Thank you, Tom. I think the expression "beautiful sin" applies to the right and good things unbelievers do.

The Father's presence encircled Christ, and nothing befell Him but that which infinite love permitted for the blessing of the world. Here was His source of comfort, and it is for us. He who is imbued with the Spirit of Christ abides in Christ. Whatever comes to him comes from the Saviour, who surrounds him with His presence. Nothing can touch him except by the Lord's permission. All our sufferings and sorrows, all our temptations and trials, all our sadness and griefs, all our persecutions and privations, in short, all things work together for our good. All experiences and circumstances are God's workmen whereby good is brought to us. {MH 488.4}

Reminds us that there's nothing to worry about while in Christ.

MM: If we choose to trod in darkness unbidden, God does not abandon us. He does not leave it up to Satan to decide how to tempt and punish us. Even under these circumstances God regulates what Satan can and cannot do to us.

asg: Actually, OHC 307.3 seems to say the opposite of your assertion.

MM: How so? I don't hear her saying God leaves it up to Satan to decide how to tempt and punish people who wander from God's will.

asg: "And because of their self-sufficiency, they fall an easy prey to Satan's devices."

---

MM: The question is - "Does it [1 Cor 10:13] cover the ability to avoid being born selfish?" The answer is, Of course not. We have no control over how we are born. It is not a sin to be born selfish. That is, God does not count us guilty of sinning because we are born selfish.

asg: "All selfishness is condemned by the law of God..." {YI, December 9, 1897 par. 3} Guilty or not, the selfish are condemned.

---

MM: What does God's nature have to do with why we cannot excuse sinning?

asg: Everything He made reflects His character. If we want to function within His creation, we must do it in congruence with His character. Sin is the anomaly.

MM: True. But, again, what does this have to do with WHY we cannot excuse sinning? Why isn't there an excuse for the sins we commit, whether willful or ignorant?

asg: I don't think I understand your question because you keep asking the same thing, and I keep answering the same thing: Sin cannot be excused because it is contrary to God's character.

---

MM: Amen! But what does it mean to receive the glory of God, His character? What is the nature of the glory and character we receive when self dies and we rise to walk in newness of life?

asg: I'm not sure what you mean about the "nature of the glory and character we receive" but receiving God's glory means that our character is molded into His image. IOW, God's image which we lost through sin is restored.

Here's a quote I like:

 Quote:

To give glory to God is to reveal his character in our own, and thus make him known. And in whatever way we make known the Father or the Son, we glorify God. {ST, October 17, 1892 par. 3}

Amen!

But Tom seems to feel Satan, not God, is the one who causes things that create grief and sorrow. Is that right, Tom? Here she says they are "God's workmen" not Satan's devices.

"All our sufferings and sorrows, all our temptations and trials, all our sadness and griefs, all our persecutions and privations, in short, all things work together for our good. All experiences and circumstances are God's workmen whereby good is brought to us."

MM: Shall I assume, brother, you believe this statement means God leaves it up to Satan to decide how to tempt and punish people who wander from God's will?


MM: She didn't say "the selfish" are condemned, instead she wrote, "all selfishness is condemned". No one is guilty in the sight of God simply because they inherited selfish traits of character at birth. They do not become guilty until the moment they act selfishly. Do you agree with these distinctions?


MM: True. Sinning is contrary to God's character. But this only explains why sinning couldn't be excused if God committed a sin. But we're not God. Even our First Parents, as perfect and sinless as they were, are not God. And for those us of who are conceived in sin and born in sin, we are not God. So, why can't we excuse sinning, either willful or ignorant? What is it about us, what we are, how we were created, etc, that makes sinning inexcusable, especially since we are not God?


MM: Let me see if I have it right. You're saying we have the character of God the instant we are born again. Is that right? If so, are born again believers sinless and perfect like Jesus was?

Yes, it is Satan. He's the bad guy. He does evil. God is the good guy. He does good.



Grief and sorrow are the result of sin. As such, it's author is Satan.

EGW's statement simply means the same thing as Paul's that all things work together for good for those who love God. The idea is not that God causes evil (God forbid!), but that He is able to use evil to further His cause. Sorrow and grief are God's workmen, not His creation. That is, He puts them to work to accomplish the goals He has in mind. But God is in no way responsible for the existence of grief and sorrow. The sooner we free our minds of such thoughts about God, the better. Only good comes from God.

