How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

Not entirely so, good fellow. There are a few posts in this thread, wherein czar jasd – opines

– no small matter, guy.

That's true czar jasd.

[Guest]

Historical Trustworthiness.

Bible-believing Adventists welcome the inquiry of those who accept what Scripture says as trustworthy and who desire simply to learn its meaning. What they reject is the intrusion of unbiblical assumptions drawn from secular thought (e.g., Romantic philosophy and evolutionary philosophy) as the basis to judge the credibility of the

biblical record and to reconstruct what actually happened. The "historical" interpretation of the historical-critical method, if adopted, will breed a "new papalism" of scholars, since

ordinary laypeople who are not trained as "historians" will be expected to depend on the experts for understanding the contents of the Christian faith. Besides, such a historical approach fails to show a way out should the "historical" experts disagree.

Ellen White expressed the conviction of Bible-believing students when she argued for the trustworthiness of Scripture in all that it teaches and touches upon--whether in the realm of salvation or in the sphere of history, science, etc. Against those who questioned the historical reliability of Scripture, she asserted that because the Holy Spirit "guided the pens of the sacred historians" (Gospel Workers, p. 286), biblical history is truthful, authentic, and reliable (Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 84-85; Testimonies for the Church, 4:9-10). The accounts in the Bible are not sullied by human pride or prejudice (Education, p. 173; Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 596; Testimonies for the Church, 5:25). "The unerring pen of

inspiration" traces biblical history with "exact fidelity" (ibid., 4:370). The Bible is equally trustworthy even in its statements having to do with scientific issues--e.g., questions about

origins and geology (Education, pp. 128-130).

Summarizing his findings from an extensive study of Ellen White's writings, a knowledgeable Adventist professor of church history and historical theology writes: "Although Ellen White recognized the existence of difficulties in Scripture, I have been unable to find any instance in which she mentioned specific factual errors in the Scriptures. As silent as the writers of the New Testament had been in pointing out factual errors in the Old Testament, so was Ellen White in regard to the total canon of Scripture." In other words, if none of the inspired prophets felt himself authorized to criticize alleged "errors" of his predecessors, why should we? Are we more enlightened for such a task than the prophets themselves?

Bible-believing Adventists, therefore, reject the kind of thinking that does not want to accept or obey what Scripture explicitly affirms. They also reject the kind of "sanctified reason" which does not make logically correct deductions from Scripture itself, and which

makes an uninspired interpreter sit i judgment over God's Word to decide what to accept as true. Such "sanctified reason" does not merit the label of "science" or "Christian." It is not "scientific" because, rather than being a scientific inquiry into the truths of God's Word, it sets about "dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing" the Bible (see The Acts of the Apostles, p. 474). And it is not "Christian," because instead of submitting to the Book that will judge human reason, it dares to sit in judgment and overthrow the authority of the Bible.

[Guest]

Critical Thinking.

In opposition to "Methods of Bible Study" (the Rio document that

urged Adventist scholars not to use the historical-critical method in any of its forms), a proponent of modern higher criticism gives the impression that the church is opposed to "critical thinking," understood as objective thinking. He explains that the goal of

historical-critical Adventist scholars was to be "'critical' in the sense that it attempted to discriminate between fact and fiction. The idea that the word 'critical' in the term 'historical-critical' expresses a critical attitude toward the inspiration and authority of the Bible reflects the uninformed thinking of those who do not understand the nature and purpose of the method or who have ulterior motives for opposing it."

Does rejecting the historical-critical method reflect "the uninformed thinking" of Bible-believing Adventists who are against the use of liberal methodology? Not so. The difference between the traditional Adventist plain reading of Scripture and the contemporary liberal approach is not that the latter is "critical" while the former is not; both are "critical," depending upon how one defines the term.

If by critical interpretation we mean the answering of questions about the date, place, sources, background, literary character, credentials, and purposes of each biblical book or composition, then Bible-believing Adventists will have no difficulty in describing their own approach as "critical." If, however, the term implies charging the Bible with untrustworthiness or fraudulence of any kind (which is what proponents of the historical-critical method intimate), then Bible-believing Adventists are opposed to it.

