Tom, if being saved is easier than being lost is true why, then, is the majority lost?

Also, conversion and rebirth is the result of a long, patient, protracted process. There is nothing "sudden" about it. We both agree that no one who is completely ignorant of Jesus can complete or finish the process of conversion after hearing only one sermon.

Where we disagree, apparently, is whether or not a person can complete the long, patient, protracted process of conversion without first confessing and forsaking their sinful habits and practices.

Tom, if being saved is easier than being lost is true why, then, is the majority lost?

The EGW quote addresses this. People don't always do what's easier.

Also, conversion and rebirth is the result of a long, patient, protracted process. There is nothing "sudden" about it. We both agree that no one who is completely ignorant of Jesus can complete or finish the process of conversion after hearing only one sermon.

This was never under discussion.

Where we disagree, apparently, is whether or not a person can complete the long, patient, protracted process of conversion without first confessing and forsaking their sinful habits and practices.

No, that's not it. First of all, you disagree, apparently, that a person can be converted at a Billy Graham crusade. Why you would think that, I have no idea.

Secondly you stated that *every* sinful habit cultivated from birth must be revealed and confessed, which is false. *That's* the area of disagreement.

You don't even agree with this yourself, because you speak of God's "winking" at certain sinful habits.

MM: Also, conversion and rebirth is the result of a long, patient, protracted process. There is nothing "sudden" about it. We both agree that no one who is completely ignorant of Jesus can complete or finish the process of conversion after hearing only one sermon.

TE: This was never under discussion.

MM: It matters to me. So, please, tell me, do we agree on this point?

………………..

MM: Where we disagree, apparently, is whether or not a person can complete the long, patient, protracted process of conversion without first confessing and forsaking their sinful habits and practices.

TE: No, that's not it. First of all, you disagree, apparently, that a person can be converted at a Billy Graham crusade. Why you would think that, I have no idea.

MM: On the contrary. I do believe it is possible to experience rebirth during a Billy Graham weekend series or sermons. It’s just that I do not believe it can happen if it’s the first time a person has heard the gospel.

TE: Secondly you stated that *every* sinful habit cultivated from birth must be revealed and confessed, which is false. *That's* the area of disagreement. You don't even agree with this yourself, because you speak of God's "winking" at certain sinful habits.

MM: Please, Tom, please acknowledge the fact that I believe God has, from time to time, made exceptions to the rule. The “rule” requires confessing and forsaking every sinful habit and practice before we can experience the miracle of rebirth. The “exceptions” to the rule may include God not revealing one or more sinful habits. Under normal circumstances, however, God does not bend the rule. I am not contradicting myself.

MM: Also, conversion and rebirth is the result of a long, patient, protracted process. There is nothing "sudden" about it. We both agree that no one who is completely ignorant of Jesus can complete or finish the process of conversion after hearing only one sermon.

TE: This was never under discussion.

MM: It matters to me. So, please, tell me, do we agree on this point?

The quote from DA mentions that conversion can appear to be sudden, but in reality God has been at work for a long time.

………………..

MM: Where we disagree, apparently, is whether or not a person can complete the long, patient, protracted process of conversion without first confessing and forsaking their sinful habits and practices.

TE: No, that's not it. First of all, you disagree, apparently, that a person can be converted at a Billy Graham crusade. Why you would think that, I have no idea.

MM: On the contrary. I do believe it is possible to experience rebirth during a Billy Graham weekend series or sermons.

Well why didn't you just say that two weeks ago when this was mentioned? Why waste all this time giving the impression you didn't agree with something you did?

It’s just that I do not believe it can happen if it’s the first time a person has heard the gospel.

Why do you go off on tangents? If you look back at the Billy Graham statement, this was never under discussion. Why not just say you agree when you agree and leave it at that?

TE: Secondly you stated that *every* sinful habit cultivated from birth must be revealed and confessed, which is false. *That's* the area of disagreement. You don't even agree with this yourself, because you speak of God's "winking" at certain sinful habits.

MM: Please, Tom, please acknowledge the fact that I believe God has, from time to time, made exceptions to the rule.

Please, Mike, please ancknolwedge the fact that your original statement was wrong.

The “rule” requires confessing and forsaking every sinful habit and practice before we can experience the miracle of rebirth. The “exceptions” to the rule may include God not revealing one or more sinful habits. Under normal circumstances, however, God does not bend the rule. I am not contradicting myself.

Yes you are. You first wrote that no one can be converted without God's revealing every sinful habit. Now you are saying that's not true. That's a contradiction.

You could have avoided the contradiction by not stating the original proposition as an absolute. But you didn't do this. You made your assertion as an absolute. So you should admit your error, and then we can go on from there.

No, Tom, it is not an "error" to state the "rule" as an absolute.

Why is "error" in quotes? Why is it so difficult for you to admit your errors?

Tom, if I were guilty of making a mistake I would not hesitate to admit it. But I was not in error when I posted the "rule" with absolute certainty. Nor was I in error when I posted the "exceptions" to the rule. Both stand with absolute certainty.

Getting you to admit a mistake is like pulling teeth. In I think over three years, and hundreds of posts (thousands?) I can only think of twice when you have admitted a mistake, and you took back your admission both of these times.

I have pointed out many, many mistakes, and you have never, even once, admitted a mistake in a frank manner.

Why are you so fixated on pressuring me to admit what you perceive as a mistake? Point out a mistake and I’ll admit it. But I did not make a mistake when I posted an absolute rule without also including exceptions to the rule. God can bend the rules if He wants to, and He does when it serves His purpose. But we cannot bend them. That prerogative belongs to God alone.

Earlier on this thread I posted two biblical examples of God bending the rules to save sinners. Do you believe God made a mistake? Please explain your answer. Thank you.

I've been "fixated" on it because it strikes me as such curious behavior. Many people freely admit mistakes, but you go to great measures to avoid such, even to the extent of suggesting that words do not mean what they normally mean.

This strikes me as odd. Why is it so important not to be wrong? Wouldn't it be better to admit a mistake, learn from it, and move on?

I don't see how you can rationally argue that the statement that before a person can be saved, they need to have revealed to them every sinful habit cultivated since birth, and confess them, when this statement simply isn't true. You've already admitted it's not true in regards to those who smoke, drink, and commit polygamy (at least, in certain circumstances, which you haven't defined yet). Since the principle doesn't apply to smoking, drinking, and polygamy, there are no doubt analagous areas where they also do not apply.