waggoner discussed this. I was going to say especially Jones, but Waggoner discussed the concepts involved at length as well. I would say that light can bring to our attention things that we weren't aware of previously.

if a person has committed 100,000 sins, are you thinking that God reveals these sins one by one until they've all been covered

True confession is always of a specific character, and acknowledges particular sins. They may be of such a nature as to be brought before God only; they may be wrongs that should be confessed to individuals who have suffered injury through them; or they may be of a public character, and should then be as publicly confessed. But all confession should be definite and to the point, acknowledging the very sins of which you are guilty. {SC 38.1}

please quote anything at all that in any way separates these last six commandments from the first four in the way that you do (specifically, your idea that people know the last six commandments instinctively).

The Pharisees had exalted the first four commandments, which point out the duty of man to his Maker, as of far greater importance than the other six, which point out the duty of man to his fellow-man. In consequence they greatly failed of practical godliness, and in the relations and duties of life. Jesus had been charged with exalting the last six commandments above the first four, because he showed the people their great deficiency, and taught the necessity of good works, deeds of mercy and benevolence, and that a tree is known by its fruits. {3SP 51.2}

If the first commandments are loyally observed, the other six, which define the duty of man to his fellow-man, will be as faithfully observed. When God has his rightful place on the throne of the heart the duties assigned in the last six commandments will be performed as there directed. Love to God comprehends love for those who are formed in his own image. "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen?" Thus Christ taught that the last six commandments are like unto the first. The two commandments which he indicated are two great principles springing from one root. The first cannot be kept and the second broken, nor the second kept while the first is broken. {3SP 52.2}

The lawyer approached Jesus with a direct question, "Which is the first commandment of all?" The answer of Christ is direct and forcible: "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." The second is like the first, said Christ; for it flows out of it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." {DA 607.1}

The first four of the Ten Commandments are summed up in the one great precept, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." The last six are included in the other, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Both these commandments are an expression of the principle of love. The first cannot be kept and the second broken, nor can the second be kept while the first is broken. When God has His rightful place on the throne of the heart, the right place will be given to our neighbor. We shall love him as ourselves. And only as we love God supremely is it possible to love our neighbor impartially. {DA 607.2}

And since all the commandments are summed up in love to God and man, it follows that not one precept can be broken without violating this principle. Thus Christ taught His hearers that the law of God is not so many separate precepts, some of which are of great importance, while others are of small importance and may with impunity be ignored. Our Lord presents the first four and the last six commandments as a divine whole, and teaches that love to God will be shown by obedience to all His commandments. {DA 607.3}

Those who increase their number of children, when if they consulted reason, they must know that physical and mental weakness must be their inheritance, are transgressors of the last six precepts of God's law, which specify the duty of man to his fellow man. {2SM 424.2}

The desire of men and women to accumulate property is not sinful if in their efforts to attain their object they do not forget God, and transgress the last six precepts of Jehovah, which dictate the duty of man to his fellow man, and place themselves in a position where it is impossible for them to glorify God in their bodies and spirits which are his. {2SM 429.1}

Many claim to deal justly with their fellow men, and seem to feel that in so doing they discharge their whole duty. But it is not enough to keep the last six commandments of the decalogue. We are to love the Lord our God with all the heart. Nothing short of obedience to every precept--nothing less than supreme love to God as well as equal love to our fellow man--can satisfy the claims of the divine law. {2BC 1011.7}

If we neglect the cases of the needy and the unfortunate that are brought under our notice, no matter who they may be, we have no assurance of eternal life; for we do not answer the claims that God has upon us. We are not compassionate and pitiful to humanity, because they may not be kith or kin to us. All such are found transgressors of the second great commandment, upon which the last six commandments depend. Whosoever offendeth in one point, he is guilty of all. Those who do not open their hearts to the wants and sufferings of humanity, will not open their hearts to the claims of God stated in the first four precepts of the decalogue. Idols claim the heart and affections, and God is not honored and does not reign supreme. {RH, July 13, 1886 par. 6}