Christians who are tempted to adopt historical-critical reasoning face a major dilemma. How do they exalt the Bible as the judge of human errors and at the same time keep the human interpreter as the arbiter of Scripture's errors? How can they commend the Bible as a

true witness yet charge it with falsehood? Is this not theological double-talk?

[Guest]

Careless and Superficial Analysis.

Superficial works may fill useful functions. But it is always regrettable when superficial analyses of parallel accounts are presented to unsuspecting church members as though they were biblically profound works. Later in this book, we shall take a look at some of the biblical passages alleged to be contradictions.

Presently, however, we must only remind ourselves of a statement by Ellen White: "As several [bible] writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony" (The Great Controversy, p. vi, emphasis supplied).

"Men of ability have devoted a lifetime of study and prayer to the searching of the Scriptures, and yet there are many portions of the Bible that have not been fully explored. Some passages of Scripture will never be perfectly comprehended until in the future life

Christ shall explain them. There are mysteries to be unraveled, statements that human minds cannot harmonize. And the enemy will seek to arouse argument upon these points, which might better remain undiscussed" (Gospel Workers, p. 312).

[Guest]

Need for Caution.

The history of biblical interpretation teaches us that some Bible

difficulties that once appeared to be "contradictions" or "errors" were nothing more than optical illusions. For this reason, we must be careful that in our haste to obtain an "objective" or "scientific" explanation we are not tempted to declare those unresolved Bible difficulties as "distortions," "contradictions," "inconsistencies," or "demonstrable errors of fact."

Instead, when faced with unresolved Bible difficulties, we should make a painstaking and prayerful effort to study them in the light of Scripture itself. We should look at what other scholars and Bible students have said about the same subject to ascertain the extent to which their solutions are in agreement with the Bible itself. We should also pay close attention to what Ellen G. White has to say on the issue since we believe that an inspired writer is always a more dependable interpreter of a Bible passage than are contemporary scholars. If we still do not get a handle on the difficulty, we should suspend judgment till such a time as the Lord sheds further light on the problem passage. And He does!

[Guest]

DEPARTING FROM THE WORD

PART IV

The Bible – Progressive Revelation or Progressive Ideas?

Objective. In this section we shall examine to what extent higher-critical assumptions are influencing Seventh-day Adventist views on human relationships, the Spirit's ongoing divine

guidance, concepts of God, divine judgment, the doctrine of hell, and the nature of "present truth."

Key Issue. How should we understand the nature of "progressive revelation"? Is it an unfolding of the meaning and import of previously disclosed truth, or is it a revelation of new

truths that are not already present in the Bible?

[Guest]

Traditional Adventist Belief.

Historically, Adventists have understood "progressive revelation" to mean an ever increasing unfolding or expansion of what was previously

revealed. They have often referred to this as "present truth," arguing that new truth does not contradict previously revealed truth.1 Thus, the preamble to our Fundamental Beliefs speaks

of how "the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."

But as is common in liberal theology, proponents of the historical-critical method have taken this good concept and redefined it according to the myth of evolutionism. To promote their "dynamic concept of truth," they disguise it as the "Holy Spirit's leading"--when it is actually the spirit of the modern age which is driving them. They claim that "progressive revelation" is the Holy Spirit's guidance into truths that were not previously revealed by the

Bible writers, and which may at times be contradictory to established Bible truth. Thus they abandon God's absolute truth for liberalism's "dynamic truth"; and they replace the true

progressive (i.e. unfolding) revelation of His written Word with the allegedly "progressive" ideas of our contemporary culture.

How are historical-critical assumptions shaping Adventist views on the interpretation of Scripture?

[oldsailor29]

In order to learn what scripture means or what it should mean to us, certain questions must first be answered. The Historical/Critical method of interpretation asks those questions. If we look for or use a meaning other that the original meaning of a passage of scripture, then we are involving ourselves in homilies, which can be of numerous interpretations. This is the reason we have so many different "Christian" churches. There are many different answers to the question, "What does it mean?" The question we should be asking is, "What did it mean?"

