Thank you, Tom. It looks as though we have reached yet another impasse. I believe our sins are in Jesus in the most holy place, and will continue thus until they are placed upon Satan when Jesus returns. You do not.

I believe Jesus will one day blot out our record and memory of specific sins. You do not. By the way, I believe we will know we were once sinners saved by grace, but we will not be able to recall the details.

"For the former things are passed away."

"Perfect, as pertaining to the conscience .... because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

"Their sins have gone beforehand to judgment and have been blotted out, and they cannot bring them to remembrance."

"Their sins had been borne away into the land of forgetfulness, and they could not bring them to remembrance."

Thank you, Tom. It looks as though we have reached yet another impasse. I believe our sins are in Jesus in the most holy place, and will continue thus until they are placed upon Satan when Jesus returns. You do not.

What does this mean to you, that our sins are "in Jesus"?

I believe Jesus will one day blot out our record and memory of specific sins. You do not.

The record yes. The memory, no, not in the sense you are implying (like a lobotomy, or something like that). The record will be blotted out because the sin has been blotted out. That there is no more memory of sin means just what Waggoner says (which, as far as I know, is the only understanding of this event that contemporaries of EGW ever had. I'm not aware of anyone interpreting what she wrote the way you are, that God does something miraculous to cause people to forget things).

By the way, I believe we will know we were once sinners saved by grace, but we will not be able to recall the details.

So someone who was converted on their deathbed, say when they were 80, will basically not remember any of their life, except the last little bit. If someone were to ask them, "Where did you go to college" they would respond, "I can't remember, but somehow I know Calculus." Sort of like Jason Bourne. A kind of holy amnesia.

What purpose would this serve?

"For the former things are passed away."

This is speaking of sin, and the effects of sin, not amnesia.

"Perfect, as pertaining to the conscience .... because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

Right, the conscience is clear. But one can have a clear conscience without amnesia.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

Even God doesn't remember them. Does He also have amnesia?

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

They are blotted out from our character, as Waggoner wrote. This is not speaking of amnesia.

"Their sins have gone beforehand to judgment and have been blotted out, and they cannot bring them to remembrance."

And neither can God. Not amnesia, but character.

"Their sins had been borne away into the land of forgetfulness, and they could not bring them to remembrance."

You're not considering the context of any of these statements, but just taking sentences from here and there. As I pointed out, the context is speaking of the 144,000 not having unconfessed and unpardoned sins:



To reiterate:

1)Your interpretation, as far as I am aware, is not one any of EGW's contemporaries held.
2)Your interpretation makes amnesia a solution, rather than a change of character.
3)You have taken into account that it is said of God that He will not remember our sins anymore. I assume you don't think this means that He can't remember what we did.
4)You have taken statements out of context, or, perhaps better said, without regard to their context.


P.S. It would be easier to respond to your posts if you included the SOP references (i.e., where to find them).

TE: What does this mean to you, that our sins are "in Jesus"?

MM: In His control. By ransom and redemption, He is the lawful, rightful owner of our sins and second death. "He is the owner of every man and woman and child who comes into the world. This He became by paying the redemption price." {TDG 355} “The second Adam stood the test of trial and temptation that He might become the Owner of all humanity.” (3SM 141) "Ye are not your own; ye are bought with a price which cannot be estimated. Then your owner is God, the mighty God, and for the price paid look to the cross of Calvary." {UL 150} God says, "I am the rightful owner of the universe ..." {OHC 199}

TE: But one can have a clear conscience without amnesia.

MM: They will have "no more ... remembrance of sins." (Heb 10:3, 4) It's not amnesia, it's a miracle, the gift of God. On this we differ.

TE: P.S. It would be easier to respond to your posts if you included the SOP references (i.e., where to find them).

MM: They were posted in context within the proximity of two posts, so I didn't think it was necessary. No problem, though, I can include references each time.

TE: What does this mean to you, that our sins are "in Jesus"?

MM: In His control. By ransom and redemption, He is the lawful, rightful owner of our sins and second death. "He is the owner of every man and woman and child who comes into the world. This He became by paying the redemption price." {TDG 355} “The second Adam stood the test of trial and temptation that He might become the Owner of all humanity.” (3SM 141) "Ye are not your own; ye are bought with a price which cannot be estimated. Then your owner is God, the mighty God, and for the price paid look to the cross of Calvary." {UL 150} God says, "I am the rightful owner of the universe ..." {OHC 199}

When you say our sins are "in" Jesus, you mean that Jesus is in control of our sins. That's what you're saying, correct? This is a very odd way of expressing this concept. I can't think of any circumstance where something being "in" someone means the one in whom the thing is in is in control of that thing. Can you give me some example of language being used in this way?