The fifth commandment is sacred; but if you should transgress any of the first four precepts of the decalogue, wherein is revealed the duty of man to his Creator, you would not be in a favorable position for the sacred observance of the last six commandments which specify the duties of man to his fellow man. To break any one of the commandments which specify the duty of man to God is to violate the principles of the entire law. The pen of inspiration records that he who offends in one point is guilty of offense in all. Thus, should the Sabbath of the fourth commandment be disregarded, and man prove recreant to the claims of God upon him, will this disobedience prepare him to fulfill the requirements of the law which specifies his duty to his earthly parents? Will his heart be fitted through transgression of a plain precept of Jehovah upon the first table of stone, to keep the first precept on the second table. We are required, by this commandment, to honor our parents, and we are unnatural children if we do not obey this precept. But if love and reverence are due our earthly parents how much more is reverence and love due our heavenly Parent. {ST, February 28, 1878 par. 5}

Many claim to deal justly with their fellow-men, and seem to feel that in so doing they discharge their whole duty. But it is not enough to keep the last six commandments of the decalogue. We are to love the Lord our God with all the heart. Nothing short of obedience to every precept-nothing less than supreme love to God as well as equal love to our fellow-men-can satisfy the claims of the divine law. {ST, January 26, 1882 par. 12}

The first four commandments of the law grow out of our relation to God, and demand the loving loyalty of our whole hearts. The last six grow out of our relation to our fellow-man, and require us to regard his interests as our own. The keeping of these commandments comprises the whole duty of man, and presents the conditions of eternal life. {ST, November 24, 1887 par. 2}

Are there not many claiming to keep the commandments who are living in transgression of the sacred precepts? We cannot keep the law of God unless we give to our Creator and Redeemer our undivided affection. It is impossible to keep the last six commandments unless we keep the first four. {ST, September 22, 1890 par. 2}

The whole duty of man is comprised in keeping the first four and the last six commandments. The Spirit that prompts men to reveal in life the love of God will also make a man an obedient member of the heavenly family. {ST, July 2, 1894 par. 8}

The law of God, plainly defined by Christ, is not so many separate precepts, some of which are of great importance, while others are of small importance, and may be belittled and ignored: Our Lord presents the first four and the last six commandments as a divine whole. Under the two heads, love to God and love to our neighbor, a divine unity binds all the precepts together. By these two principles man's character is tested, and he is shown to be obedient or disobedient. {ST, September 22, 1898 par. 4}

The law of God is the transcript of His character. Those who profess to keep this law, but who fail to show that they love God with heart, mind, soul, and strength, who do not devote themselves unreservedly to His service, keep neither the first four commandments, which enjoin supreme love for God, nor the last six, which enjoin unselfish love for one another. "By their fruits ye shall know them." True love for God will always manifest itself. It can not be hidden. Those who keep God's commandments in truth will reveal the same love that Christ revealed for His Father and for His fellow-men. He in whose heart Christ abides will reveal Christ in the character, in his work in behalf of those who need to be brought to a knowledge of the Gospel. He will show the fruits of his faith, revealing the Saviour in loving words and in deeds of mercy. {ST, August 8, 1900 par. 6}

Every soul who obeys the first four commandments will obey the last six commandments, and make manifest what is the duty of man to his fellow men. He will manifest tender, pitying love toward everyone for whom Christ has died. He will consecrate himself to be a missionary, to be a laborer together with God. All who have the Spirit of Christ are missionaries; they derive zeal and energy from the Chief Missionary. {2MR 36.1}

Here is our test which God has made, and He will fulfill His word, if human agents will show their love to God in keeping all His commandments. If they reverence the Sabbath, which is engraved on the first table of stone, they will keep the first three commandments, and the last six will reveal the duty of man to his fellow man; for the Sabbath sign is the covenant between God and man. It is the golden clasp which unites man to God in supreme obedience and reverence, and which unites man to his fellow man. {5MR 89.1}

Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. {DA 638.2}

They couldn't be "sinful habits and practices" if there is no light.