Richard, when your method of interpretation answers the question, "What did it mean to the prophet and his immediate audience?" Then you can properly apply that meaning by analogy to your present day audience. If you cannot determine the original meaning of a Bible text, then the only interpretation available is a homily, and is subject to change when more information about the original meaning is available.

You want absolute truth? hahahahaha. Review Job 38-41 for a clearer idea of what God thinks about our knowledge of Him and how He works.

However, all Old Testament studies can be brushed aside. We have a clearer interpretation of OT studies in the words of Jesus Christ. Everything we need to know from the OT and more is given to us in the quotes of Jesus. So, these arguments regarding methods of interpretation are totally moot and unnecessary, for God in the flesh has given us His interpretation in His teachings and sermons nearly 2000 years ago.

[Guest]

oldsailor, How did Jesus re-interpret the OT so that All OT studies should be brushed aside?

You seem to be saying that since we have Jesus, we no longer need the OT, but Jesus didn't say that. In fact he said to search the scriptures.

If the Historical/Critical method changes the plain meaning of scripture, and waters down our beliefs, and gives cause to doubt that the Bible really means what it says, then how is the argument against it totally moot and unnecessary?

[Woody]

A lot of if's and assumptions there Richard.

[oldsailor29]

oldsailor, How did Jesus re-interpret the OT so that All OT studies should be brushed aside?

You seem to be saying that since we have Jesus, we no longer need the OT, but Jesus didn't say that. In fact he said to search the scriptures.

If the Historical/Critical method changes the plain meaning of scripture, and waters down our beliefs, and gives cause to doubt that the Bible really means what it says, then how is the argument against it totally moot and unnecessary?

Well sir, your reference to the text (John 5:39), saying that Jesus said to search the scriptures, is a good example of misinterpretation, because you have taken it out of context. If you are going to read the Bible as if it was written to you, then at least try to preserve the context. A little bit of careful reading, perhaps involving referencing the Greek translation, reveals that this was not a command to search the scriptures, but an explanation of why and how His audience was wrong. If you cannot see that, then it would be futile for me to try to explain it.

With homilies, there are many valid interpretations of scripture, whereas the historical/critical hermeneutic narrows the meaning considerably. In many places, the historical/critical method produces only one interpretation, which would be the correct interpretation. Biblical exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of the Bible. The goal of Biblical exegesis is to extract from the text that which was meant by the writer, without reading into it anything which he did not intend to say. In order to have anything other than a private interpretation of scripture, one must interpret by the rules of exegesis. This means one must investigate into the history and origins of the text, examine the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience,classify the types of literary genre present in the text, and analyze the grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself. This is the historical/critical method, not bad in itself, but like the homeletic method, can be misused.

On the other hand, we become Christians when we follow Jesus and believe His teachings. The entire Gospel taught by Jesus is a reinterpretation and correction of Old Testament scripture. I think it is good to have the quotations of Jesus as guidelines in our studies. Without His words, we would indeed be mired deep in the disagreements between the historical/critical advocates and detractors. Satan is on both sides of these disagreements. But thankfully, we do have the words of Jesus, giving us all the theology we need for salvation, printed in red in many New Testaments. And thus we can avoid the controversy in which Satan is tempting us to engage. We can just sweep all the OT interpretation problems aside, and embrace the Gospel according to God.

[Guest]

Yes I understand what you are saying in your first paragraph. John 5:39 is often used as a proof text by SDAs to study your Bible for salvation, when in fact it is not. It was a rebuke to the Jews.

There are plenty of other texts that show we should study our Bibles, but I was simply trying to point out that Jesus in no way, said we should disregard the OT.

But thankfully, we do have the words of Jesus, giving us all the theology we need for salvation, printed in red in many New Testaments.

I think there is enough theology for salvation in one text, if that's all we had. John 3:16.

I agree that we become Christians when we follow Jesus and believe His teachings. But the whole Bible really is about Jesus. I don't really see where he re-interpreted or corrected scripture, but instead gave it proper usage. He used it properly, just as we should. It dosn't need to be changed.

