Sanctification and Perfection friendly debate thread.

[Bravus]

I guess we could add to your list, Sulla

4. They are correct but you (i.e. I) misunderstand them

In this discussion so far there have been quotes brought from her that *seem* contradictory, or to support different positions. Your solution to that has been to suggest that in fact they all support one coherent position, and where they seem not to they are being misunderstood. Mine has been to suggest that perhaps she was inconsistent on this issue to some extent, or at least emphasised different things at different times to enough of an extent that to the casual reader it looks as though her actual position was different.

I think you're correct in saying that there are a number of possible reasons for rejecting some or all of her writings - I basically just wanted to get on the record as rejecting the idea that the only possible motivation was a desire to cling to cherished sin. Ascribing that motivation to others is unfair and unfriendly.

[Bravus]

As always in this discussion, we're saying the same things in slightly different ways and going around in circles. And claiming that our opponents are saying dramatically different things.

I agree that our lives change dramatically at the moment of salvation and a new character develops. I don't believe the new character is given in a flash, it takes time to grow, and EGW agrees with this.

You guys say 'our works have nothing to do with our salvation, it's all Jesus', but then immediately say 'but we can't be saved if we're not living right'. It's a matter of emphasis: what you're actually saying is 'the fact that we're living right is evidence that we've ben saved and believe, and if we're not living right it's evidence that we don't believe'. And since believing is the criterion for salvation, it's evidence that we might not be saved. I agree with all that. But your emphasis makes it *seem* as though our works are part of our salvation, and Jesus is just the fallback plan when we fail. You've said as much several times.

[Woody]

Neil

Quote:

And yet, both sin and Christ, for the Christain are in the lives of each. Otherwise, why the DAILY submission/justification?

But no, it is NOT ONLY about choice. David mentioned that he was concieved in sin [that's a reference to the nature of sin in the human.]. There are references to iniquity, which is a reference to our natural tendencys to self destruct. And I am sure that there were other texts that refers that sin is in nature.

And I agree that as we make those daily decisions for Christ, the hope is that there is a change in our behavior. But our behavior does NOT guarentee entrance into heaven. It is our hope/fait/love in Christ's sacrifice for us that gets us there.........

You seem to be getting my point in reverse order. Our actions our the evidence of our heart. If we dont have them its the sign to us and God alike our heart is not correct. He says take this new heart now in this life. This new character now in this life. Take my power now in this life. He is giving us the gift of breaking the chains so we dont have to live in sin in this life. And you are saying no he does not have the power to help us overcome our sin since we have these fallen bodies. We will have to wait until he comes. So again I say its all about WHEN we think he gives us a new character.

The point here is that none of us measure up. If we want to measure works ... we all fail and therefore none of us have the power of God in our life like we should. It is evidence that we are not accepting the gift. Our hearts are not right. We need a Saviour.

[Sulla]

Quote:

I guess we could add to your list, Sulla

4. They are correct but you (i.e. I) misunderstand them

In this discussion so far there have been quotes brought from her that *seem* contradictory, or to support different positions. Your solution to that has been to suggest that in fact they all support one coherent position, and where they seem not to they are being misunderstood. Mine has been to suggest that perhaps she was inconsistent on this issue to some extent, or at least emphasised different things at different times to enough of an extent that to the casual reader it looks as though her actual position was different.

I think you're correct in saying that there are a number of possible reasons for rejecting some or all of her writings - I basically just wanted to get on the record as rejecting the idea that the only possible motivation was a desire to cling to cherished sin. Ascribing that motivation to others is unfair and unfriendly.

Thats why I made clear that it could be a number of reasons.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Sulla

If you find Ellen White statements that dont agree with your interpretation of things you say they must be in error.

In other words Redwood, don't think for yourself. Don't let the Spirit guide. You must let EGW be your guide. She must be your pope. She must dictate to you her infallible knowledge so that you too can be saved.

Rob

I think you are on to something Robert.

This would appear to be their theology.

[Sulla]

Quote:

As always in this discussion, we're saying the same things in slightly different ways and going around in circles. And claiming that our opponents are saying dramatically different things.

I agree that our lives change dramatically at the moment of salvation and a new character develops. I don't believe the new character is given in a flash, it takes time to grow, and EGW agrees with this.

