Here is a brief history of this thread:

…………………………..

Posted by MM [85791]:

Tom, again, I agree with John that the Holy Spirit saves us from our sinful habits through a revelation of the law and love of God in the person of Jesus Christ. You and I, however, disagree as to the timing and degree we are saved from our sinful habits at the moment we complete the process of conversion.

…………………………..

Posted by MM [85808]:

DB: One side assumes that by revealing and removing sin, they mean that one does it by his/her own power and excluding God out of the picture. One poster called it "self-righteous". This assumption is made despite the explicit commentary about accomplishing this by the power of God and His indwelling in us.

MM: Den, who is advocating this idea?

……………………….

Posted by DB [85821]:

… the arguments made by one camp sound almost as if God wants to reveal Himself to us and to have a relationship with us, but some of the comments almost make it sound like He doesn't care about the sin in our lives; He just wants us to know about Him.

The other camp talks about how God wants sin to be removed from our lives and for us to be cleansed from all sin and unrighteousness, but since this camp did not mention how this cleansing is to take place, the opposing camp assumes that the idea is that this is accomplished by focusing on self and self-effort.

… The real difference in view point is, as Tom aptly stated in another point, when does conversion actually take place.

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

By the way, it might be helpful to remember the title of this thread:

"Does God wait until after we are born again to reveal to us certain sinful habits? If so, why?"

Here are the comments that I think led the discussion off course, interspersed with my thoughts in italics:




I try not to, and I'll read something several times to try to make sure I really understand what was being said, but I am also sometimes guilty of speaking too soon or ascribing motives to people which were not warranted.

Personally, as far as I understand what MM was saying, I believe I also disagree with him concerning conversion and sanctification. But I am not certain whether I understand all he's saying, or if perhaps his explanations were not worded the best which could result in not really understanding what he was trying to say.

That's all I'm going to say on this. Just thought I'd try to help facilitate charity amongst ourselves. Give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and try to ask your opponent more often what he/she meant rather than assuming.

I hope this is taken in the spirit in which it was intended. Please take it for what you may, and if you disagree with my comments, then just forget it ... I don't think we'd need to discuss it any further, that would only detract further from the intended topic of this thread.

TE: MM, what you consider "conversion" is what I (and I think almost all) Christians would consider "sanctification." That's the point I was making. I wasn't saying that you, in your mind, think they are the same.

MM: But conversion and sanctification are two different processes. I make that clear in my description of both. The quotes I posted also make it clear. Sanctification has nothing to do with gradually outgrowing sinful habits or with God gradually exposing to our sight hitherto unknown sinful habits.

As I said, I wasn't saying that sanctification and conversion aren't separate processes in your mind, but rather that your idea of conversion is what I (and I think almost all) Christians would consider "sanctification."

TE: Even you seem not to believe the God reveals every sinful habit before one can be converted, because you allow exceptions for smoking, polygamy, and drinking(?) (was Luther lost?; maybe I should anti-Antisemitism to the list).

MM: You are grossly misrepresenting what I believe about God winking at ignorance. Why?

In what way am I even minutely misrepresenting what you believe? You stated these things as possible "exceptions to the rule," didn't you? I'm asking you if you believe Luther was lost, because he was a heavy beer drinker. Most Christians see nothing wrong with moderate drinking. I'm not defending their view, but am simply pointing out that if moderate drinking causes one to be lost, then there are many like Luther that are going to be lost. Smoking and polygamy as exceptions was your idea.

TE: A question that comes to mind is, how many sinful habits do you think one cultivates from birth?

MM: There certainly aren’t “5,763” of them. For example, impatience covers many of our sinful habits. Thus, many sinful habits are crucified the instant we crucify the sin of impatience. Sister White describes it this way:

4T 384, 385
Another book was opened, wherein were recorded the sins of those who profess the truth. Under the general heading of selfishness came every other sin. There were also headings over every column, and underneath these, opposite each name,
were recorded, in their respective columns, the lesser sins. {4T 384.3}

Under covetousness came falsehood, theft, robbery, fraud, and avarice; under ambition came pride and extravagance; jealousy stood at the head of malice, envy, and hatred; and intemperance headed a long list of fearful crimes, such as lasciviousness, adultery, indulgence of animal passions, etc. As I beheld I was filled with inexpressible anguish and exclaimed: "Who can be saved? who will stand justified before God? whose robes are spotless? who are faultless in the sight of a pure and holy God?" {4T 385.1}

If every sin comes under the general heading of sinfulness, then why can't God just show us this one sin and have us confess it, and then we're done? You were the one that brought up the idea of every sinful habit cultivated since birth. I've been trying to get you define just what this is. You seem to agree that smoking, drinking and polygamy qualify.