[Musicman1228]

Oldsailor29 said, "On the other hand, we become Christians when we follow Jesus and believe His teachings."

Your explanation is quite clear, easy to follow along, and well stated. I concur 100% with regards to the words of Jesus (in my case-by the eyewitnesses) being the lever with which we lift all other Scripture to it's proper place.

I will, however, disagree with your above statement in this way: when people become Christians is it NOT because they are following the words of Jesus Christ, but that they are following the words of Paul as if his words are the very words of Christ. Paul invented the religion of Christianity, not Jesus. If we follow the words of Jesus (as I do) then you will of need not follow the words of Paul. I have received much 'council' on this subject on this forum and in other places, but it is none-the-less true for me that to be a follower of Jesus Christ and declare yourself to be Christian is an oxymoron-mutually exclusive in practice.

I am a follower and a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and Him alone. I do filter everything in the OT and the NT through the filter of His words. Confusion comes when you say that there is no conflict between what Jesus Christ spoke and what others have said, even thought they have been granted (by men) 'authority' by the catch-all description of having been 'inspired'.

The ONLY way to avoid confusion in Scriptural interpretation is the see everything through the eyes and words of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

This, of course, is only my own understanding, and does not reflect the official policy of this forum or of the SDA church.

[Dr. Rich]

Here is what I believe to be the bottom line on this question:

Anyone who builds their belief upon the foundation of the whole bible, including everything in the NT to be the very Word of God is in serious trouble of believing a lie for not using their brain to test everything in it with the test provided in John 14:26 and 17:20. If God said it was good to do this in Rev. 2:2- then we all should do this.

Anyone who uses blind faith to build their house of spiritual belief is also in serious trouble of having this house fall when the truth will be presented by the 144,000 just before and during the time of trouble. It's not called the 'time of trouble' for nothing!

[Guest]

I'll take the New Testament writers over you guys any day. They all had a connection to God, and were led by the Holy Spirit. I don't see that with you.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

oldsailor, How did Jesus re-interpret the OT so that All OT studies should be brushed aside?

You seem to be saying that since we have Jesus, we no longer need the OT, but Jesus didn't say that. In fact he said to search the scriptures.

[size:11pt]Well sir, your reference to the text (John 5:39), saying that Jesus said to search the scriptures, is a good example of misinterpretation, because you have taken it out of context. If you are going to read the Bible as if it was written to you, then at least try to preserve the context. A little bit of careful reading, perhaps involving referencing the Greek translation, reveals that this was not a command to search the scriptures, but an explanation of why and how His audience was wrong. If you cannot see that, then it would be futile for me to try to explain it.

The Greek word, ereunate, is from the verb, ereuvao, meaning to search or to investigate. (It's the word used in Rev. 2: 23, which tells us that Christ is the one who "searches [investigates] minds and hearts.")

The form, ereunate, is can be either imperative or indicative. In other words, it can be translated either as a command or as a description of what someone is already doing in the present. (The Greek text reads, "eraunate.")

Most likely it should be understood as a present indicative and translated as the NKJV, NASB, and others translate it.

[oldsailor29]

Yes I understand what you are saying in your first paragraph. John 5:39 is often used as a proof text by SDAs to study your Bible for salvation, when in fact it is not. It was a rebuke to the Jews.

There are plenty of other texts that show we should study our Bibles, but I was simply trying to point out that Jesus in no way, said we should disregard the OT.

Good. You see John 5:39 as part of a rebuke for the people to whom he was speaking. Jesus was rebuking them for what? He was rebuking them for not following Him. He was saying,

"You should follow me, but you don't. You search scriptures instead of following me. The scriptures you search all point to me, but you still don't follow me, because you do not have God abiding in you."

This supports 1Cor.13, and Ecclesiastes, for without God all is vanity. I know Corinthians says "without love," but we can substitute the word "God" instead of "love," for 1John 4:8 says "God is love." And Ecclesiastes does not say "without God all is vanity," but how could it mean anything else?