You guys say 'our works have nothing to do with our salvation, it's all Jesus', but then immediately say 'but we can't be saved if we're not living right'. It's a matter of emphasis: what you're actually saying is 'the fact that we're living write is evidence that we've ben saved and believe, and if we're not living right it's evidence that we don't believe'. And since believing is the criterion for salvation, it's evidence that we might not be saved. I agree with all that. But your emphasis makes it *seem* as though our works are part of our salvation, and Jesus is just the fallback plan when we fail. You've said as much several times.

I really think its more than this. In one view a christian thinking he is correct with God can say well this known sin is just part of the process God will take care of it for me at some point in the future. Or with the other understanding he can say. This known sin means I am not really surrendered to God 100% like I think I am. That I need to surrender all to God. These ideas can lead to a different idea of the Christian life. A different idea of how to tell if you really have given all to God.

[Woody]

Quote:

I don't think that anyone is looking to absolving oneself from sin...we all know that we stand condemned. The problem is what to do after a Christian accepts Christ. What is his status/duty as a Christian?

It is my opinion, based upon talks with Dennis Priebe, et al theologins, that what Christ works on is the character of the individual. Yes, it is our characters that we take to heaven, but we are already saved due to our choice in accepting Christ's sacrifice. There is absolutely no way to be justified before, or after our acceptance of the Sacrifice before God based upon our merits. Tain't gonna happen.

Having said that, nevertheless, we respond, based upon our knowledge and our understanding and our circumstances to Christ as evidence that we have responded to His Sacrifice....and it affects our characters...

I think you are confusing what we are saying our actions are. Our actions show that we have accepted the new character that is part of justification and sanctification. If we have accepted this we can not be living in known sin. If we are living in known sin you really have not given God 100% of your heart.

Now you are getting closer to the truth.

No. We have not given our hearts 100% to God. If we did that ... we would be sinless. But he knows our hearts desire. He knows that we want to serve Him better. Step by step he leads and guides. Slowly we give more of our heart to Him. But even when we give 10% ... we are saved. Yes, He desires more. But the moment we accept Him as our Saviour .... we are saved. At that moment ... we give Him 100% of our desire. But at that moment ... we have not surrendered 100% or we would be perfect instantly. No ... perfection takes time. Step by step.

I have sin in my life. Known sin. I am SLOWLY giving more and more of that KNOWN sin ... to Jesus. But my slow ability to give it to Him ... does not in any way take away from my SAVED STATUS at this very moment. Before I stir all of you up from your slumber ... No it does not mean once saved always saved. But I know for certain at this moment that I am accepted by Jesus. Therefore I am now saved. If I should die today ... I will be among the Redeemed.

[Sulla]

At this point I would suggest our different understanding and use of perfection is a huge amount of the problem. Causing people to talk past each other.

So lets look at some things if thats ok.

1. Is there a difference between known and unknown sin?

From what I can tell we believe yes and you believe no.

2. When talking of perfection are we always talking about perfection like Gods. I mean no unknown sin.

It looks like your side is always talking about Gods type of perfection when using the word perfection. While we are not using it always in that way.

--

Since we are not using the words in the same way. We cant even agree on what we agree on and disagree on.

[Bravus]

Quote:

I really think its more than this. In one view a christian thinking he is correct with God can say well this known sin is just part of the process God will take care of it for me at some point in the future. Or with the other understanding he can say. This known sin means I am not really surrendered to God 100% like I think I am. That I need to surrender all to God. These ideas can lead to a different idea of the Christian life. A different idea of how to tell if you really have given all to God.

I guess it could happen that way, but it's not inevitable. In fact my perspective is well described by your scheme of known and unknown sin. I agree that all known sin needs to be rejected, repented of, and removed from the life, in God's power and strength. So then the growth that is being talked about is the bringing to light by God of unknown sins - including sins of omission - in His time for us to work through.

The similarity, though, is that the sins of the believer are a barometer of the belief. That seems fair enough. If you guys were able to just let go of this notion that you have that we believe as we do because we want to go on sinning, known sins, then this discussion would be a lot simpler.

[Sulla]

Quote:

Now you are getting closer to the truth.

No. We have not given our hearts 100% to God. If we did that ... we would be sinless. But he knows our hearts desire. He knows that we want to serve Him better. Step by step he leads and guides. Slowly we give more of our heart to Him. But even when we give 10% ... we are saved. Yes, He desires more. But the moment we accept Him as our Saviour .... we are saved. At that moment ... we give Him 100% of our desire. But at that moment ... we have not surrendered 100% or we would be perfect instantly. No ... perfection takes time. Step by step.

