TE: Conversion is not dependent upon baptism.

MM: Tom, I believe the following inspired insights disagree with the conclusion that conversion is not dependent upon baptism. Do you agree?

EV 306
Repentance, faith, and baptism are the requisite steps in conversion. Letter 174, 1909. {Ev 306.3}

EV 307
Christ has made baptism the sign of entrance to His spiritual kingdom. He has made this a positive condition with which all must comply who wish to be acknowledged as under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. {Ev 307.1}

LHU 79
In the submission of Christ to the ordinance of baptism, He shows the sinner one of the important steps in true conversion. . . The steps in conversion, plainly marked out, are repentance, faith in Christ as the world's Redeemer, faith in His death, burial, and resurrection, shown by baptism, and His ascension on high to plead in the sinner's behalf. {LHU 79.2, 4}

SR 289
The descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Gentiles was not an equivalent for baptism. The requisite steps in conversion, in all cases, are faith, repentance, and baptism. Thus the true Christian church are united in one Lord, one faith, one baptism. {SR 289.2}

………………………

TE: You had said earlier that all sinful habits cultivated from birth had to be revealed by the Holy Spirit and confessed before one could be converted. This is false.

MM: Again, I believe the following inspired insights disagree with the conclusion that conversion does not require giving up our cultivated sinful habits. Do you agree?

SD300
The old sinful life is dead; the new life entered into with Christ by the pledge of baptism. . . . The sins that were practised before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. {SD 300.3}

6T 65
Candidates who have grown to manhood and womanhood should understand their duty better than do the younger ones; but the pastor of the church has a duty to do for these souls. Have they wrong habits and practices? It is the duty of the pastor to have special meetings with them. Give them Bible readings, converse and pray with them, and plainly show the claims of the Lord upon them. Read to them the teaching of the Bible in regard to conversion. Show what is the fruit of conversion, the evidence that they love God. Show that true conversion is a change of heart, of thoughts and purposes. Evil habits are to be given up. The sins of evil-speaking, of jealousy, of disobedience, are to be put away. A warfare must be waged against every evil trait of character.

Then the believing one can understandingly take to himself the promise: "Ask, and it shall be given you." Matthew 7:7. {6T 95.1}

Terry: A person can have a character totally in harmony with God and yet not know all the truth about God.

MM: What do you mean by the “truth about God”? Are there truths, already revealed and not yet revealed, that do not contribute to the perfection of Christian character?

Terry: Christian perfection is to be like Christ. How can one be like Christ except that he knows His character, His ways and His plans for us. How many truly know who God is and what His plans are? In these last days each person, I believe must have a true relationship with God; one that is based on a spiritual and truthful understanding of the principles that God sets as His own and ours. These are the eternal principles that will fulfill all life for eternity. These are the truths God has set before us for our acceptance or rejection.

MM: How can a person have a character “totally in harmony with God” and yet “not know all the truth about God”? Which “eternal principles” and “truths” can we not know and yet still “have a character totally in harmony with God”?

……………………..

MM: Also, are the 144,000 the only ones ready to be translated alive? In other words, what if the people who will come up in the first resurrection hadn’t died – were they also ready to be translated alive? What was it about Enoch and Elijah that made it possible for them to be translated alive? Were they just as ready as the 144,000?

Terry: From E.G. White

MM: The quotes you posted were great, but they didn’t address the questions I posted. I realize the 144,000 have a special place and standing in heaven and the New Earth, but my questions have to do with individual qualification.

Are the 144,000 more qualified to be translated alive than those who are resurrected? Are they more holy, more righteous, and more sinless? Are they the first humans to “reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.” (HP 46)

If so, what made the difference? Why was it possible for them, but not for the others, to reach a condition of sinlessness? Is it because God is waiting until the end of time to reveal the truths necessary to make it possible to reach such a state?

…………………….