M: Peter made it clear that the newborn babes he described have laid aside “all evil speaking”. Regarding “evil speaking” James wrote, “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.” Peter also said they have laid aside “all guile”. Regarding “guile” John wrote, “These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth [and] in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.”

T: Where is there anything in these passages limiting the comments to the last six commandments? Or excluding the Sabbath?

M: Luther was born again. However, there is no proof he hated or despised people prejudicially.

T: What do you think of the following?

T:if a person has committed 100,000 sins, are you thinking that God reveals these sins one by one until they've all been covered

M:The Holy Spirit reveals "every" spot of defilement, "every" defective trait of character, in light of the cross, before they experience rebirth. This may include specific sins, but certainly not every single sin committed since birth.

Gentiles, who know not the law, live in harmony with the principles of the law. In what sense is this true? Do they worship the one true God, refuse to fashion idols, refuse to take His name in vain,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

T:They couldn't be "sinful habits and practices" if there is no light.

M:Where do you draw the line? What about sins that violate the last six commandments? For example, if someone grows up believing rape, incest, murder, and stealing are normal and acceptable does it mean they are not sinning?

T: Where is there anything in these passages limiting the comments to the last six commandments? Or excluding the Sabbath?

M:They don’t. They clearly teach that newborn babes are born again without sin, in complete harmony with everything Jesus commanded. That’s my point.

M:You seem to think these passages must be taken to mean newborn babes experience rebirth before they crucify their sinful habits and practices.

His advice reflects ignorance – not that he hated or despised Jews prejudicially. Jesus also recognized the ignorance of people when He said, “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs.” “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”

M: Tom, thank you for the response above. To be clear, do you agree with Ellen's view on baptism as described in MR 373 (posted earlier on this thread)? Her explanation is too clear to be misunderstood. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Do you agree with her?

T: I think what she wrote is good counsel. Is there any reason you would think I would disagree with something she wrote?

M:I don't understand how your response addresses my question.

Quote:
M: Also, do you think one or more of the 28 fundamental beliefs may contain errors that later on will be corrected?

T: I don't think I would put it that way. I think there is light yet to shine that hasn't been explained in the fundamental beliefs.

M:Do you think the 28 fundamental beliefs represent truth?

Quote:
M: And, do you think the Holy Spirit is withholding truth waiting for the right time to reveal it?

T: I don't know if I would put it that way either. It's not so much that the Holy Spirit withholds truth as He needs people that are willing to respond to it. I think He's constantly working to shine as much light as possible. That being said, there are certainly times when light shines in a special way, such as 1888.

M:Do you think the Holy Spirit is unable to reveal pertinent truth because no one exists He can trust with it?

Quote:
M: If so, will it enable us to cease sinning in ways we are now ignorant of?

T: I think there is much more involved in the cleansing of the sanctuary than what people are aware of. Jones and Waggoner discussed this. I was going to say especially Jones, but Waggoner discussed the concepts involved at length as well. I would say that light can bring to our attention things that we weren't aware of previously.

M:Do you think we are sinning ignorantly because the Holy Spirit has been unable to reveal certain truths?

M:You wrote, “If you mean that there is nothing that the could possibly do which violates one of the last six commandments in any way that they might not be aware of, I think such a view would have to be based on a very superficial idea of what constitutes sin.” Again, please name a sin you believe falls into this category, that is, a sin that they have no idea before, during, or immediately afterward is a sin.

T:if a person has committed 100,000 sins, are you thinking that God reveals these sins one by one until they've all been covered

M:The Holy Spirit reveals "every" spot of defilement, "every" defective trait of character, in light of the cross, before they experience rebirth. This may include specific sins, but certainly not every single sin committed since birth.

T: This sounds like what I've been saying.

T: please quote anything at all that in any way separates these last six commandments from the first four in the way that you do (specifically, your idea that people know the last six commandments instinctively).

M: Jesus divided the law in two halves: [quoted omitted by Tom]

M: Paul wrote, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” Ellen wrote: [quote omitted by Tom]

M: Gentiles, who know not the law, live in harmony with the principles of the law. In what sense is this true? Do they worship the one true God, refuse to fashion idols, refuse to take His name in vain, and keep the seventh-day Sabbath? No, of course not! So, how do they live harmony with the law? By loving their neighbors.