Without God abiding in us, we cannot correctly interpret the Bible, no matter which method of interpretation we use. However, having God within us, we can find truth and harmony in all scripture. And having God abiding within us, we can use the dreaded historical/critical method to learn what scriptures meant originally, and then have a better idea of how they should be applied to ourselves. Having correctly divided one truth from another through exegesis, if we have God within us, we can by faith accept Jesus as God in the flesh here on earth, and all of His teachings as having been spoken directly from God.

I believe Jesus established Christianity. He taught and preached to multitudes. He taught His disciples and commissioned them. He taught them His proof texts and sent them to the whole world. And Paul claims Jesus taught him too. So I believe the entire Bible, except those parts which disagree with Jesus. And since I only know what Jesus said, I don't have to decide what agrees and what disagrees with Him.

I hope everybody grows up to be just like me, and only reads what Jesus said, the part which is printed in red.

[wayfinder]

God will not dwell in the same house with sin/lies, this is why it is necessary to be sanctified through the work of the Holy Spirit. Not every spirit is holy, that is why we must test the spirits to see if they are teaching the truth. We are sanctified by the truth and when there is no lie in our heart, mind and mouth we will demonstrate that we have completed the scantification/pureification process and will qualify as one of the 144,000.

Revelation 14:5 (speaking of the 144,000)

And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.

[Twilight]

God will not dwell in the same house with sin/lies, this is why it is necessary to be sanctified through the work of the Holy Spirit. Not every spirit is holy, that is why we must test the spirits to see if they are teaching the truth. We are sanctified by the truth and when there is no lie in our heart, mind and mouth we will demonstrate that we have completed the scantification/pureification process and will qualify as one of the 144,000.

Revelation 14:5 (speaking of the 144,000)

And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.

Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit to announce that Jesus was the Christ.

Then later on denounced for allowing Satan to speak through him.

How does that fit in to the idea that evil spirits cannot possess a Christian?

------------------

Consider David.

A man after Gods own heart.

Do you think an evil spirit had anything to do with his later sins?

------------------

Consider King Saul, given the Holy Spirit, yet later manifesting an evil spirit controlling him, even later going to them for counsel.

------------------

The idea that a Christian cannot be possessed of an evil spirit leads to the false teaching that a Christian cannot be in error.

This is a dangerous false belief, as it removes the protection God has supplied.

John said: "test the spirits".

Why test, if they could not affect us?

Mark

[wayfinder]

You missunderstand me. An evil spirit can possess a Christian. Satan is not prohibited from, or denied access to, Christians. In fact it would stand to reason that Satan would focus his best efforts on those who are seeking to know God and follow and obey Him. Some very great men of God have succumbed to temptation, king Saul did and was unrepentant, David did and was repentant, Daniel was firm to the end. The ultimate goal for those who wish to practice the will of God is to achieve victory over the attempts by the evil one to cause us to disobey God and put in practice his lies over the truth of God.

Revelation 3:21 `He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

[Twilight]

You missunderstand me. An evil spirit can possess a Christian. Satan is not prohibited from, or denied access to, Christians. In fact it would stand to reason that Satan would focus his best efforts on those who are seeking to know God and follow and obey Him. Some very great men of God have succumbed to temptation, king Saul did and was unrepentant, David did and was repentant, Daniel was firm to the end. The ultimate goal for those who wish to practice the will of God is to achieve victory over the attempts by the evil one to cause us to disobey God and put in practice his lies over the truth of God.

Revelation 3:21 `He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

I think I understand where you are coming from now.

Please clarify that this is your position/amend:

When we are fully sanctified, The Holy Spirit can dwell in us fully.

So we need to be sanctified first.

Because the Holy Spirit will not dwell in us because we are unclean.

----------------------

If that is correct, then I disagree.

Why?

The Corinthians had the gift of the Holy Spirit and were still getting themselves into all sorts of trouble.

The Spirit is given, THEN the Christian grows up into a Spirit led man.

This is my understanding.