TE: But one can have a clear conscience without amnesia.

MM: They will have "no more ... remembrance of sins." (Heb 10:3, 4) It's not amnesia, it's a miracle, the gift of God. On this we differ.

Amnesia is forgetting something that happened. It would be miraculously caused amnesia.

TE: P.S. It would be easier to respond to your posts if you included the SOP references (i.e., where to find them).

MM: They were posted in context within the proximity of two posts, so I didn't think it was necessary. No problem, though, I can include references each time.

That would be helpful, so I don't have to look around for them.

You don't think what Waggoner wrote makes sense? You know, Ellen White was alive when he wrote these things, as well as others who interpreted her writings this way (that not remembering the sins doesn't mean amnesia). If her writings were being misinterpreted, she could have corrected them. I'm not aware of any contemporaries of hers suggesting that her writings in The Great Controversy and elsewhere, speaking of not being able to bring certain sins to rememberance, has to do with a faulty memory. The context is clear that they have no sins to reveal, no unconfessed sin, no unpardoned sin. This is not because they have forgotten what they did, but because they have confessed it.

TE: Can you give me some example of language being used in this way?

MM: Isn't that what the whole "in Christ" motif is all about?

TE: Amnesia is forgetting something that happened. It would be miraculously caused amnesia.

MM: Your lobotomy illustration seems more fitting. God will give us a new body and brain and mind, one that doesn't include a memory of our specific sins. We will remember we were once sinners saved by grace but we will not remember the details or the particulars. It would not serve a suitable purpose. The scars of Jesus will remain to remind us that the sinning we did was horribly wrong.

TE: The context is clear that they have no sins to reveal, no unconfessed sin, no unpardoned sin. This is not because they have forgotten what they did, but because they have confessed it.

MM: It is true that they will have no unconfessed sins to confess. But it is also true they cannot remember the sins that have been blotted out. The only thing they can recall is the good things they have done. On this we disagree.

Did Christ bear our sins, or the penalty of our sins?

Did Christ place our sins on Satan, or did Christ place the penalty of our sins from Himself onto Satan?

Penalty of our sins seems to make better sense to me.

Daryl, Jesus began bearing our sins in His body from birth. He also paid the penalty for our sins on the cross. He has not yet placed our sins and second death upon Satan. That will not happen until Jesus returns, and Satan will not die until after the Millennium.

TE: Can you give me some example of language being used in this way?

MM: Isn't that what the whole "in Christ" motif is all about?

No. The "in Christ" motif has to do with how we (human beings) are in Christ, not about sins being in Christ.

TE: Amnesia is forgetting something that happened. It would be miraculously caused amnesia.

MM: Your lobotomy illustration seems more fitting. God will give us a new body and brain and mind, one that doesn't include a memory of our specific sins.

Some of your quotes deal with the experience of the 144,000, who don't have a new body.

We will remember we were once sinners saved by grace but we will not remember the details or the particulars.

What evidence is there of this? And what sense would it make? A person who was converted at age 80 wouldn't be able to remember the first 80 years of his life? A person who was converted in early childhood would have a much more complete memory of his/her life than the 80 year old?

It would not serve a suitable purpose. The scars of Jesus will remain to remind us that the sinning we did was horribly wrong.

How, if we can't remember what sin is? The universe would be in the same state it was before Satan began his rebellion. A whole new rebellion could come up because no one could remember the details of the first one. It would be known that Christ died, but not how He died, or what for, except in abstract terms.

TE: The context is clear that they have no sins to reveal, no unconfessed sin, no unpardoned sin. This is not because they have forgotten what they did, but because they have confessed it.

MM: It is true that they will have no unconfessed sins to confess. But it is also true they cannot remember the sins that have been blotted out.

The sins blotted out are blotted out from the books in heaven, not from their memories. The sin is not in their character. The whole issue is one of character, not memory. The solution is to root the sin out of the character, not give the sinner amnesia.

The only thing they can recall is the good things they have done. On this we disagree.

I'm curious, why do you think your understanding of this is better than Waggoner's? Did you read what I quoted of his? That doesn't make sense to you? If not, why not?

If you consider how the word "remembrance" and similar words are used in Scripture, you should see that there is no need to come to a conclusion which requires amnesia. Scripture says that God will remember our sins no more. Surely you don't think this is indicating a faulty memory on His part?

How about "wages"? That is, Christ bore the wages of our sin. Satan, at the end, will bear the wages his sin (as well as of others he influenced to sin).

Tom, I think we have hashed and rehashed our differences well enough. Thank you for the comments and questions. It's been good. Unless there is something you're not sure how I would respond, let's call it quits. Cool?