TE: In general, the miracle which God performs to empower us to overcome sin is the miracle of right thinking.

MM: I disagree. Paul wrote that knowing what is right and being willing to do it is not enough. We do not naturally possess the physical or spiritual power to do it.

So what do you think, in general, the miracle which God performs to empower to overcome sin is?

Your statement about not having the physical power to do what is right is interesting. Do you think God does something to us physically like what happens to Popeye when he eats spinach? How do we get supernaturally physically stronger? How does being physically stronger help us to do right? Was Samson more able to do right than others because of his physical strength?


Amen! But are there exceptions to this truth? Is this truly “the only way we could be set right and kept right with Him.” What about the Gentiles Paul wrote about in Romans 2:13-15?

Here's the quote.



You seem to be suggesting that EGW was wrong in suggesting that this was the only way. There's actually some other way, which applies to "exceptions." Well, if there was some other way, which God could apply to exceptions, why send Christ at all? Remember that Christ risked all for our redemption. So great was the risk, it was a "struggle" for God to decide to send His Son. Why undertake this risk if God could have saved man by some other means?

In general? Divine agencies! And, in particular, the Holy Spirit. In other words, the “miracle which God performs to empower to overcome sin” is an ongoing miracle in which divine agents empower us to use our faculties of mind and body to cease sinning and to mature in the fruits of Spirit. We cannot employ them without their aid. They are "lifeless".

The following quotes describe it nicely:

6T 129
Divine agencies are combining with the human in reshaping the character according to the perfect pattern, and man is to work out that which God works in. (6T 129)

DA 466
The expulsion of sin is the act of the soul itself. True, we have no power to free ourselves from Satan’s control; but when we desire to be set free from sin, and in our great need cry out for a power out of and above ourselves, the powers of the soul are imbued with the divine energy of the Holy Spirit, and they obey the dictates of the will in fulfilling the will of God. (DA 466)

SC 18
There must be a power working from within, a new life from above, before men can be changed from sin to holiness. That power is Christ. His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness. (SC 18)

COL 98
New thoughts, new feelings, new motives, are implanted. A new standard of character is set up; the life of Christ. The mind is changed; the faculties are roused to action in new lines. Man is not endowed with new faculties, but the faculties he has are sanctified. The conscience is awakened. We are endowed with traits of character that enable us to do service for God. (COL 98)

ST 10-13-1898
New thoughts, new feelings, new motives, are implanted. But while every faculty is regenerated, man does not lose his identity. New faculties are not supplied, but a thorough change is made in the employment of those faculties. The heart is cleansed from all impurity, and man is fitted with traits of character that will enable him to do service for God. (ST 10-13-1898)


Here’s the quote:


She is talking about Jesus fixing what Satan, through the nation of Israel, had broken. They misrepresented the character of God. The only way Jesus could fix it was to become one of us.

She also addresses your interpretation and application of Jesus risking failure. “Angels could not fully portray the character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work.”

TE: Where does it say that an active agent for Christ cannot commit a known sin?

MM: Where does it say they can? No one abiding in Jesus can commit a known sin, not any more than Jesus could have committed a known while abiding in the Father. Again, this doesn’t men they are incapable of committing a known sin. What it does mean, though, is that they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus, and then they will be able to resume sinning.

TE: If you take "cannot sin" to mean "is unable to commit a sin" then you have the contradiction I've pointed out many times now.

MM: I agree. What it does mean, though, is that they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus, and then they will be able to resume sinning. No born again believer, who is willingly submitted and surrendered to Jesus, the origin and source of obedience, can commit a known sin. “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Phil 2:13)

TE: So what do we conclude? We conclude that when John says a born again believer cannot sin, he doesn't mean that the believe is unable to commit a sin, but means something else, which has been my point all along.

MM: Again, I agree. What it does mean, though, is that they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus, and then they will be able to resume sinning.

TE: The question was not who is saved but if a person who is not born again can do anything other than sin.