I'm really not sure what your point is if you don't think there are several thousand of these. If you think there is are only a couple of these, then you're in the same boat as Waggoner, with whom I agree, that God presents to us representative sins, and we repent of these. But you have presented a painstaking, long process where God presents to us every sinful habit cultivated from birth, implying a long list. So how long a list are we talking about?

How do you answer this question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" or, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The question, "Does God wait until after we are born again to reveal to us certain sinful habits?" makes it sound like God's primary purpose is to reveal sinful habits to us. The questions, as you suggested them, do not have baggage associated with them. They do not have an implied premise that can make one uncomfortable to accept implicit in any answer to the question.

Something I find interesting is that the answer is clearly "yes," even for MM, who makes exceptions in certain cases for smoking and polygamy, and probably drinking (assuming Luther isn't lost). So why not ask, "What sinful habits does God wait to show to us until after we're born again?" since we all believe there are some.

But why ask such a question in the first place? Who cares? The revelation of some specific sinful habit is not what's necessary in order to be saved. What's necessary to be saved is to come to Christ. What specific sins God reveals to a given person will vary from person to person. It will be whatever is necessary to reveal in order for the person to come to Christ.

For example, the rich young man needed to sell all that he had in order to follow Christ, but Christ doesn't tell everyone who would follow Him to do this.

Searching self, preventing "self-love", could lead to despising self. I dont think that result would do anyone any good.

Laying around, waiting for opportunity to take potshots at us. But I didnt say that. Conversion occurs in a limited space of time. It is then followed by a walk with Christ. I do not see why the two should be mixed as you are here doing. Also, I believe this walk is a lot less nervous than what your words tell about. "Continually choosing, moment by moment, to stay converted" could easily lead a person to doubt the promise of God, worrying about moments past, worrying and laying awake at night wondering, "did I succeed today? can I account for every moment of these past hours". (It doesnt have to be like this, but it might be). Paul wrote a coherent letter. We cannot pit one part against another but must consider all parts to understand what he meant. Neither Romans 6:6-7 nor Romans 7:1-8 has its full meaning outside of the context of Romans 1:1 to Romans 16:27. The same argument also holds for the letter to the church in Ephesus.It appears to me that the first "condition to the promise" is faith. In fact, I his letter to the Galatians, Paul argues that "For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise. "
The author of Hebrews suggests lack of faith cancels reception of the promise. "Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard. "

DB: I saw nothing in MM's commentary that suggested he was trying to slander God or to find fault, nothing to suggest that MM was trying to describe God as Someone Who was eager to point out faults just for the sake of showing us how evil we are. Yet MM is being accused of such.

MM: Thank you, Den, for promoting “charity” on this thread. I’m not sure where John is coming from, but I can testify that Tom has come a long way in treating people with kindness and respect.

DB: Personally, as far as I understand what MM was saying, I believe I also disagree with him concerning conversion and sanctification. But I am not certain whether I understand all he's saying, or if perhaps his explanations were not worded the best which could result in not really understanding what he was trying to say.

MM: I would be happy to disccuss it more thoroughly.

TE: Even you seem not to believe the God reveals every sinful habit before one can be converted, because you allow exceptions for smoking, polygamy, and drinking(?) (was Luther lost?; maybe I should anti-Antisemitism to the list).

MM: You are grossly misrepresenting what I believe about God winking at ignorance. Why?

TE: In what way am I even minutely misrepresenting what you believe? You stated these things as possible "exceptions to the rule," didn't you? I'm asking you if you believe Luther was lost, because he was a heavy beer drinker. Most Christians see nothing wrong with moderate drinking. I'm not defending their view, but am simply pointing out that if moderate drinking causes one to be lost, then there are many like Luther that are going to be lost. Smoking and polygamy as exceptions was your idea.

MM: You wrote, “Even you seem not to believe the God reveals every sinful habit before one can be converted, because you allow exceptions for …”

You seem to be implying that not even I believe God, as a rule, reveals “every” (SC 29) sinful habit during the “patient, protracted process” (DA 172) of conversion before people experience the miracle of rebirth. This implication grossly misrepresents what I believe.