Thank you, Tom, for clearly stating your position. Regarding the the title of this thread you seem to believe there are no temptations to difficult to resist. On this we agree.

You are quick to add, though, that some sinning happens without temptation, that such sinning is excusable, and that it does not require atonement. On this we disagree. I agree that some sinning happens without temptations, but I disagree that it is excusable and doe snot require atonement.

I don't think it's correct to say that sinning is excusable. I don't think I've said that, have I?

I think you've misunderstood me, because I see you writing quite a bit about God's excusing sin, although, again, I don't think I've ever said that. If I have, please point it out. (Since "excuse" is a synonym for "pardon," it's possible I said something like what you're saying, but I doubt it, because I'm aware that "excuse" is ambiguous, as it could also mean to not care that something happened, so I avoid that word. I think it would be good if you did to, because I don't know what you mean when you use it. You might mean "pardon," or you might mean "pay no regard to." I don't think you've ever specified. I'm guessing it's the latter.)

Our fundamental difference is regarding what the purpose of atonement is. I understand that atonement is "at-one-ment," and that it's purpose is to set man right with God. I understand this is accomplished when man sees the truth about God's character, and responds in faith to that revelation. It seems to me that's what EGW is saying here:



Here is says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's ministry is to set men right through the revelation of God. This is what I believe the atonement is all about.

Now if a person does something wrong, but they don't know about it, then it may not be doing anything bad to the relationship. If it is doing something to damage the relationship, God needs to reveal to the sinner what he is doing wrong. I see this as atonement, as it is setting man right with God, which is, again, what atonement is all about.

So I wouldn't necessarily say that a sin of ignorance doesn't need atonement, but I see the meaning of atonement, and what is happening differently than you do. I don't see that the problem involves God, but involves man. The process of atonement is a one way thing, reconciling man to God. God is forgiveness personified, and because of His love towards us, He gives of Himself in order to reconcile us to Him.

The main thing I started on regarding this post was to point out that your reasoning was faulty. Arthur pointed out the same thing. It's not clear to me if you ever saw that. You stated that Paul said that there is no excuse for sinning, when Paul actually said there is no excuse to fall into temptation. It's been pointed out to you that in order to get from that point to the point that there is no excuse for sinning, you either need to show that all sin involves temptation, or that there is no excuse for other types of sin as well. It's not clear to me if you understood this point.

TE: I don't think it's correct to say that sinning is excusable. I don't think I've said that, have I?

MM: Here's what you posted on the, Are there excuses for sinning, thread: "If sins of ignorance do not incur the frown of God, doesn't that mean they are excusable? God is, in fact, excusing them on the grounds of ignorance, isn't He? (#92623)

----------

TE: You stated that Paul said that there is no excuse for sinning, when Paul actually said there is no excuse to fall into temptation. It's been pointed out to you that in order to get from that point to the point that there is no excuse for sinning, you either need to show that [1] all sin involves temptation, or that [2] there is no excuse for other types of sin as well.

MM: I agree sins of ignorance do not involve temptation, and that 1 Cor 10:13 doesn't address it. However, I do not believe sins of ignorance are excusable.

---------

TE: So I wouldn't necessarily say that a sin of ignorance doesn't need atonement, but I see the meaning of atonement, and what is happening differently than you do.

MM: True. We don't agree on all the reasons why God required the death of Jesus.

Regarding excusing sins of ignorance, I asked you two questions. Are your answers no? If so, how do you interpret that sins of ignorance do not incur the frown of God.

You were the one who brought up sins being excused. As I stated, I try to avoid this word, because of its ambiguity. My questions are questions of clarification.

In Romans it speaks of God's winking at sin in times of ignorance, doesn't it?

At any rate, you're going to have to define what you mean by "excuse sin," because if you mean "treat sin as something of no import" or "consider sin as something that has an excuse" then the answer is no, the sin is not excusable. If, on the other hand, you mean excuse as in I do something wrong to you inadvertently, and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. Please excuse me." and you say, "No problem, you're excused" then the answer is yes.



I wouldn't put it this way. I would say that we needed the death of Christ, as the cross was the only way that we could be reconciled to God. It wasn't something God required, because God is fine already. We required it (or "needed" it; please don't substitute "demanded" here) in order to be set right with him.