MM: Again, unless we include exceptions, the answer is - No. Other than the fact they can admit that their sinful habits are wrong, which is neither sinful nor sinless.

TE: The questions you are asking are off point. My question to you was directed to your claim that a non-born again person can do nothing but sin. . . I was seeking to show you that your idea that people who aren't born again can do nothing but sin is incorrect (which you've recognized up to a point -- I'm trying to expand your horizons on this).

MM: Did Gandhi do anything that did not qualify as a sin? I don’t know. Only God knows. However, there are two scriptures that can help us discern with spiritual discernment:

Romans
14:23 For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Matthew
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Sister White is very clear about it:


Not every Christian is a converted Christian. What passes for good works is, in reality, nothing less than self-righteous acts of self-serving benevolence. It is worthless, counterfeit gold. "The dead are often made to pass for the living; for those who are working out what they term salvation after their own ideas, have not God working in them to will and to do of His good pleasure."

MM, you really didn't address my question at all, even thought you quoted a lot of EGW statements. My question to you was what you think the miracle which God performs in us is, that allows us to overcome sin. I maintain that what God does is to give us light, and enable us to see that light, so that we can make intelligent choices in regards to truth, specifically in regards to His character and the nature of His kingdom.

I was going to quote something from Ellen White, but it looks like the EGW servers are down. I wish they hadn't taken down the old site. It was faster and didn't crash like the new one.

Anyway, she wrote of how it's Satan's purpose to misrepresent God's character, and to confuse us as to what the real issues of the Great Controversy are. God enables us to see the true issues, and His true character. The divine power He gives us in overcoming sin is principally in regards to our mind, to right thinking.

Now you disagreed with this idea I shared, but haven't been clear as to what your alternative is.

Regarding the ST 1/20/90 quote, quoting more of it just made my point all the more clear. It says exactly what I've been saying.

Regarding your statement that when she said that Christ "could not fail" that she in contradicting her idea that she could ("remember Christ risked all; God sent His Son at the failure of eternal loss; for our sake He took the risk of failure and eternal loss"), you are wrong. She is not speaking of that subject at all. You are taking her words shamefully out of context. She is saying that Christ could not fail to present the character of God (that's the context), not that there was no risk in undertaking His ministry.

Do you really think she would write in one spot that Christ came at a "fearful risk," and then in another spot contradict her own idea?

TE: Where does it say that an active agent for Christ cannot commit a known sin?

MM: Where does it say they can?

All throughout Scripture. Moses is one example. Dozens upon dozens more could be given.

No one abiding in Jesus can commit a known sin, not any more than Jesus could have committed a known while abiding in the Father. Again, this doesn’t men they are incapable of committing a known sin. What it does mean, though, is that they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus, and then they will be able to resume sinning.

This isn't saying anything useful. You're just saying that before one can commit a known sin, one must choose to stop choosing not to commit a known sin.

TE: If you take "cannot sin" to mean "is unable to commit a sin" then you have the contradiction I've pointed out many times now.

MM: I agree.

Good! So if "cannot sin" does not mean "is unable to commit a sin," what does it mean? (this is in 1 John 1:9)

What it does mean, though, is that they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus, and then they will be able to resume sinning.

I know this is your theory, but where is there any evidence that John has any of this in mind? John's whole epistle is speaking of love; the love of God, love for fellow man, God's love manifest in Christ. Your theory doesn't make mention of these things, yet this is all John could talk about. How can your theory explain John's ideas when you don't mention the things which were so important to him?

No born again believer, who is willingly submitted and surrendered to Jesus, the origin and source of obedience, can commit a known sin. “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Phil 2:13)

This is just a tautology. It's just saying as long as you choose not to commit a known sin, you cannot choose to commit a known sin.

TE: So what do we conclude? We conclude that when John says a born again believer cannot sin, he doesn't mean that the believe is unable to commit a sin, but means something else, which has been my point all along.

MM: Again, I agree. What it does mean, though, is that they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus, and then they will be able to resume sinning.