Mark

[wayfinder]

Mt 5:48

"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth and by this will sanctify us by cleansing us from all sin ultimately bringing us to the state of being at one with God; therefore complying with the command of the Son of God in the above verse.

[Twilight]

Mt 5:48

"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth and by this will sanctify us by cleansing us from all sin ultimately bringing us to the state of being at one with God; therefore complying with the command of the Son of God in the above verse.

Indeed.

But the first thing on that journey is the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

When that is received into our hearts, then the process of sanctification begins.

Mark :-)

[Musicman1228]

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.” John 3:19-21.

The 'light' described in this verse is Truth, which is defined by Jesus Christ as Himself, and (when He left the earth for Heaven) His Holy Spirit, who keeps the learning of the light (truth) given by Jesus Christ going.

This indicates the operational order of having the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, actually come into you and dwell in you; you must first practice the truth, THEN the Holy Spirit will come to you.

Continuing to sin AFTER having 'received the Holy Spirit' indicates either that you didn't actually receive the Holy Spirit in the first place, OR that the spirit that you received WAS NOT the true Holy Spirit.

Now once someone has acknowledged their need of God they must willingly put themselves inside the process of Sanctification. During this process the Holy Spirit works with them in replacing the lies that make up their life with the truth, which will define their 'new' life in Jesus Christ. But there is a difference between having the Holy Spirit work with you and guiding you in the process of achieving the goal of Sanctification and believing that in spite of the fact that you still harbor lies, deceit and evil in your heart the Holy Spirit will come in and dwell in you just because you have asked for it.

God CANNOT dwell in anyone in whom there is sin. God and sin cannot co-exist in the same place. This is why God kicked Satan out of Heaven after the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Until that moment in time Satan had access to Heaven, and God legally could not prevent it. After the resurrection Truth triumphed over lies and God had the legal authority to remove Satan and his evil angels from the Heavens and restrict his presence to the earth.

God and Satan are in battle over the souls of mankind. Satan wants human beings to believe that they can become immune to evil merely by acquiring the 'Holy Spirit', which will make it impossible for them to be lost. Satan wants Christians to believe that they can have the Holy Spirit come into them and live in them even though they are unrighteous, and continue to sin and still be saved. This is a lie.

If a person wants the Holy Spirit to dwell in them then they must first make a place in themselves for the Spirit that is suitable. The ONLY suitable place for the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ is in a righteous person.

Can the Holy Spirit give birth to the unrighteousness? We show that we have not been born of God if we continue in sin after we say we have been 'born again'. The human birthing process in which a mother gives birth to her child can be long, arduous and painful. It just plain hurts. So why do Christians insist that the 'new birth' is as easy as saying the 'sinners prayer', accepting Jesus as our personal savior, and then having the Holy Spirit come into us right then in a fairly painless and benign way?

Please give this some serious thought. Ask yourself, "Why is it that the 'church' is not farther along in spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom to a world so desperately in need of hope?" Is it possible that the current gospel that we have been taking to the world is actually the wrong one? If the mark of a Christian is that they have already been 'born again' by the Holy Spirit then why do we continue in sin?

Being born again of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the end result of the process of rebirth wherein our sinful natures are replaced by the nature of God as seen in Jesus Christ. It is not the Nature of Jesus Christ to sin (although He could have). Therefore, if we continue to sin we do not display the nature of Jesus Christ, therefore we ARE NOT born again. Once we become born again our very nature becomes like that of our Master. When that occurs we will NOT sin, we will be righteous; and then we will be sealed in righteousness, and will be prepared for service to the world (the bride) during the time of the Great Tribulation.

[Michaeneu]

Therefore, if we continue to sin we do not display the nature of Jesus Christ, therefore we ARE NOT born again. Once we become born again our very nature becomes like that of our Master. When that occurs we will NOT sin, we will be righteous; and then we will be sealed in righteousness, and will be prepared for service to the world (the bride) during the time of the Great Tribulation.

Are you saying that you are not born again, MM? Or are you saying that you don't sin anymore? I can't quite grasp what you're saying here. If you're saying you don't sin anymore, I've got news for ya...

Michael