By the way, here is an interesting observation concerning the 144,000:

GC 621, 622
Their affliction is great, the flames of the furnace seem about to consume them; but the Refiner will bring them forth as gold tried in the fire. God's love for His children during the period of their severest trial is as strong and tender as in the days of their sunniest prosperity; but it is needful for them to be placed in the furnace of fire; their earthliness must be consumed, that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected. {GC 621.1}

Those who exercise but little faith now, are in the greatest danger of falling under the power of satanic delusions and the decree to compel the conscience. And even if they endure the test they will be plunged into deeper distress and anguish in the time of trouble, because they have never made it a habit to trust in God. The lessons of faith which they have neglected they will be forced to learn under a terrible pressure of discouragement. {GC 622.1}

During the time of trouble, after probation closes, the 144,000 still have “earthliness” which “must be consumed, that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected”. And some of them still have “lessons of faith”, which they neglected to learn before probation closed, that “they will be forced to learn under a terrible pressure of discouragement.”

This points out that true conversion is "shown" by baptism, which is correct. It's not a prerequsite as I was using the term, which was in the sense of being born again. Being born again is an internal experience which is manifest by external acts.

Now conversion can also be defined as "an experience associated with the definite and decisive adoption of a religion," and in this sense it would be proper to say that baptism is a necessary part of conversion, but this wasn't the sense I was using the term.

One is converted when one responds to the wooing of the Holy Spirit, as described here:

Tom, did you overlook these quotes:

SR 289
The descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Gentiles was not an equivalent for baptism. The requisite steps in conversion, in all cases, are faith, repentance, and baptism. Thus the true Christian church are united in one Lord, one faith, one baptism. {SR 289.2}

EV 307
Christ has made baptism the sign of entrance to His spiritual kingdom. He has made this a positive condition with which all must comply who wish to be acknowledged as under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. {Ev 307.1}

1. What does "requisite steps” mean to you?

2. What does “a positive condition” mean to you?

You seem to be insisting that baptism is NOT required to complete the long, protracted, patient process of conversion, that people can experience the miracle of rebirth without being baptized.

………………….

TE: You had said earlier that all sinful habits cultivated from birth had to be revealed by the Holy Spirit and confessed before one could be converted. This is false.

MM: Again, I believe the following inspired insights disagree with the conclusion that conversion does not require giving up our cultivated sinful habits.

Do you agree?

SD300
The old sinful life is dead; the new life entered into with Christ by the pledge of baptism. . . . The sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man. {SD 300.3}

1. What does “the sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off, with the old man” mean to you?

You seem to be insisting that it doesn’t include all of the sins that were practiced before conversion, that it excludes certain sins, namely, sinful habits which God chooses not to reveal because He believes the new convert is not quite ready to crucify them, not yet strong enough to give them up.

6T 65
Candidates who have grown to manhood and womanhood should understand their duty better than do the younger ones; but the pastor of the church has a duty to do for these souls. Have they wrong habits and practices? It is the duty of the pastor to have special meetings with them. Give them Bible readings, converse and pray with them, and plainly show the claims of the Lord upon them. Read to them the teaching of the Bible in regard to conversion. Show what is the fruit of conversion, the evidence that they love God. Show that true conversion is a change of heart, of thoughts and purposes. Evil habits are to be given up. The sins of evil-speaking, of jealousy, of disobedience, are to be put away. A warfare must be waged against every evil trait of character. Then the believing one can understandingly take to himself the promise: "Ask, and it shall be given you." Matthew 7:7. {6T 95.1}

2. What does “have they wrong habits and practices” mean to you?

You seem to be insisting that the “special meetings” pastors are required to have with baptismal candidates, to help them understand and experience the biblical meaning of true conversion, to teach them which “evil habits are to be given up” – that these meetings 1) do not include “plainly” showing them all of their sinful habits, 2) that the pastor must wisely overlook certain sinful habits, 3) that he should save addressing them until sometime after they are baptized.