This is not a responsive answer. The verse says that one who is born of God cannot sin. I have pointed out that this does not mean "is unable to commit a sin" (which is what you were saying before). It must mean something else. You have proposed something which is impossible. There is no way that:



Can mean:



TE: The question was not who is saved but if a person who is not born again can do anything other than sin.

MM: Again, unless we include exceptions, the answer is - No.

Brilliant, Mike. Think about what you're saying here. What are the exceptions? Exceptions are the instances where one who is not born again is not sinning. So you are saying that the answer to the question, "Can a person who is not born again do anything but sin" is "No, if one excludes all the times when they are not sinning."

Other than the fact they can admit that their sinful habits are wrong, which is neither sinful nor sinless.

Whether they were "sinful" or "sinless" was not the question under consideration. Whether they were sinning was the question. But you've already agreed that they aren't, so there's no need to continue answering this.

TE: The questions you are asking are off point. My question to you was directed to your claim that a non-born again person can do nothing but sin. . . I was seeking to show you that your idea that people who aren't born again can do nothing but sin is incorrect (which you've recognized up to a point -- I'm trying to expand your horizons on this).

MM: Did Gandhi do anything that did not qualify as a sin? I don’t know. Only God knows. However, there are two scriptures that can help us discern with spiritual discernment:

Romans
14:23 For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Matthew
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Ok, what were Ghandi's fruits? Were they such that you would judge him as never having done anything but sin his whole life? Do you not see any light in the quotes I provided from him? If you do, where do you think he got his insights from, if not God? When Ghandi was recognizing and teaching truth which comes from God, was he sinning?

We are told that Jesus is the true light that lightens everyone who comes into the world, doesn't it follow that sometimes people follow the light?

You are being black and white here where there is reason to do so. Inspiration does not teach that before being born again a person can do nothing but sin. In fact, the quotes you've presented from the SOP bring out the reverse. They point out how people have responded to the Holy Spirit before being converted.

I've given you several examples already to see how the Holy Spirit works with people who are not converted, and how these people can respond. You've accepted the example of when the unconverted recognize sinful habits they have. So if there's already an "exception" here, why would you limit the exception to just this one area? Why can't there be other "exceptions"? There's nothing in inspiration that speaks of the exception you accept; it's just logic which forced you to recognize it.

Say an unconverted person is married, and is tempted to commit adultery. The Holy Spirit works with him, convicting him not to pursue an illicit relationship. Even though he is strongly tempted to do pursue the wrong relationship, he responds to the Holy Spirit, and refuses the illicit relationship. Is this sin?

I don't know what this is in reference to. I doubt anyone disputes this. Why are you mentioning it?

TE: My question to you was what you think the miracle which God performs in us is, that allows us to overcome sin.

MM: The Holy Spirit.

TE: The divine power He gives us in overcoming sin is principally in regards to our mind, to right thinking.

MM: The way I see it, right thinking is not the miracle that empowers us to live in accordance with right thinking.

TE: Do you really think she would write in one spot that Christ came at a "fearful risk," and then in another spot contradict her own idea?

MM: No. I believe the two statements compliment one another. Yes, hypothetically Jesus could have sinned and failed to represent the character of God. But it didn’t happen. The Father knew Jesus would succeed. There was no doubt in His mind.

TE: My question to you was what you think the miracle which God performs in us is, that allows us to overcome sin.

MM: The Holy Spirit.

Meaning what?

TE: The divine power He gives us in overcoming sin is principally in regards to our mind, to right thinking.

MM: The way I see it, right thinking is not the miracle that empowers us to live in accordance with right thinking.

Right thinking would be what allows one to make correct decisions. All actions, whether expressed in thought, word, or deed, flow from correct decisions.

TE: Do you really think she would write in one spot that Christ came at a "fearful risk," and then in another spot contradict her own idea?

MM: No. I believe the two statements compliment one another. Yes, hypothetically Jesus could have sinned and failed to represent the character of God. But it didn’t happen. The Father knew Jesus would succeed. There was no doubt in His mind.