I have sin in my life. Known sin. I am SLOWLY giving more and more of that KNOWN sin ... to Jesus. But my slow ability to give it to Him ... does not in any way take away from my SAVED STATUS at this very moment. Before I stir all of you up from your slumber ... No it does not mean once saved always saved. But I know for certain at this moment that I am accept Jesus. Therefore I am now saved. If I should die today ... I will be among the Redeemed.

This makes more things more clear. But it also is clearly wrong. See below.

Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

In all the instructions of Jesus, he presents before us the character of God. We are called upon to love God with undivided heart.....He will accept nothing but the whole heart, the supreme love. There must be nothing that will draw the mind away from him. Anything that interposes itself between God and the soul, assumes the form of an idol. Every other thing that can attract the heart is inferior to God, and no man can serve two masters whose interests are at variance. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

--

No man can serve two masters. If you try to serve the world and the Lord at the same time, the result will be that worldly policy and worldly schemes will become supreme in your life. Why? Because the word of God will become uncongenial; for the heart is not committed to the molding and fashioning of the Holy Spirit. The will is not given up to God, and therefore enmity to God is revealed. The natural impulses of the heart, ministering to the natural man, are chosen to control. . . . {MM 114.4}

---

Ye cannot serve God and mammon." {3T 477.4}

Here Christ has brought before us two masters, God and the world, and has plainly presented the fact that it is simply impossible for us to serve both. If our interest in, and love for, this world predominate, we shall not appreciate the things, which, above all others, are worthy of our attention. The love of the world will exclude the love of God and make our highest interests subordinate to worldly considerations. Thus God will not hold so exalted a place in our affections and devotions as do the things of the world. {3T 478.1}

Our works will show the exact extent to which earthly treasures have our affections. The greatest care, anxiety, and labor are devoted to worldly interests, while eternal considerations are made secondary. Here Satan receives of man that homage which he claimed of Christ but failed to obtain. It is the selfish love of the world which corrupts the faith of the professed followers of Christ and makes them weak in moral power. The more they love their earthly riches, the further they depart from God, and the less do they partake of His divine nature that would give them a sense of the corrupting influences in the world and the dangers to which they are exposed. {3T 478.2}

--

[Sulla]

Quote:

I guess it could happen that way, but it's not inevitable. In fact my perspective is well described by your scheme of known and unknown sin. I agree that all known sin needs to be rejected, repented of, and removed from the life, in God's power and strength. So then the growth that is being talked about is the bringing to light by God of unknown sins - including sins of omission - in His time for us to work through.

The similarity, though, is that the sins of the believer are a barometer of the belief. That seems fair enough. If you guys were able to just let go of this notion that you have that we believe as we do because we want to go on sinning, known sins, then this discussion would be a lot simpler.

Part of the problem is also there are not really just two ideas. For example look at what Redwood just said not not giving 100% of your heart to God. I have the feeling you do not agree with this.

[Woody]

Sulla ...

Your understanding of perfection is clearly understood. That is not the problem.

The problem is ...

You think you have victory over all known sin at this point ... when you really don't. If this were true ... then you are obviously not allowing the Holy Spirit to work in your life.

When the Holy Spirit convicts you of sin ... you don't instantaneously have victory over that known sin. NO. That known sin ... sits around for awhile while you seek victory. I know of no one who the instant a sin is shown ... just says ... oh okay .... I give that to you God. Zap. Instant victory. This is what it sounds like you do. Perfection of known sins with no struggles. Instant victory. Easy.

Well ... the rest of us struggle to give 100% to God. We wrestle with God. We cry and pray and eventually we give 100% to this particular sin. But in the meanwhile ... we could be caught without victory over known sin ... and with your philosophy .... we would be condemned to Hell.

Not much assurance in that kind of philosophy. I would certainly be afraid of God if I believed that.

Praise God ... it by HIS stripes that we are healed. He offered us salvation without any strings attached.

[Neil D]

Neil

Quote:

And yet, both sin and Christ, for the Christain are in the lives of each. Otherwise, why the DAILY submission/justification?

But no, it is NOT ONLY about choice. David mentioned that he was concieved in sin [that's a reference to the nature of sin in the human.]. There are references to iniquity, which is a reference to our natural tendencys to self destruct. And I am sure that there were other texts that refers that sin is in nature.

