Okay, it sounds like we're beginning to say the same thing. Innocently and ignorantly believing a false doctrine, for example, does not effect ones character.

Developing and/or possessing a sinful trait of character is the direct result of deliberately and habitually choosing to think, say, or do things that violate ones moral conscience and convictions.

Nobody, especially a born again believer, can accidentally develop and/or possess a cultivated (as opposed to inherited) sinful trait of character without realizing it is morally wrong.

Do you agree?

It depends on how the terms are defined. For example, in the fornication example I gave earlier, I would maintain that fornication is fornication, regardless of whether or not one is deluded as to one's matrimonial state. Similarly Sabbath-breaking is Sabbath-breaking, regardless of one's ignorance of the Sabbath.

It's true that God winks in times of ignorance, and that for purposes of judgment one's light is taken into account. However, ignorance does not prevent bad effects of transgression from occuring. For example, one might no know that smoking is unhealthful, but that lack of knowledge will no deter the delerious effects of smoking.

So one could in ignorance possess character flaws, however not in a sense that would prevent one from dying and going to heaven. Being ready to meet Christ at His Second Coming is another matter.

We've never really discussed this, so this might be a good time to bring it up. I perceive that being ready for Christ's second coming does not require the same preparation as being ready for death. You've written some things which cause me to suspect you may disagree with this, but I'm not sure.

This would make a good topic, BTW.

Yeah, I suspected we were not in agreement regarding sins of ignorance and character. But it sounds like we are in agreement concerning some of the differences between the resurrected saints and the translated saints. Both points have to do with the same issue.

Here's what I mean. I believe there is a fundamental difference, as it relates to our salvation status, between intellectual and moral imperfections. You are probably familiar with my thinking on this point.

Polygamy, sabbath keeping, diet and health reform, the sanctuary message, etc., are mental (intellectual) issues that require Bible study to know the difference between right and wrong. As such, people who are totally ignorant of these Bible truths are not guilty of known or wilfull sin.

Since it is character that determines our eternal destiny in judgment, it is clear to me that sins of ignorance cannot and do not impact character development. Innocently and ignorantly violating an intellectual Bible truth does not affect our character, and do not count against us in judgment.

The same cannot be said of moral Bible truths, things we know naturally from birth. Whether or not someone is ignorant of the Bible there are certain truths we as human beings know instinctively. The last six commandments deal with such truths. No one can ignorantly violate one of them without realizing it is morally wrong.

I agree there are points we hold in common. One point I'm not clear on is regarding translation and resurrection. Do you see that one could be ready for death without being ready for translation? I've very interested in your thoughts on this.

There's two points I disagree with from your post. First of all, it appears to me you see that character only deals with that which is judged. I disagree with this.

That is, one can be morally innocent of committing some act, and will be judged (or not judged) accordingly, but the impact of those acts done ignorantly does have an impact upon the character. It has to. The character is that which is formed by repeated actions/decisions/thoughts. One may be ignorantly committing a given sin (and thus not held liable for it in judgment) but the committing of that sin still impacts the character, because the character is fed by the bad habit.

Hopefully I'm being clear about this.

The second point I disagree with is that you believe there are certain things we know are wrong from birth. I think that's a position which is completely untenable. Can you present any evidence that there is anything we know from birth to be wrong? I contend that all moral issues involving wrong and right are learned.

Consider modesty (dealing with nakedness). Is the sin of immodesty something we know from birth? It seems to me, given your definitions of intellectual vs. known-from-birth sins, immodesty would have to fall in the known-from-birth side. But what is immodest varies tremendously from one culture to another, and from one person to another. For example, in one part of the world, a woman's exposing her breasts would not be seen as immodest, but exposing an ankle would be strictly taboo. So is it a sin for a woman to expose her breasts? Is this something known from birth? Or an intellectual sin?

Tom, sorry I disappeared all of a sudden. A crazy thunderstorm thrashed our neck of the woods and left a huge mess in its wake; nothing like Katrina or Rita, though.

