For example, if a person ignorantly breaks the Sabbath or is polygamous, these are still moral imperfections or character defects, as these terms are commonly used.

Not so.

It is so. If you will notice, I qualified my statement "as these terms are commonly used." Your reaffirming your particular use of these phrases does not change their common usage.

Character defects (i.e., moral imperfections) are the direct result of deliberately violating ones conscience and convictions. Character is not the result of chance or ignorance; it is the result of choice. No one can accidentally develop sinful traits of character. Character is the stuff of integrity or the lack thereof. This is conventional wisdom.

Regarding character I think you could argue a case for a more particularized usage. If one pracitices polygamy, is that a matter of character? You might be able to argue that it's not (assuming, of course, that it's dont in ignorance). However, regarding moral imperfections, such an argument cannot be made. There is no question that practicing polygamy is a moral imperfection.

Sanctification actually involves repenting more and more, not less and less.

Quote, please. Where does it say we will sin more and more, therefore we will repent more and more?

I didn't say that, did I? I said sanctification actually involves repenting more and more. The quote you provided demonstrates that.

Tom, the common usage of the word "repent" normally implies sinning. But, as the quote above indicates, sometimes it means the opposite. I’m glad we can agree on this point.

Moral imperfections and mental imperfections are two distinct aspects of the human experience, a point which you and I have yet to agree upon (unless I’ve overlooked something).

I believe sins of ignorance (i.e., observing the wrong Sabbath day, having more than one spouse, etc) are mental imperfections, not moral ones. In order for something to be a moral issue it must, in my opinion, include certain elements, namely, deliberately choosing to violate ones conscience and convictions.

Sinful character is the result of the immoral decisions we make, the habits we form by repeatedly choosing to violate our conscience and convictions. Sinless character is the result of habitually choosing to abide in Jesus, to partake of the divine nature, to mature in the fruits of the Spirit.

How do you define the difference between moral and mental imperfections?

Conversion (and if you study it out is interchangeable with the word Justification) is a moment by moment process of allowing the Holy Spirit point you to Jesus and choosing that way instead of the way of our sinful nature. Santification is the result of this moment by moment choice. Yes, we need moment by moment repentance as even our good is tanted by selfishness.

The "New Theology" focuses on conversion, and sees it as a once in a moment time that brings about instant sanctification.

Our more conservatives tend to focus too much on the results that may develop in the process of Sanctification, instead of focusing on what brings about those results.

The truth is someplace in between and makes everyone upset.

If we can excuse a person having more than one wife, then must we also excuse a person having more than one husband, or other type of marital-type relationships?

How does any of this fit into the daily genuine conversion experience?

Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh."

Tom, the common usage of the word "repent" normally implies sinning. But, as the quote above indicates, sometimes it means the opposite. I’m glad we can agree on this point.

"Repentence" in the New Testament comes from two Greek words, "meta" and "noya" which means literally "after mind". The idea is that before you thought one way, but now you think another. When we understand this meaning, it's easy to see how intertwined repentance is to conversion, and how repentance can deepen without one's actually being involved in sinning.

Moral imperfections and mental imperfections are two distinct aspects of the human experience, a point which you and I have yet to agree upon (unless I’ve overlooked something).

I think on this point it's more the wording used than the concepts that we disagree on. You seem to retrict "moral imperfections" to mean less than what I think standard usage would be. To you, if I'm understanding you correctly, it includes only those things which we instinctively know to be right or wrong. To me it means anything which is not morally perfect. So someone who is polygamous or breaks the Sabbath I would say is not morally perfect, regardless of whether or not they know what they are doing is wrong. Knowing if what you are doing is right or not does affect your conscience, and is an important element in judgment, but it does not change what moral perfection is, IMO, which I see is defined objectively by the 10 commandments, not objectively on the basis of what we might or might not know from birth.

I believe sins of ignorance (i.e., observing the wrong Sabbath day, having more than one spouse, etc) are mental imperfections, not moral ones.

I don't think there is any basis for this belief. "Moral" means "good according to a standard of right and wrong". So a moral imperfection would be anything which is not in accordance with the standard. A mental imperfection, according to standard usage, would refer to a problem dealing with a mental process, such as thinking or reasoning. It doesn't have anything to do with sins of ignorance. You could do a search on Google on "mental imperfections" and I doubt you would ever find it being used the way you are suggesting.

Here's a typical example of the usage of "mental imperfections" from Clarke's commentary:

quote:

---

Supposing Moses to have really laboured under some defect in speech, we may consider it as wisely designed to be a sort of counterbalance to his other excellences: at least this is an ordinary procedure of Divine Providence; personal accomplishments are counterbalanced by mental defects, and mental imperfections often by personal accomplishments. http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeexo6.htm

---

In order for something to be a moral issue it must, in my opinion, include certain elements, namely, deliberately choosing to violate ones conscience and convictions.

In researching this, I have found you are not unique in this idea of "moral". Your usage of "mental imperfections" is unique, but not of "moral imperfections". I would be interested if you could substantiate that EGW uses the term "moral perfection" as you suggest. It appears to me she does not. For example:

quote:

---

God will accept only those who are determined to aim high. He places every human agent under obligation to do his best. Moral perfection is required of all. Never should we lower the standard of righteousness in order to accommodate inherited or cultivated tendencies to wrong-doing. We need to understand that imperfection of character is sin. (COL 330)

---

It seems to me that if "moral perfection" meant nothing more than doing what you know instinctually is right, there would be no sense in here suggesting that the standard of righteousness should never be lowered. The standard of righteousness is the Ten Commandments, not the last six, nor what we know instinctually.

Sinful character is the result of the immoral decisions we make, the habits we form by repeatedly choosing to violate our conscience and convictions. Sinless character is the result of habitually choosing to abide in Jesus, to partake of the divine nature, to mature in the fruits of the Spirit.

