Tom, I fervently disagree with your view of morality as it relates to law and light, guilt and condemnation. According to Webster: “Morality is conduct that conforms to an accepted standard of right and wrong.” Jesus will judge Gentiles based on whether or not they lived in harmony with the accepted standard of conduct. That’s what Paul meant in Romans 2:13-15.

Furthermore, a cursory study of cultural ethics and morality around the world, among first, second, and third world communities, reveals clearly everyone everywhere upholds the standards as outlined in the last six commandments. The only variations that exist around the world from the beginning of time have to do with the first four commandments and the laws of Moses.

Again, Jesus does not hold anyone morally guilty of violating one of His moral codes of conduct if they are truly ignorant of them. It is not viewed as a moral sin if they have no idea what they are doing breaks one of Jesus’ laws.

Morality involves a conscious choice to obey or disobey. Thus, no one can ignorantly violate one of the last six commandments. Why? Because no one is ignorant of them. However, there are literally millions of people who innocently and ignorantly violated dozens of Jesus' moral laws. And not one of them is counted guilty or immoral for it.

Labeling the differences between moral and mental sins the way I have may not suit your theology, Tom, but it does make perfect sense to me, and plenty of others. Again, no one is guilty of immorality if they are truly ignorant of their wrongdoing.

5BC 1145
Men will not be judged for light they have never had. But those who have kept Sunday, whose attention has been called to this error, but who would not open their eyes to behold wondrous things out of the law, will be judged according to the light that has come to them (RH Sept. 13, 1898). {5BC 1145.5}

5T 436
The mistakes that are the natural result of blindness of mind are, when pointed out, no longer sins of ignorance or errors of judgment; but unless there are decided reforms in accordance with the light given, they then become presumptuous sins. The moral darkness that surrounds you will become more dense; your heart will become harder and harder, and you will be more offensive in the sight of God. {5T 435.3}

Brother Gordon, thank you for sharing your views on this thread. The inspired quotes and insights you share are a breath of fresh air. I also greatly appreciate the kind and patient manner in which you state the truth. Thank you.

Mike, the Ten Commandments are the moral law.

His {God's} laws were not alone for the Jewish nation. The moral law was given before the people called Jews were in existence. The law of ten commandments was of universal obligation. (Sons and Daughters of God 44)

Here we see that the law of ten commandments, not six, is of universal obligation. This law of ten commandments is the "moral law." To break one of these commandments, any one of them, is not a mental sin, but a moral sin. If broken in ignorance, it is a moral sin of ignorance. If broken intentionally, it is a moral sin not done in ignorance.

There is nothing in Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which suggests that one can commit a sin which does not violate the moral law. I noticed you presented no evidence from inspiration to support your ideas. (The texts you did present support the position I've been presenting, dealing with sins of ignorance.)

TE: Mike, the Ten Commandments are the moral law.

MM: I agree. We can also include the laws of Moses. To knowingly violate any one of them is a moral sin, too.

TE: To break one of these commandments, any one of them, is not a mental sin, but a moral sin. If broken in ignorance, it is a moral sin of ignorance.

MM: I disagree. Please refer to my previous post as to why. Thank you.

TE: There is nothing in Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which suggests that one can commit a sin which does not violate the moral law.

MM: I agree.

His {God's} laws were not alone for the Jewish nation. The moral law was given before the people called Jews were in existence. The law of ten commandments was of universal obligation. (Sons and Daughters of God 44)

MM, you didn't comment on the main point. All Ten Commandments are universal! Not just six.

Inspiration knows nothing of your idea that the last six commandments are universal and violating them is moral sin whereas the first four are just mental sins. Inspiration presents all ten commandments as being moral and universal. Breaking any one of them is, of course, a moral sin.

Inspiration is quite clear in treating sins of ignorance. Why add a new category, "mental sins," of which inspiration knows nothing?

Yes, Tom, the law is universal. It is the standard by which everyone will be sentenced in judgment. Everyone is born with an instinctive knowledge of the last six commandments. Since everyone is aware of what is morally right and wrong, as defined by the last six commandments, no one can break them ignorantly.

But no one is born with an instinctive knowledge of the first four commandments, or most of the laws of Moses. It requires Bible study and conviction before Jesus will hold anyone morally accountable for breaking them.

Knowingly violating one of Jesus’ commandments is a moral sin. Breaking one of them ignorantly is not a moral sin. Morality involves conscious choice. No one is guilty of immorality if they sin innocently and ignorantly.

Again, the blood of Jesus is applied to sins of ignorance if they reach judgment unknown and unrepented.

MM,
[QUOTE]
Again, the blood of Jesus is applied to sins of ignorance if they reach judgment unknown and unrepented.
[/QUOTE]

Does this not apply to when a person knowingly sins, and then feels guilt and confesses his or her sins and repents? COuld you elaborate on your above statement.
God Bless,
Will

Yes, Will, Jesus will apply the benefits of His blood to make atonement for confessed and forsaken known sins. He will not, however, justify unconfessed, unforsaken known sins.

It is different in the case of sins of igorance in that Jesus will apply the benefits of His blood to atone for them in judgment - even if they make it there unknown and unconfessed.

The reason for making this point is because Tom disagrees. He believes the blood of Jesus is not required to atone for sins of ignorance if they make it to judgment unknown and unconfessed. He maintains sins of ignorance require blood atonement only if the sinner becomes aware of them and confesses them before he dies.

What do you think?