The fact God has in the past “winked at” sins of ignorance does not undermine the rules which govern that way He is required to lead people to conversion and rebirth. Exceptions to the rule do not destroy the rule. Exceptions would not exist were it not for the rule. The same is true of mercy; that is, mercy would not exist were it not for the law.

Many who claim to be converted and born again were not properly guided and taught. “Many who profess to believe the truth for these last days will be found wanting. They have neglected the weightier matters. Their conversion is superficial, not deep, earnest, and thorough.” (2T 634)

They were not taught to “observe” (Mat 28:19, 20) everything Jesus commanded. They did not, therefore, experienced true, genuine conversion and rebirth. “To follow Jesus requires wholehearted conversion at the start, and a repetition of this conversion every day.” (1BC 1113)

“The new birth is a rare experience in this age of the world. This is the reason why there are so many perplexities in the churches. Many, so many, who assume the name of Christ are unsanctified and unholy. They have been baptized, but they were buried alive. Self did not die, and therefore they did not rise to newness of life in Christ.” {6BC 1075.7}

“Ministers and people need a new conversion, a transformation of the mind, without which we are not savors of life unto life, but of death unto death.” (2T 124)

“You both must have a thorough conversion, a thorough renewing of the mind, a thorough transformation, or you will have no part in the kingdom of God.” (2T 174) “You need to be elevated in your thoughts and conversation; you need a thorough conversion.” (2T 221)


TE: If you think there is are only a couple of these, then you're in the same boat as Waggoner, with whom I agree, that God presents to us representative sins, and we repent of these. But you have presented a painstaking, long process where God presents to us every sinful habit cultivated from birth, implying a long list. So how long a list are we talking about?

MM: I also agree that God, under the right conditions, reveals to us “representative sins”. Such representations encompass the root of every sinful habit. By “right conditions” I mean the person is taught, in accordance with the gospel commission (Mat 28:19, 20), to observe everything Jesus commanded.

Unfortunately, however, most are not; thus, many never experience true, genuine conversion and rebirth. According to the numerous SOP quotes posted above, it is never too late (thank you Jesus) to experience a “thorough conversion” and “radical transformation” to the will and way of God almighty.

MM: When they are not ruling or controlling us, where do our sinful habits exist?

TV: Laying around, waiting for opportunity to take potshots at us.

MM: True.

………………………..

MM: Well said. We complete the “patient, protracted process” of conversion the moment we “surrender all” to Jesus at the foot of the cross. Surrendering all includes confessing and crucifying our sinful habits, trading them in, as it were, for Christ and His righteousness. But, as you said, there is a sense in which conversion is never ending. In other words, we must continually choose, moment by moment, to stay converted, to continue abiding in Jesus.

TV: But I didnt say that. Conversion occurs in a limited space of time. It is then followed by a walk with Christ. I do not see why the two should be mixed as you are here doing. Also, I believe this walk is a lot less nervous than what your words tell about. "Continually choosing, moment by moment, to stay converted" could easily lead a person to doubt the promise of God, worrying about moments past, worrying and laying awake at night wondering, "did I succeed today? can I account for every moment of these past hours". (It doesnt have to be like this, but it might be).

MM: “It doesnt have to be like this, but it might be.” True.

………………………….

TV: The same Paul also wrote the following (Romans 7:1-8):

MM: Do you see a contradiction between my Pauline quotes and yours?

TV: Paul wrote a coherent letter. We cannot pit one part against another but must consider all parts to understand what he meant. Neither Romans 6:6-7 nor Romans 7:1-8 has its full meaning outside of the context of Romans 1:1 to Romans 16:27. The same argument also holds for the letter to the church in Ephesus.

MM: True. But I still don’t understand why you said, “The same Paul also wrote the following (Romans 7:1-8).” Please explain. Thank you.

…………………………….

MM: Do you agree with the following insight:

TV: It appears to me that the first "condition to the promise" is faith. In fact, I his letter to the Galatians, Paul argues that "For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise. "
The author of Hebrews suggests lack of faith cancels reception of the promise. "Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard. "

MM: True. Saving faith is inherently necessary in all 3 steps. But do you agree with the rest of the quote above?