3. What does “the sins of evil-speaking, of jealousy, of disobedience, are to be put away” mean to you?

You seem to be insisting that it doesn’t include all forms of disobedience, that it wisely and purposely excludes certain sins.

5. What does “a warfare must be waged against every evil trait of character” mean to you?

You seem to be insisting that it doesn’t include “every” evil trait of character, that it excludes certain sinful habits.

No, I didn't overlook the quotes. I explained them in what I wrote.

Regarding giving up cultivated habits, you seem to be going back again. You agreed that drinking and smoking are sinful habits, and that some are converted while still taking part of these habits. Once you say that you can no longer insist that every sinful habit must be given up, because here are two that don't need to be.

Regarding the questions of what does such and such mean to me, I understand it to mean every sinful habit etc. that we know to be wrong. It's not dealing with things we don't know about (such as smoking and drinking, for example, if we don't know these things are wrong).

Please bear in mind that I am speaking of conversion in the sense of being born again, of accepting Christ as one's personal savior, not in terms of becoming converted to the SDA church.

Here is what you believe Sister White taught:

1. She did not teach baptism is a “requisite step”, a “positive condition” necessary to complete the “long, patient, protracted process of conversion”, that people can experience the miracle of rebirth without being baptized.

2. When she wrote “the sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off”, before consenting to baptize someone, it excludes certain sins, namely, sinful habits which God chooses not to reveal because He believes the new convert is not quite ready to crucify them, not yet strong enough to give them up.

3. The “special meetings” SDA pastors are required to have with baptismal candidates, to help them understand and experience the biblical meaning of true conversion, to teach them which “evil habits are to be given up” – that these meetings 1) do not include “plainly” showing them all of their sinful habits, 2) that the pastor must wisely overlook certain sinful habits, 3) that he should wait to address them until sometime after they are baptized.

4. When she wrote “the sins of evil-speaking, of jealousy, of disobedience, are to be put away”, before consenting to baptize someone, it doesn’t include all forms of disobedience, that it wisely and purposely excludes certain sins.

5. When she wrote “a warfare must be waged against every evil trait of character”, from the moment someone is baptized, it doesn’t include “every” evil trait of character, that it excludes certain sinful habits.

..................

TE: Regarding the questions of what does such and such mean to me, I understand it to mean every sinful habit etc. that we know to be wrong. It's not dealing with things we don't know about (such as smoking and drinking, for example, if we don't know these things are wrong).

MM: In light of the “special” pre-baptismal “meetings” mentioned above, do you think pastors should wisely wait to tell them the truth regarding smoking and drinking, that they should baptize them first and then address it later on?

..................

TE: Please bear in mind that I am speaking of conversion in the sense of being born again, of accepting Christ as one's personal savior, not in terms of becoming converted to the SDA church.

MM: In light of the inspired counsel regarding the “special meetings” mentioned above, do you see a difference between rebirth and baptism and becoming a member of God’s Remnant Church?

MM, it doesn't appear to me upon reading your last post that you read my post #82682. Either that or you didn't understand what I was saying. Otherwise I don't understand why you would write you what you did. Please take a look at the post.

Also this statement of yours:



is way off as a characterization of what I've written. I've never written anything like this. You would do better to quote what I've written than to put words into my mouth, or pen. Either that or be more humble in your approach. Say something like, "It appears to me that this is what you have in mind..." or ask a question, "Is this what you mean" rather than just assert something which you have no way of knowing is true.

Of course there's a difference between rebirth and becoming an SDA. What do you understand the new birth to be?

TE: MM, it doesn't appear to me upon reading your last post that you read my post #82682. Either that or you didn't understand what I was saying. Otherwise I don't understand why you would write you what you did. Please take a look at the post.

MM: Here is what you wrote: Now conversion can also be defined as "an experience associated with the definite and decisive adoption of a religion," and in this sense it would be proper to say that baptism is a necessary part of conversion, but this wasn't the sense I was using the term. (82682)

Does this mean you agree with what I’ve been saying about the SOP quotes I’ve been posting? In other words, I have been asking questions specifically related the SOP quotes that describe conversion and baptism and joining the SDA church.