T: I don't understand this part. Romans 1 tells us: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse”. This is dealing with the first four commandments, and Paul's point is that the Gentiles are without excuse, because what can be known of God has been manifested to them. Why would you think the Gentiles would be guilty of taking God's name in vain? Also, why would you think they would know everything possible about the last six commandments, so that's it's impossible in any way to break them, without knowing that was the case? Yet no absolutely nothing about the other 4 commandments? This is obviously not a possible scenario, I don't see why you would even consider it. What happens is that people have some amount of light regarding all of the commandments, ranging from less to more. The Sabbath would, generally speaking, be the one of which one has less light. The one of which people have the most might be, well, it's hard to say, but I imagine honoring one's parents would be usual for all cultures. In no way is Paul, or anyone else, arguing that all people have all light on all of any of the 10 commandments. We don't find any language like that anywhere. What we see is the statement that there is a knowledge of right and wrong. Human beings would need to have this in order to be judged. Judgment has to do with how much light one has, which implies that human beings do not have all light, or else all would be judged alike (at least, as far as the last six commandments are concerned).

T:They couldn't be "sinful habits and practices" if there is no light.

M:Where do you draw the line? What about sins that violate the last six commandments? For example, if someone grows up believing rape, incest, murder, and stealing are normal and acceptable does it mean they are not sinning?

T: The principle the angel articulated applies to any commandment. Why wouldn't it? Also, you should reword what the angel said (any more than you reword what I say) to give a different meaning than that intended. E.g., the angel did not say "acceptable." That is, the angel did not say that any given act was "acceptable," but rather articulated the principle that one's guilt is dependent upon the light that one has.

M: Peter made it clear that the newborn babes he described have laid aside “all evil speaking”. Regarding “evil speaking” James wrote, “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.” Peter also said they have laid aside “all guile”. Regarding “guile” John wrote, “These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth [and] in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.”

T: Where is there anything in these passages limiting the comments to the last six commandments? Or excluding the Sabbath?

M:They don’t. They clearly teach that newborn babes are born again without sin, in complete harmony with everything Jesus commanded. That’s my point.

T: You just said that most people are born again not doing everything Jesus commanded. You said you recognized this was the case.

M: Peter made it clear that the newborn babes he described have laid aside “all evil speaking”. Regarding “evil speaking” James wrote, “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.” Peter also said they have laid aside “all guile”. Regarding “guile” John wrote, “These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth [and] in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.” You seem to think these passages must be taken to mean newborn babes experience rebirth before they crucify their sinful habits and practices.

T: You seem to think it's OK to reword what other people (or angels) say in such a way that it communicates something other than that which was intended. I don't think that's cool.

M: Luther’s advice [in the quote you posted] reflects ignorance – not that he hated or despised Jews prejudicially. Jesus also recognized the ignorance of people when He said, “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs.” “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”

T: So Luther's attitude was OK, and there was no sin involved. I guess. It really looks like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You're pretty much, in this last statement, just agreeing 100% with what I've been saying all along. Yes, ignorance is involved, which has been my point, which means that he did not have 100% light on the last six commandments. QED.

M: Tom, thank you for the response above. To be clear, do you agree with Ellen's view on baptism as described in MR 373 (posted earlier on this thread)? Her explanation is too clear to be misunderstood. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Do you agree with her?

T: I think what she wrote is good counsel. Is there any reason you would think I would disagree with something she wrote?

M:I don't understand how your response addresses my question.

T: You asked if I agreed with what she wrote. I replied that I think what she wrote is good counsel. How does this not address your question? I also asked you a question, which you didn't answer. I asked, "Is there any reason you would think I would disagree with something she wrote?" Is there? If so, what is it? If not, why did you ask the question?

M: Also, do you think one or more of the 28 fundamental beliefs may contain errors that later on will be corrected?

