Rosangela, you seem to be assuming that Sister White is speaking of sinning when she describes Paul discovering and putting away unknown defective traits of character. But that's not what she's talking about. Yes, Paul possessed unknown defective traits of character. But this isn't the same thing as saying Paul had cultivated them, that he turned them into character by repeatedly sinning. Nor does it mean we was ignorantly sinning until God revealed it to him. She's not talking about sinning.

All of us are born with hereditary traits of character. But having a trait of character is not the same thing as cultivating it, the same thing as turning it into character by sinning over and over again. We inherited all kinds of traits and tendencies at conception. Later on, we convert more of them into character by acting them out repeatedly. However, there are defective traits and tendencies we do not, for various reasons, turn into character. Thus, we are unaware of their existence.

Yes, after we are born again, as we comprehend more clearly the price Jesus paid to redeem us, we loathe more and more the traits of character we cultivated and crucified. However, this doesn't mean we are guilty of sinning. We will loathe them more and more until the day Jesus blots them out and we are no longer able to recall the details that gave rise to them.

In the case of Paul, in light of the quote you posted above, God revealed to him, from time to time, certain unknown, uncultivated hereditary traits and tendencies. Again, Paul hadn't turned them into character; thus, she isn't talking about him sinning without realizing it. Instead, she's talking about the defective traits he inherited at birth and was unaware he possessed them.

The reason God drew his attention to a particular unknown defective trait is because He was preparing him for a new field of labor, which would expose him to new forms of temptations, in ways that would make him aware of a new defective trait he inherited at birth but had not encountered before. In this way he able to learn about it without first having to fall into sin and bring reproach upon the cause of Christ.

Do you see what I mean?

No, I wouldn't classify "known cultivated sinful traits and habits" as a sin of ignorance. The fact it is known is proof they are not ignore of its existence. The question remains, then, what constitutes an unknown sinful trait and habit during "the long... patient, protracted" process that leads to rebirth?

So far you have named the following modern day examples of sinful traits and habits the Holy Spirit, in some cases, waits to reveal until sometime after a person is born again:

1. Polygamy
2. Jeez, darn
3. Racism
4. Sabbath-breaking

I seem to recall earlier on this thread you agreeing with me that the Holy Spirit does not wait to reveal sinful traits and habits that are offensive, that cause people around them to conclude Christianity is a joke. With this in mind, I'm having a hard time agreeing with you that the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to someone that racism is wrong and sinful until sometime after they are born. Few things are more offensive than racist claiming to be a Christian; few things lead more people to conclude Christianity is dangerous and destructive than its adherents being racists.

MM, here's the quote:



This says absolutely nothing about "unknown, uncultivated hereditary traits and tendencies." Instead it speaks of "defects in his character." You've repeatedly pointed out, and correctly so, that if we do not act on the inherited tendencies of the flesh, then they do not become a part of our character.

Here's another way to look at it. You believe that Jesus Christ took the same inherited traits and tendencies that we have, right? Would you say that God revealed to Christ His "defects of character"?

If they're known, there's not an even an issue of God's revealing them at all. He doesn't need to reveal them, since they're known. The only sinful traits and habits the Holy Spirit can reveal are unknown ones. So why doesn't He reveal every unknown sinful trait and habit? It would seem that, if your theory were true, once a person were born again there would be no more such thing as a sin of ignorance.



This is your wording, not mine.



This is again your wording. You do this thing where you put things in a certain way that nobody could possibly disagree with, and then when they don't, you conclude that they agree with you. It's like my asking you, "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" How do you answer this? You can't answer "yes" or "no." You have to answer by explaining that the question assumes a false premise, that you never were beating your wife to start with.

Many of your questions are like this, MM. They assume a false premise. This is why I don't answer them "yes" or "no," but try to explain what I think, without the false premise being included.



I didn't say anything about racisim did I? I'm sure I didn't. I'll check.

No, I said nothing about racism. Please be more careful in how you present things in these posts. I notice you often claiming I've said things I never said.