I agree with this.

How do you define the difference between moral and mental imperfections?

I think I've treated this above. Conceptionally I don't think I see things much differently than you in terms of the difference between what you call "moral imperfections" and "mental imperfections". I see the language you use as hard to follow. Rather than this language I think "volitional sins" and "sins of ignorance", or simpler yet "bad things we do which we know are bad" and "bad things we do which we don't know are bad" is much easier to follow.

Basically you're saying, as I understand it, that a person who is converted won't deliberately sin unless (s)he chooses to "disconnect" from Christ. I don't think anyone would argue with this. You also believe that sanctification need not include, and should not include, sinning. I think many people would agree with this. I certainly do.

I don't think you're saying more than what I've said above, which are things that many would agree with. However, you use language which makes it sound like you're saying something different, and is language that almost nobody is comfortable in agreeing with. So I think it's not so much the concepts you're expressing that cause disagreement, but the way you express them.

I think I can conclude that either what I'm suggesting here is correct, or I've not understood your ideas correctly. So I'll wait for your comment.

Tom, I don't see anything wrong with making a distinction between known and unknown imperfections as I have expressed it. The contrast between mental and moral imperfections is more than semantics, it is crucial to my way of understanding the promises of victory and perfection.

I think I'm beginning to understand your general use of the concept inherent in the phrase - moral imperfections. Which may also explain some of our theological disagreements. Perhaps we should go with your suggestion by defining the difference between moral and mental defects by referring to them as:

Moral Imperfection = Doing something we know is wrong

Mental Imperfection = Doing something we do not know is wrong

Now, how do we apply these definitions to the insight we must be converted on a daily basis? Does it mean as we discover new mental imperfections that we choose to crucify them and that we choose to stay connected to Jesus?

If so, what constitutes a new mental imperfection? Does it include any of the things listed in Galatians 5:19-21? That is, might it include discovering for the first time, after being a born again believer for several years, that it’s wrong to be impatient with our children because they’re having a hard time learning how to tie their shoes?

Now, how do we apply these definitions to the insight we must be converted on a daily basis? Does it mean as we discover new mental imperfections that we choose to crucify them and that we choose to stay connected to Jesus?

You suggested perhaps we should go by my suggestion regarding moral and mental imperfections, so let's do that and avoid these terms. Especially the term "mental imperfections" is misleading, as it means error in our mental faculties, not ignorance. So your question becomes "Does it mean we discover new things we didn't know that we choose to crucify them and that we choose to stay connected to Jesus?" The answer to this question is yes, we should do this, correct?

If so, what constitutes a new mental imperfection? Does it include any of the things listed in Galatians 5:19-21? That is, might it include discovering for the first time, after being a born again believer for several years, that it’s wrong to be impatient with our children because they’re having a hard time learning how to tie their shoes?

Clearly the list in Galatians 5:19-21 could include something not known. There's nothing in the list that implies the things listed have to be known, is there? There just a paraphrase of the 10 commandments, aren't they? The Ten Commandments define morality covering all possible sin. So there's nothing in the Galatians 5 list which is not covered by the Ten Commandments.

I've already given several examples of things on the list which may not be known. I don't know what the significance of this would be (i.e. that one can pracitice works of the flesh ignorantly).

Regarding the children, one would think after a couple of years they would have learned to tie their shoes (that's a joke). On a more serious vein, regarding anger, I think it would be difficult to become angry and not be ignorant of having experienced some emotion. However, I think it's quite possible that one could ignorantly confuse anger with something else, like righteous indignation. God can reveal to us the true motives of our heart, so that sins we were comitting in ignorance, thinking our motives were pure, are revealed in their true light.

For example, consider the following quote:

quote:

---

No man can of himself understand his errors. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Jer. 17:9. The lips may express a poverty of soul that the heart does not acknowledge. (COL 159)

---

Okay, Tom, thank you for the clarifications. But it looks like we're stuck with our differences. I believe a born again believer, who is walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, who is partaking of the divine nature, who is abiding in Jesus, will not and cannot, either deliberately or accidentally, violate the law of God.

Of course an exception can be made regarding the sabbath commandment, but not the other nine commandments. No one who is connected to Jesus, as I have described above, can commit a sin or be ignorantly guilty of the things Paul listed in Galatians. They must first disconnect from Jesus and then all they can do is sin. That's not my opinion, that's the truth according to the Bible.

1 John
3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Okay, Tom, thank you for the clarifications. But it looks like we're stuck with our differences. I believe a born again believer, who is walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, who is partaking of the divine nature, who is abiding in Jesus, will not and cannot, either deliberately or accidentally, violate the law of God.

You must have the implicit qualification in mind of "without disconnecting from Christ" as otherwise this would be once saved always saved. Also breaking the Sabbath is an obvious example of accidentally violating the law of God. Polygamy would be another. Any sin of ignorance would suffice as an example. You'd have to ammend your definition of the law of God to not include sins of ignorance, in which case your statement becomes tautological.

Of course an exception can be made regarding the sabbath commandment, but not the other nine commandments.

Is there any reference in inspiration which excepts the Sabbath?

No one who is connected to Jesus, as I have described above, can commit a sin or be ignorantly guilty of the things Paul listed in Galatians. They must first disconnect from Jesus and then all they can do is sin. That's not my opinion, that's the truth according to the Bible.

It's your opinion that that's the truth according to the Bible. I provided quite a bit of evidence that one could be guilty of things listed in Galatians in ignorance. I think you are probably almost unique in thinking otherwise. The NKJV's list has "selfish ambition" on the list. You don't think someone could be ignorant of selfish ambtions they hold?