And I agree that as we make those daily decisions for Christ, the hope is that there is a change in our behavior. But our behavior does NOT guarentee entrance into heaven. It is our hope/fait/love in Christ's sacrifice for us that gets us there.........

You seem to be getting my point in reverse order. Our actions our the evidence of our heart. If we dont have them its the sign to us and God alike our heart is not correct. He says take this new heart now in this life. This new character now in this life. Take my power now in this life. He is giving us the gift of breaking the chains so we dont have to live in sin in this life. And you are saying no he does not have the power to help us overcome our sin since we have these fallen bodies. We will have to wait until he comes. So again I say its all about WHEN we think he gives us a new character.

The problem with "evidence of our heart" allows for spiritual pride. Remember the Publican who prayed before God-"I thank thee God that I am not like this tax collector...." He was condemned by Jesus. It was his sin that caused him to be so prideful.

You keep forgetting, our task, as Christians is to improve our characters....It's not choices...Remember God's gift to us is our life...what we make of it, is our gift to God. So, in one sense, yes, we do recieve power to overcome our sins...But remember, our sinful natures influences our daily decisions. Robert is correct when he says/intimates that self-love is humanity's problem. While "self-love" is a good description, another discription is "iniquity". [That's the biblical word, but no layman has been able to define it very well.]

You say that we have a 'new charater" at conversion....The bible says that we have recieved a new heart and a new spirit at conversion. That is not a new character...but still, with our current body, and our new heart and new spirit, we ARE a new creature...Our task is to improve our personality/characters in the old body...

[Woody]

Quote:

It is become increasingly clear that the only way for some is to reject the Spirit of Prophecy, the same source of authority they use when it supports their favorite idea.

There are many who do the same with the Scriptures.

This is unworthy of you, John. You are impugning the motives of those with whom you disagree.

I don't want to get off into a tangent on EGW, but I don't think it's helpful at all to tar those with different views in this 'friendly debate' thread in the ways you did above. I was also disturbed by your longer post claiming that their views are an excuse to hang onto their loved sins.

Bravus ... I too am disappoint that this friendly conversation had to be turned into finger pointing and condemning of others hearts and souls. But this is a common mantra amoung certain types of Adventists. Very common unfortunately. Sad. But, true. It usually comes around to this.

Those of us who don't believe exactly as this group of SDAs are just looking for an excuse to sin. How ridiculous and judgmental.

[Woody]

Quote:

Then why are you not perfect as God is perfect? Why are you sinning? Why is there self-seeking in your life. After all EGW said:

"Self-love, self-interest, must perish."

Instead of my typing it again. Reference back to my understanding of perfection in our sphere. Known and unknown sin.

The point here Sulla ...

You are sinning with known sins ... even if you don't know it.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: bygjymbo

Why would God set up laws and hold us to standards that are impossible to obey??

The law was given so you could become a good little boy and get into heaven through your righteousness. No, the law was given to turn sin into transgression. It really made matters worse. Before you were living what you thought was the good life, the natural way, and then comes the law and says "no, you are a sinner and you stand condemned!"

So it made matter worse. Why? Read Gal chapter 3

The problem with Lucifer was that he thought HE was GOD. The law demonstrates to us ... just how far from being God that we really are.

[Woody]

Well, you do have one wrong idea... Redwood is a dude.

At least this is a start. Perhaps this error will be acknowledged and perhaps it won't.

[Woody]

Quote:

3. You heart is right like William Miller but because of those around your. Or your age. Or something else you reject something that is correct.

Okay. This is where I get upset. Now we are saying that those who are 'old' have less intelligence. Just how old it 'old'?

[Sulla]

Quote:

You think you have victory over all known sin at this point ... when you really don't. If this were true ... then you are obviously not allowing the Holy Spirit to work in your life.

Not at all. Its like Ellen White describes. You will fill like the worst sinner ever. But not have a known sin right at this moment before you. Look at it the other way. If you are say sleeping with the man next doors wife you are probably not saved.

Quote:

When the Holy Spirit convicts you of sin ... you don't instantaneously have victory over that known sin. NO. That known sin ... sit around for awhile while you seek victory. I know of no one who the instant a sin is shown ... just says ... oh okay .... I give that to you God. Zap. Instant victory. This is what it sounds like you do. Perfection of known sins with no struggles. Instant victory. Easy.

No it is possible. God can give you instant victory over each known sin as he shows them to you if you let him.

Talking about daily sanctification we have this...