I spoke of "prejudice." Actually Rosangela spoke of prejudice, and I borrowed her example. Here's what "prejudice" means:



Here's what "racism" means:



It's certainly true that a racist is being prejudiced, but it is not necessary the case that a person who is prejudiced is racist. Rosangela said nothing about Peter being racist, and neither did I.

She's talking about inherited traits of character, not cultivated traits of character. Both are sinful and defective. And, no, Jesus never cultivated the defective traits of character He inherited. He never turned them into character by sinning over and over again.

The difference between being aware of our sinful traits and habits before and after rebirth is the fact the Holy Spirit reveals them to us in light of the cross. Heathens are aware of their sinful traits and habits before they embark upon the process that leads to rebirth. But it makes all the difference in the world when they see in the light of the cross. But not all sins are the same. Heathens do not feel bad about working on the Sabbath or eating pork or living common-law. They have no way of knowing they are sinning. Such sins do not become sinful traits of character.


I’ll work on being more accurate. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.


Here’s what I had in mind:

AA 197
When Peter, at a later date, visited Antioch, he won the confidence of many by his prudent conduct toward the Gentile converts. For a time he acted in accordance with the light given from heaven. He so far overcame his natural prejudice as to sit at table with the Gentile converts. But when certain Jews who were zealous for the ceremonial law, came from Jerusalem, Peter injudiciously changed his deportment toward the converts from paganism. {AA 197.3}

You seem to be insisting that what the Jews felt toward the Gentiles was not racial prejudice. Well, whatever, then the following are examples you’ve provided to prove people are born again ignorant of certain sinful habits:

1. Having more than one spouse at a time
2. Using slang like Jeez or darn
3. Prejudiced against Gentiles
4. Sabbath-breaking

With this in mind, I'm having a hard time agreeing with you that the Holy Spirit waits to reveal to someone that being prejudiced against Gentiles is wrong and sinful until sometime after they are reborn. Few things are more offensive than prejudiced Christians; few things lead more people to conclude Christianity is dangerous and destructive than its adherents being prejudiced.

I’m also having a hard time agreeing with you that the church would baptize polygamists without addressing it. Have you ever attended a Crusade where polygamists where welcomed into fellowship?

No, she's talking about a "defect of character." An inherited trait is not a "defect of character."



I agree with this. However, Peter was not Christ, and did have defects of character. If "defect of character" could be referring to an inherited trait, then we could say that Christ had "defects of character." Do you see that as a possibility.



Are you saying that heathens are aware of every sinful trait they have?



So if you're not aware that what you are doing is wrong, it's not a sinful trait. So saying that heathens are aware of their sinful traits means they are aware of the sins they are aware of. The sins they are not aware of are not sinful traits.



It seems to me at times you conclude the oddest things. I said simply that Rosangela spoke of "prejudice," not "racisim," as an example of something Peter was not aware of.



What about Peter?



What???? Baptize polygamists? What are you talking about?

Please stop doing this! Stop writing that you have a hard time "agreeing" with something I've never said. Can't you phrase things in some other way? You just said in this very post that you would work on being more accurate!

Where have I said anything that even remotely suggests that I think the church would baptize polygamists without addressing it? Please quote something.



??? This is an odd question.

I suppose the church baptizes converted polygamists in African countries.

Rosangela, and I suppose you are right. But do they continue to take new wives afterwards? Of course, having more than one wife is not evil or a sin if done in accordance with the Law of Moses (which I doubt applies to modern day Gentile converts to Christianity). Neither should the church insist the converted man whittle his wives down to one and send the rest away.

All of the traits and tendencies we inherit are defective. They are sinful, fallen - not sinless. But we do not inherit character. We develop character by cultivating the defective traits and tendencies we inherit. Jesus did not cultivate th3e defective traits and tendencies He inherited.


"So if you're not aware that what you are doing is wrong, it's not a sinful trait." It is not a sinful cultivated trait of character. Yes, it is a sin of ignorance, but it is not the same thing as cultivating a trait of character you know is wrong. There is a difference between the two. Do you agree?


There is nothing simple about it, is there? In the context I provided above, Peter was guilty of racial prejudice, which is also called "racism".


You listed polygamy as a modern day sin the Holy Spirit waits to reveal until after they are born again. Are you assuming they didn't also get baptized?