T: I don't think I would put it that way. I think there is light yet to shine that hasn't been explained in the fundamental beliefs.

M:Do you think the 28 fundamental beliefs represent truth?

T: Not in the same sense as Scripture or the SOP. I don't think there's anything magical about them. They are simply a statement of beliefs.

M: And, do you think the Holy Spirit is withholding truth waiting for the right time to reveal it?

T: I don't know if I would put it that way either. It's not so much that the Holy Spirit withholds truth as He needs people that are willing to respond to it. I think He's constantly working to shine as much light as possible. That being said, there are certainly times when light shines in a special way, such as 1888.

M:Do you think the Holy Spirit is unable to reveal pertinent truth because no one exists He can trust with it?

T: The Holy Spirit is able to reveal any sort of truth regardless of anything a human being could do. The question isn't if He is able to do so, but if He would. Would it do any good to reveal truth to someone who could not understand it?

M: If so, will it enable us to cease sinning in ways we are now ignorant of?

T: I think there is much more involved in the cleansing of the sanctuary than what people are aware of. Jones and Waggoner discussed this. I was going to say especially Jones, but Waggoner discussed the concepts involved at length as well. I would say that light can bring to our attention things that we weren't aware of previously.

M:Do you think we are sinning ignorantly because the Holy Spirit has been unable to reveal certain truths?

T: What do you mean by the Holy Spirit being unable to reveal certain truths?

M:You wrote, “If you mean that there is nothing that the could possibly do which violates one of the last six commandments in any way that they might not be aware of, I think such a view would have to be based on a very superficial idea of what constitutes sin.” Again, please name a sin you believe falls into this category, that is, a sin that they have no idea before, during, or immediately afterward is a sin.

T: What you wrote about Luther covers this fine.

Really? Seems to me you’ve been saying the Holy Spirit does not reveal “every” spot of defilement, "every" defective trait of character, in light of the cross, before they experience rebirth. Seems to me you’ve been saying time and circumstances cause the Holy Spirit to wait on revealing certain sinful habits and defects until well after they experience rebirth. Did I misunderstand you?

MM:Really? Seems to me you’ve been saying the Holy Spirit does not reveal “every” spot of defilement, "every" defective trait of character, in light of the cross, before they experience rebirth.

Seems to me you’ve been saying time and circumstances cause the Holy Spirit to wait on revealing certain sinful habits and defects until well after they experience rebirth. Did I misunderstand you?

You wrote, “please quote anything at all that in any way separates these last six commandments from the first four in the way that you do (specifically, your idea that people know the last six commandments instinctively).” I responded by posting quotes which make it clear dividing the law between the first four and last six commandments is common knowledge. I’m sure you agree.

Then I posted quotes which make it clear people who are unfamiliar with the Bible “do by nature the things contained in the law.” Obviously what they know and do “by nature” does not include the first four commandments.

What they know and do “by nature” therefore must necessarily refer to the last six commandments “contained in the law.” I’m not sure if you agree.

T: The principle the angel articulated applies to any commandment. Why wouldn't it? Also, you should reword what the angel said (any more than you reword what I say) to give a different meaning than that intended. E.g., the angel did not say "acceptable." That is, the angel did not say that any given act was "acceptable," but rather articulated the principle that one's guilt is dependent upon the light that one has.

M:Do you think the no-light-equals-no-sin principle applies to rape, incest, murder, stealing, and lying if the person committing such sins are clueless such sins are forbidden and condemned by God? In other words, in judgment would they stand innocent and guiltless before God?

M:They don’t. They clearly teach that newborn babes are born again without sin, in complete harmony with everything Jesus commanded. That’s my point.

T: You just said that most people are born again not doing everything Jesus commanded. You said you recognized this was the case.

M:Yes, that’s what I believe. However, I also believe the Bible nowhere describes rebirth happening before people learn how to live in harmony with everything Jesus commanded. The quotes I posted above are samples of passages which make it clear people learned how to live in harmony with everything Jesus commanded before they experienced rebirth. The fact people experience rebirth nowadays before they learn how to live in harmony with everything Jesus commanded was unheard of in the days of the apostles. Do you agree? If not, please post passages from the Bible that describe people experiencing rebirth before they learn how to live in harmony with everything Jesus commanded.