………………………

TE: You would do better to quote what I've written than to put words into my mouth, or pen. Either that or be more humble in your approach. Say something like, "It appears to me that this is what you have in mind..." or ask a question, "Is this what you mean" rather than just assert something which you have no way of knowing is true.

MM: In post #82716 I expressed my understanding of your views by prefacing each statement with “You seem to be insisting ...” In response to it, you posted the following: Regarding the questions of what does such and such mean to me, I understand it to mean every sinful habit etc. that we know to be wrong. It's not dealing with things we don't know about (such as smoking and drinking, for example, if we don't know these things are wrong).

From this response it appeared to me that you agreed with each one of the statements I posted. I reworded them in the following post. In response to this you posted that statement number 2 “is way off as a characterization of what I've written. I've never written anything like this. You would do better to quote what I've written than to put words into my mouth, or pen.”

Please do me a favor and address each one of the five statements I posted and explain why you agree or disagree with it. Thank you.

……………………….

TE: Regarding the questions of what does such and such mean to me, I understand it to mean every sinful habit etc. that we know to be wrong. It's not dealing with things we don't know about (such as smoking and drinking, for example, if we don't know these things are wrong).

MM: In light of the “special” pre-baptismal “meetings” mentioned above, do you think pastors should wisely wait to tell them the truth regarding smoking and drinking, that they should baptize them first and then address it later on?

..................

TE: Please bear in mind that I am speaking of conversion in the sense of being born again, of accepting Christ as one's personal savior, not in terms of becoming converted to the SDA church.

MM: In light of the inspired counsel regarding the “special meetings” mentioned above, do you see a difference between rebirth and baptism and becoming a member of God’s Remnant Church?

..................

TE: What do you understand the new birth to be?

MM: The completion of the long, patient, protracted process of conversion.

MM, this is a response to the 5 statements you requested.

1. She did not teach baptism is a “requisite step”, a “positive condition” necessary to complete the “long, patient, protracted process of conversion”, that people can experience the miracle of rebirth without being baptized.

I don't see how I can respond to this other than to say that I don't agree with your assertion that I don't think she didn't teach this.

2. When she wrote “the sins that were practiced before conversion, are to be put off”, before consenting to baptize someone, it excludes certain sins, namely, sinful habits which God chooses not to reveal because He believes the new convert is not quite ready to crucify them, not yet strong enough to give them up.

I don't see things in these terms. I wrote in detail about how I see conversion. I think in general the difference between us on this question, or at least a big difference, is that your view of what constitutes sinful habits is very limited, to my point of view. From my perspective, it simply would not be possible for God to reveal all of our sins to us at once. I agree with Waggoner on this, who said something to the effect that "probation wouldn't be long enough to wait to confess all my sins" and that what God does is to present to us certain representative sins.

Also I see that the problem that we have centers heavily upon our view of God's character. EGW speaks of how we can have idols in our way of thinking just as much as out of wood. Thus we may be guilty of the sinful habit of idolatry, without having any idea that we are so doing. Your way of looking at things, and perceiving things, appears to me to be much more on the basis of behavior. You see that certain things are wrong, and must be given up. I see things more in terms of our way of thinking is wrong, and must be changed. We need to be healed from the effects of our wrong thinking. We need to learn to think correctly, and this takes time.

3. The “special meetings” SDA pastors are required to have with baptismal candidates, to help them understand and experience the biblical meaning of true conversion, to teach them which “evil habits are to be given up” – that these meetings 1) do not include “plainly” showing them all of their sinful habits, 2) that the pastor must wisely overlook certain sinful habits, 3) that he should wait to address them until sometime after they are baptized.

Same response as 1)

4. When she wrote “the sins of evil-speaking, of jealousy, of disobedience, are to be put away”, before consenting to baptize someone, it doesn’t include all forms of disobedience, that it wisely and purposely excludes certain sins.