Yes, I believe the difference between those who are resurrected and those who are translated when Jesus arrives has to do with intellectual perfection (please refer to my last few posts regarding specific examples of mental or intellectual issues). That is, the translated saints will be perfect both morally and intellectually. Whereas, the resurrected saints, dating all the way back to the beginning, may or may not have experienced intellectual perfection. But there is no difference between the two groups so far as moral perfection is concerned (other than some may be more mature than others).

quote:

---

One may be ignorantly committing a given sin (and thus not held liable for it in judgment) but the committing of that sin still impacts the character, because the character is fed by the bad habit.

---

Not as I see it. Remember, I make a huge distinction between mental and moral perfection. Faithfully keeping the Sabbath six days early, though unbiblical, doesn’t cause the person to develop bad character.

quote:

---

Can you present any evidence that there is anything we know from birth to be wrong? I contend that all moral issues involving wrong and right are learned.

---

Yes. Romans 2:13-15 is evidence. “As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart.” (RC 106)

Morality is not only known from birth, but it is also culturally relevant. Every culture has its own standards of morality, which coincide, in one way or another, with the last six commandments. The commandment forbids adultery, not going around topless.

It seems to me that I basically agree with the concepts you are stating here, although the language you use is very far different from what I would use. You express yourself in ways which to me is very odd indeed, which makes it difficult for me to understand what you're saying.

I agree there is a difference between resurrection and translation, and the difference is I think pretty much in concept how you see the difference. I also believe that Christ is the light who lightens everyone who comes into the world, although the quote and your statement appears to me to be supporting my point of view that morality is learned, since light implies learning. So I think you've made my point, not yours, but if your basic concept involves Christ's giving light to everyone, I agree with that.

It doesn't sound like you were damaged by the storm. Glad to hear that.

Thanx. Yeah, the storm beat up the area (Southwest Colorado), but most of us made it out just fine. Mold and mildew could be a problem later on, but there are chemicals to cure it.

In what way do you think human beings must learn morality (i.e., things relating to the last six commandments)? What about tribes that have never seen or heard of the Bible? How did they learn about them?

Do you see a difference between things that can be learned only from the Bible (i.e., the seventh-day sabbath, diet and dress reform, and doctrines like the state of the dead and the 2300 day prophecy) and tribes (that have never heard of the Bible) that abide by moral standards that are, at least in principle, in harmony with the last six commandments?

Mike:In what way do you think human beings must learn morality (i.e., things relating to the last six commandments)?

Tom:In every way. We don't know morality by instinct. We are taught it.

Mike:What about tribes that have never seen or heard of the Bible? How did they learn about them?

Tom:From their parents, and other members of the tribe, and from God's revelation of Himself through nature and the Holy Spirit.

Mike:Do you see a difference between things that can be learned only from the Bible (i.e., the seventh-day sabbath, diet and dress reform, and doctrines like the state of the dead and the 2300 day prophecy) and tribes (that have never heard of the Bible) that abide by moral standards that are, at least in principle, in harmony with the last six commandments?

Tom:Not in the context that morality is learned. In both cases you have cited, morality is leanred. It's simply the source of that learning which has changed. That is, in neither case (2300 days, or how tribes practice morality) was it known by birth.

This is easily seen by considering what would happen if you took a new born infant from a tribe and switched it with a new born from a typical SDA family here in the states. The infant from the tribe would learn SDA morality, and the one from here would learn tribe morality. If morality was something we obtained from birth, rather than being learned, this wouldn't be the case.

Okay, that explains why we disagree. I believe we are born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong, and you don't. I believe there is a difference between what is known instinctively and what is learned intellectually through Bible study, and you don't.

This explains why we understand "hidden" character defects differently. I believe it is exclusively intellectually related, whereas you believe it is both. In other words, I do not believe born again believers, who are walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, are ignorant of what is morally right and wrong, or ignorant of their potential weaknesses and predispositions.

Because of these fundamental differences of opinion, I don't see how we can ever hope to agree on what constitutes "hidden" character defects. What do you think?

I'm not sure I can answer your question because I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If you would be kind enough to comment on the example I gave of the tribe baby and non-tribe baby, that would help.

That is, the tribe baby would have learned non-tribe morality in my example, and the non-tribe baby would have learned tribe morality. This would argue that morality is not something one is born with, but is something which is learned.

I don't know how you can assert that morality is not learned. That seems to me to fly in the face of all known observation. Didn't you first learn what was right and wrong from your parents?