Sanctification is a daily work. Let none deceive themselves with the belief that God will pardon and bless them while they are trampling upon one of his requirements. The willful commission of one known sin silences the witnessing voice of the Spirit, and separates the soul from God. Whatever may be the ecstacies of religious feeling, Jesus cannot abide in the heart that disregards the divine law. God will honor those only who honor him. {RH, May 3, 1881 par. 10}

"His servants ye are to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey." If we indulge anger, lust, covetousness, hatred, selfishness, or any other sin, we become servants of sin. "No man can serve two masters." If we serve sin, we cannot serve Christ. The Christian will feel the promptings of sin, for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit; but the Spirit striveth against the flesh, keeping up a constant warfare. Here is where Christ's help is needed. Human weakness becomes united to divine strength, and faith exclaims, "Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!" {RH, May 3, 1881 par. 11}

[Woody]

I guess we could add to your list, Sulla

4. They are correct but you (i.e. I) misunderstand them

In this discussion so far there have been quotes brought from her that *seem* contradictory, or to support different positions. Your solution to that has been to suggest that in fact they all support one coherent position, and where they seem not to they are being misunderstood. Mine has been to suggest that perhaps she was inconsistent on this issue to some extent, or at least emphasised different things at different times to enough of an extent that to the casual reader it looks as though her actual position was different.

I think you're correct in saying that there are a number of possible reasons for rejecting some or all of her writings - I basically just wanted to get on the record as rejecting the idea that the only possible motivation was a desire to cling to cherished sin. Ascribing that motivation to others is unfair and unfriendly.

Thank you Bravus. A voice of reason. A sensible voice finally. As I said before ... this assigning those who think differently with a desire to sin ... this is their common mantra and it is unfortunate. It just destroys a 'friendly' discussion.

[Woody]

Quote:

Just how old it 'old'?

When you get old enough do distinguish 'pasture muffins' from real 'muffins'!

Okay ... let's not bring up 'old' dirt on me.

[Sulla]

By the way the reason why people tend to say that if say you are saved while sinning is because your heart is wrong is this. Ellen White says that for most this is the case. No matter what they have decieved themselves into thinking. The truth is love of sin.

But I just try and make it a habbit of not saying things that sound like I am judging you. Since I cant judge you any more than I could judge William Miller. But I can point out where you are wrong;)

[Woody]

Quote:

As always in this discussion, we're saying the same things in slightly different ways and going around in circles. And claiming that our opponents are saying dramatically different things.

I agree that our lives change dramatically at the moment of salvation and a new character develops. I don't believe the new character is given in a flash, it takes time to grow, and EGW agrees with this.

You guys say 'our works have nothing to do with our salvation, it's all Jesus', but then immediately say 'but we can't be saved if we're not living right'. It's a matter of emphasis: what you're actually saying is 'the fact that we're living write is evidence that we've ben saved and believe, and if we're not living right it's evidence that we don't believe'. And since believing is the criterion for salvation, it's evidence that we might not be saved. I agree with all that. But your emphasis makes it *seem* as though our works are part of our salvation, and Jesus is just the fallback plan when we fail. You've said as much several times.

I really think its more than this. In one view a christian thinking he is correct with God can say well this known sin is just part of the process God will take care of it for me at some point in the future. Or with the other understanding he can say. This known sin means I am not really surrendered to God 100% like I think I am. That I need to surrender all to God. These ideas can lead to a different idea of the Christian life. A different idea of how to tell if you really have given all to God.

The point that you are missing is that none of us are given 100% to God. We ARE a work in process. But to look at the Christian life like you do ... would discourage anyone. Then ... no works for sure would be seen?

[Woody]

At this point I would suggest our different understanding and use of perfection is a huge amount of the problem. Causing people to talk past each other.

So lets look at some things if thats ok.

1. Is there a difference between known and unknown sin?

From what I can tell we believe yes and you believe no.

2. When talking of perfection are we always talking about perfection like Gods. I mean no unknown sin.

It looks like your side is always talking about Gods type of perfection when using the word perfection. While we are not using it always in that way.

--

Since we are not using the words in the same way. We cant even agree on what we agree on and disagree on.

The answer to number one is that they are the same in that we don't have total victory over either one.

Number two ... God has no sins period. Known or Unknown. But it does not matter. You and I have both kinds of sins.

[Sulla]

Well I think the thread has about gotten to the point where no one is really presenting anything new. Every one has stated their belief and understandings of ideas and words. So unless someone has something new I think at this point I will move on.