This isn't clear to me. (that is, what point you are trying to make isn't clear to me).

5. When she wrote “a warfare must be waged against every evil trait of character”, from the moment someone is baptized, it doesn’t include “every” evil trait of character, that it excludes certain sinful habits.

I think it's obvious that "every evil trait of character" means "every evil trait of character of which one is aware." That goes without saying, doesn't it? How can we fight against evil traits we have that we don't know about?

TE: MM, it doesn't appear to me upon reading your last post that you read my post #82682. Either that or you didn't understand what I was saying. Otherwise I don't understand why you would write you what you did. Please take a look at the post.

MM: Here is what you wrote: Now conversion can also be defined as "an experience associated with the definite and decisive adoption of a religion," and in this sense it would be proper to say that baptism is a necessary part of conversion, but this wasn't the sense I was using the term. (82682)

Does this mean you agree with what I’ve been saying about the SOP quotes I’ve been posting? In other words, I have been asking questions specifically related the SOP quotes that describe conversion and baptism and joining the SDA church.

That's not the topic I've been discussing. I think the baptismal candidates should be carefully prepared.

………………………

TE: You would do better to quote what I've written than to put words into my mouth, or pen. Either that or be more humble in your approach. Say something like, "It appears to me that this is what you have in mind..." or ask a question, "Is this what you mean" rather than just assert something which you have no way of knowing is true.

MM: In post #82716 I expressed my understanding of your views by prefacing each statement with “You seem to be insisting ...” In response to it, you posted the following: Regarding the questions of what does such and such mean to me, I understand it to mean every sinful habit etc. that we know to be wrong. It's not dealing with things we don't know about (such as smoking and drinking, for example, if we don't know these things are wrong).

From this response it appeared to me that you agreed with each one of the statements I posted. I reworded them in the following post. In response to this you posted that statement number 2 “is way off as a characterization of what I've written. I've never written anything like this. You would do better to quote what I've written than to put words into my mouth, or pen.”

Please do me a favor and address each one of the five statements I posted and explain why you agree or disagree with it. Thank you.

Your whole way of framing things is completely different than how I think. For example, it makes many of questions you ask of the "Did you stop beating your wife?" type. There are implicity assumptions that I have to buy into if I were to answer the question "yes" or "no," which is why I ofter refuse to do so. I'm not being evasive, as it appears to you, but just not allowing you to frame a yes/no question in a way which would violate my perspective.

……………………….

TE: Regarding the questions of what does such and such mean to me, I understand it to mean every sinful habit etc. that we know to be wrong. It's not dealing with things we don't know about (such as smoking and drinking, for example, if we don't know these things are wrong).

MM: In light of the “special” pre-baptismal “meetings” mentioned above, do you think pastors should wisely wait to tell them the truth regarding smoking and drinking, that they should baptize them first and then address it later on?

No.

..................

TE: Please bear in mind that I am speaking of conversion in the sense of being born again, of accepting Christ as one's personal savior, not in terms of becoming converted to the SDA church.

MM: In light of the inspired counsel regarding the “special meetings” mentioned above, do you see a difference between rebirth and baptism and becoming a member of God’s Remnant Church?

One is reborn when one comes to Christ. One becomes a member of the SDA church by profession of faith or baptism.

..................

TE: What do you understand the new birth to be?

MM: The completion of the long, patient, protracted process of conversion.

That's not very clear. Actually not clear at all. Let me give a practical example. Let's say a person goes to a crusade, maybe a Billy Graham crusade, here's a sermon about Christ, and chooses to give His life to Jesus Christ. He prays the sinner's prayer sincerely, under the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Is such a person, who gives his life to Christ, converted? Or do you see conversion as only taking place when one becomes an SDA? Can any non-SDA's be saved? At what point do you see one to be converted? (by converted here I mean "born again")