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul.(DA 175)

MM:Really? Seems to me you’ve been saying time and circumstances cause the Holy Spirit to wait on revealing certain sinful habits and defects until well after they experience rebirth. Did I misunderstand you?

M: Luther’s advice [in the quote you posted] reflects ignorance – not that he hated or despised Jews prejudicially. Jesus also recognized the ignorance of people when He said, “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs.” “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”

T: So Luther's attitude was OK, and there was no sin involved. I guess. It really looks like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You're pretty much, in this last statement, just agreeing 100% with what I've been saying all along. Yes, ignorance is involved, which has been my point, which means that he did not have 100% light on the last six commandments. QED.

M:I disagree. Luther’s advice regarding Jews did not advocate anything contrary to the law of God. His “attitude” toward Jews was in harmony with the law of God.

T: You asked if I agreed with what she wrote. I replied that I think what she wrote is good counsel. How does this not address your question? I also asked you a question, which you didn't answer. I asked, "Is there any reason you would think I would disagree with something she wrote?" Is there? If so, what is it? If not, why did you ask the question?

M:Her counsel in MR 373 forbids baptizing people before they learn how to live in harmony with everything Jesus commanded.

Do you agree with this counsel?

Quote:
M: Also, do you think one or more of the 28 fundamental beliefs may contain errors that later on will be corrected?

T: I don't think I would put it that way. I think there is light yet to shine that hasn't been explained in the fundamental beliefs.

M:Do you think the 28 fundamental beliefs represent truth?

T: Not in the same sense as Scripture or the SOP. I don't think there's anything magical about them. They are simply a statement of beliefs.

M:I have no idea what you believe.

M:Do you believe the 28 fundamental beliefs correctly reflect the truth?

M:Or, do you think it is entirely possible we could discover truth sometime in future that will uncover mistakes we now mistakenly hold to be true?

You wrote, “It's not so much that the Holy Spirit withholds truth as He needs people that are willing to respond to it.” “Would it do any good to reveal truth to someone who could not understand it?” “That being said, there are certainly times when light shines in a special way, such as 1888.” Do you think the 28 fundamental beliefs reflect the 1888 message?

Do you think light yet to shine will undo or undermine the 28 fundamental beliefs?

Or, do you think it will clarify them?

Quote:
M: If so, will it enable us to cease sinning in ways we are now ignorant of?

T: I think there is much more involved in the cleansing of the sanctuary than what people are aware of. Jones and Waggoner discussed this. I was going to say especially Jones, but Waggoner discussed the concepts involved at length as well. I would say that light can bring to our attention things that we weren't aware of previously.

M:Do you think we are sinning ignorantly because the Holy Spirit has been unable to reveal certain truths?

T: What do you mean by the Holy Spirit being unable to reveal certain truths?

M:Seems to me you believe the Holy Spirit is withholding new light for reasons that make sense to Him. You haven’t said what those reasons are.

M:At any rate, the light that is yet to shine, do you think it will enable us to cease sinning in ways we are now ignorant of?

Quote:
M:You wrote, “If you mean that there is nothing that the could possibly do which violates one of the last six commandments in any way that they might not be aware of, I think such a view would have to be based on a very superficial idea of what constitutes sin.” Again, please name a sin you believe falls into this category, that is, a sin that they have no idea before, during, or immediately afterward is a sin.

T: What you wrote about Luther covers this fine.

M:I disagree. Luther was not guilty of sinning ignorantly as it relates to the Jews.

Can you think of any other example “which violates one of the last six commandments in any way that they might not be aware” before, during, or immediately afterward is a sin?

I have always wondered why the Holy Spirit didn't reveal to David in his deathbed that he (who, by the way, already had so many wives) shouldn't sleep with a girl. Although the Bible says he didn't ("couldn't" would perhaps be more precise) know her, this still seems absurd to me.