TE: This contradicts your idea that the "rule" applies to all sinful habits with equal force.

MM: How so? If it didn’t, there would be no reason to make exceptions to the rule.

……………………

MM: Thief on the cross was not baptized and yet he will be in heaven. And certain Gentiles will be saved who never called on the name of Jesus.

TE: The thief had faith. The Gentiles who believed in Christ without knowing His name had faith. No rules were broken.

MM: The rule God bent to save the thief was the one requiring baptism.

John
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

MM: And the rules God bends to save the Gentiles Paul referred to in Romans 2:13-15 are the ones requiring baptism and accepting Jesus as their personal Saviour.

Acts
4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

MM: Not all, however, are saved in spite of their ignorance of Jesus. There are certain criteria that must be met.

EW 276
I saw that the slave master will have to answer for the soul of his slave whom he has kept in ignorance; and the sins of the slave will be visited upon the master. God cannot take to heaven the slave who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and holding a lower position than the brutes. But He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He permits him to be as if he had not been, while the master must endure the seven last plagues and then come up in the second resurrection and suffer the second, most awful death. Then the justice of God will be satisfied. {EW 276.1}

JB: Am I correct in understanding you to be saying that character perfection comes by obeying the Ten Commandments; and that the rules which God bends to save people are not those?

MM: Yes. Do you agree that the SOP quotes I posted confirm it?

JB: Please note that the scripture you quoted does not say that righteousness or perfection of character comes by obeying the Law.

MM: I believe it is implied. Neither imputed nor imparted righteousness happens without us obeying the law. That is, Jesus will not impute His righteousness to cover our past sins if we are not obeying the law.

What can we learn about this topic from the verses quoted below?


Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

It seems possible that you believe this in the sence that a born again believer who once slipped into a known sin would seace to be a born again believer. This is just a guess for I have come more and more to understand that I cannot understand you. Where you are comming from is a direction so different than the one I (and I also believe Tom and John) am comming from that I am not even sure if the same words carry the same meaning with you. It is, however, possible, yea even propable that this in the long run will not matter. Where one is comming from is of no consequence as long as where one is headed is towards the heavenly courts of God.

TE: … do you believe that any sinful habit can be exempted from the rule that it must be revealed by the Holy Spirit and confessed before the person can be born again, or are there sinful habits for which this exemption does not apply?

MM: There are certain sinful habits and practices the Holy Spirit must reveal, that is, He cannot allow the sinner to go on in ignorance committing them. Romans 2 explains it.

This contradicts your idea that the "rule" applies to all sinful habits with equal force.

MM: How so? If it didn’t, there would be no reason to make exceptions to the rule.

The rule is that all sinful habits must be revealed and confessed. That's the first thing you said. Then you said, "There are certain sinful habits and practices which the Holy Spirit must reveal." You really don't see the contradiction here?

MM: Thief on the cross was not baptized and yet he will be in heaven. And certain Gentiles will be saved who never called on the name of Jesus.

TE: The thief had faith. The Gentiles who believed in Christ without knowing His name had faith. No rules were broken.

MM: The rule God bent to save the thief was the one requiring baptism.

Justification is by faith, not by baptism.



No rule was broken. The rule is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." (Acts 16:31) Baptism is an evidence of salvation, a public confession of the work of transformation which God has accomplished. It is not a means to salvation, any more than circumcision was.

In fact, the exact same argument Paul used regarding circumcision may be used regarding baptism. Paul asked if Abraham was circumcized before or after he was justified. He answers his own question that it was after, arguing that circumcision was a sign of the righteousness Abraham already had by faith in Christ. Similarly baptism is a sign of the righteousness that the believer has already by faith in Christ.

Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ.




MM: Not all, however, are saved in spite of their ignorance of Jesus. There are certain criteria that must be met.

Of course. The criteria is faith. Justification is by faith.

TV: It seems possible that you believe this in the sence that a born again believer who once slipped into a known sin would seace to be a born again believer.

MM: Thank you for addressing this question. I am sorry my view seems so foreign to you.

First of all, please understand that I do not believe born again believers are incapable of committing a known sin.

Neither do I believe it is evidence they were never truly born again if they should choose to commit a known sin, or an unknown sin, for that matter.

Nor do I believe they cease being a born again believer if they do choose to sin.

I do believe, however, that a born again believer will not, yea, cannot, commit a known sin while they are abiding in Jesus, while they are walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man.

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not . . . 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 . . . We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (1 John 3:6, 9 and 5:18)

Again, this does not mean they are incapable of sinning. What it does mean is that so long as they are abiding in Jesus they will not choose to sin. To commit a known sin, therefore, they must first stop abiding in Jesus. Once they disconnect from the only Source that can empower them to resist sinning, the only thing they can do is sin.