So there was no risk, right? "No doubt" = "no risk." This would contradict the idea that there was risk, right? That is, "no doubt" == no risk, which contradicts risk.

TE: Where does it say that an active agent for Christ cannot commit a known sin?

MM: Where does it say they can?

TE: All throughout Scripture. Moses is one example. Dozens upon dozens more could be given.

MM: Moses was not actively abiding in Jesus when he sinned. No one can commit a known sin while actively abiding in Jesus.

………………………….

MM: No one abiding in Jesus can commit a known sin, not any more than Jesus could have committed a known while abiding in the Father. Again, this doesn’t men they are incapable of committing a known sin. What it does mean, though, is that they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus, and then they will be able to resume sinning.

TE: This isn't saying anything useful. You're just saying that before one can commit a known sin, one must choose to stop choosing not to commit a known sin.

MM: No. There is a huge difference between what I posted and your response to it. You replaced “they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus” with “one must choose to stop choosing not to commit a known sin.” No one can resist sinning by focusing on not sinning. We can only do it by focusing on abiding in Jesus

…………………..

TE: Good! So if "cannot sin" does not mean "is unable to commit a sin," what does it mean? (this is in 1 John 1:9)

MM: I believe the context makes it clear that born again believers who are abiding in Jesus do not and cannot commit a known sin by virtue of the fact they are abiding in Jesus, partaking of the divine nature.

………………………..

TE: So what do we conclude? We conclude that when John says a born again believer cannot sin, he doesn't mean that the believe is unable to commit a sin, but means something else, which has been my point all along.

MM: Again, I agree. What it does mean, though, is that they must first neglect to choose to abide in Jesus, and then they will be able to resume sinning.

TE: The verse says that one who is born of God cannot sin. I have pointed out that this does not mean "is unable to commit a sin" (which is what you were saying before). It must mean something else. You have proposed something which is impossible. There is no way that:


MM: “Which is what you were saying before.” No. I believe they do not and cannot commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus. Being “unable” to sin is totally different. It is obvious that John did not mean people lose the ability to sin after they are born again or while abiding in Jesus. Therefore, what I posted about it is true. BTW, you have yet to explain what you think it means.

…………………….

TE: The question was not who is saved but if a person who is not born again can do anything other than sin.

MM: The Bible says “all our righteousnesses are filthy rags”. It is even more true of all our unrighteousnesses, right? What is your point? Are you arguing that unconverted people can do things that are not filthy rags in the sight of God?

………………..

TE: When Ghandi was recognizing and teaching truth which comes from God, was he sinning?

MM: He deliberately rejected Jesus as his personal Saviour. Therefore, he was sinning. He taught people to look within themselves for the power to be good. His influence leads people to believe they can be good without accepting Jesus as their personal Saviour. Which is Satan’s argument.

TE: Say an unconverted person is married, and is tempted to commit adultery. The Holy Spirit works with him, convicting him not to pursue an illicit relationship. Even though he is strongly tempted to do pursue the wrong relationship, he responds to the Holy Spirit, and refuses the illicit relationship. Is this sin?

MM: Just because he did not commit physical adultery it does not mean he did not sin. His motive for not doing it is tainted with sin. It doesn’t matter that he was initially influenced by the Holy Spirit. He chose not to commit physical adultery based on sinful motives and reasons, which, in turn, makes his behavior sinful, even though it did not involve adultery. That’s the whole premise behind Paul’s argument: “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

……………….

MM: Not every Christian is a converted Christian. What passes for good works is, in reality, nothing less than self-righteous acts of self-serving benevolence. It is worthless, counterfeit gold. "The dead are often made to pass for the living; for those who are working out what they term salvation after their own ideas, have not God working in them to will and to do of His good pleasure."

TE: I don't know what this is in reference to. I doubt anyone disputes this. Why are you mentioning it?

MM: You seem to be insisting that unconverted people can be good without Jesus. But in reality not even “half baked” Christians can be good. It is even more true of unconverted people.