However, God does not abandon them if, in a moment of weakness, they commit a known sin. Instead, the Holy Spirit immediately begins pleading with them to accept the free gift of repentance, which, when received into the heart, empowers them to confess and forsake their sin. It also gives God the legal right to pardon them, and to restore them back to the mind of the new man. Once cleansed and restored, they resume abiding in Jesus, growing in grace and maturing in the fruits of the Spirit.

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:1, 2)

TV: What can we learn about this topic from the verses quoted below?

MM: Romans 7 does not teach us that we cannot, in spite of everything God is doing to empower us to recognize and resist sin, prevent ourselves from committing known sins. Instead, Paul wrote, "I allow not" (verse 15).

He goes on to explain it is his sinful "flesh" nature that wants him to "do" things that, while walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, he does not want to do. "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me . . . that is, in my flesh" (verses 17 and 18).

The only thing sinful flesh can "do" is tempt us to sin. It tempts us to sin by generating unholy thoughts and feelings, but it cannot actually commit a sin. "[The] flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God." (AH 127) The nature of our warfare is the warfare of our nature.

Sister White describes it this way:

SC 43
The warfare against self is the greatest battle that was ever fought. The yielding of self, surrendering all to the will of God, requires a struggle; but the soul must submit to God before it can be renewed in holiness. {SC 43.3}

3T 84
You are of that age when the will, the appetite, and the passions clamor for indulgence. God has implanted these in your nature for high and holy purposes. It is not necessary that they should become a curse to you by being debased. They will become this only when you refuse to submit to the control of reason and conscience. (3T 84)

TE: This contradicts your idea that the "rule" applies to all sinful habits with equal force.

MM: How so? If it didn’t, there would be no reason to make exceptions to the rule.

TE: The rule is that all sinful habits must be revealed and confessed. That's the first thing you said. Then you said, "There are certain sinful habits and practices which the Holy Spirit must reveal." You really don't see the contradiction here?

MM: No, there is no contradiction. When God make exceptions to the rule it does not mean the rule does not apply with equal force. The blood of Jesus covers sins of ignorance. That’s why and how God can make exceptions to the rule.

…………………………..

MM: The rule God bent to save the thief was the one requiring baptism.

TE: Justification is by faith, not by baptism.

MM: If baptism is not a rule, why, then, is it required? Why is it one of the requisites steps, without which no one can be saved?

…………………………..

MM: Not all, however, are saved in spite of their ignorance of Jesus. There are certain criteria that must be met.

TE: Of course. The criteria is faith. Justification is by faith.

MM: In what way do the Gentiles Paul referred to and the slaves Sister White referred to differ? In light of the following insight, how did the Gentiles experience justification by faith? And, why didn’t the slaves experience it?

FW 100
God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul. {FW 100.1}

I thought (according to your view) it was the death of Christ which gave God the legal right to pardon us. Now you are saying that it is repentance which is necessary for God to have the legal right to pardon us?

Why does God not already have the legal right to pardon us, by virtue of being God? How did He lose this right? To whom did He lose it? How does our repenting allow Him to get it back?

Another thing I'm not understanding is the statement that once a born again believer commits a known sin, he can do nothing but sin until he repents. How are you defining sin? You seem to view people as either always sinning or never sinning.

JB: Am I correct in understanding you to be saying that character perfection comes by obeying the Ten Commandments; and that the rules which God bends to save people are not those?
MM: Yes. Do you agree that the SOP quotes I posted confirm it?

No, I do not agree that the writer of the quotes you posted had even the slightest intention to teach what you are saying. You are distinctly missing the mark entirely.

JB: Please note that the scripture you quoted does not say that righteousness or perfection of character comes by obeying the Law.
MM: I believe it is implied. Neither imputed nor imparted righteousness happens without us obeying the law. That is, Jesus will not impute His righteousness to cover our past sins if we are not obeying the law.

Nothing like it is implied, but the opposite is spelled out. The means by which we attain to righteousness and perfection of character is not by obeying the law, but by living by the spirit; by abiding in Christ: as you amply quoted,
"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not . . . 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 . . . We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (1 John 3:6, 9 and 5:18)

Your concept about imputed and imparted righteousness has no basis in reality and is just an empty cloud.

TE: I thought (according to your view) it was the death of Christ which gave God the legal right to pardon us. Now you are saying that it is repentance which is necessary for God to have the legal right to pardon us?

MM: Please recall that I believe the death of Jesus gave God the legal right to offer repentance and pardon.

TE: Why does God not already have the legal right to pardon us, by virtue of being God? How did He lose this right? To whom did He lose it? How does our repenting allow Him to get it back?

MM: Law and justice determines what God can and cannot do.

TE: Another thing I'm not understanding is the statement that once a born again believer commits a known sin, he can do nothing but sin until he repents. How are you defining sin? You seem to view people as either always sinning or never sinning.

MM: We are lost until we choose to repent. If we refuse to repent we commit an unpardonable sin. We either all of His and free of sin or we are none of His and full of sin. There is no neutrality. Sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans
8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.