Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Sean Pitman.
There are “sins of ignorance”, and I suppose there always will be – even in Heaven. I’m sure even the angels make mistakes, on occasion, due to their ignorance (like accidentally stepping on another angel’s foot during choir practice). While one will naturally apologize for such “sins” once they are consciously realized, there is no moral guilt involved for the “sin” itself since it was the result of honest ignorance and was not the result of any deliberate rebellion against God or the Royal Law of Love.
You quote Ellen White to suggest that Jesus had to die for “sins of ignorance” as well as deliberate sins of rebellion against known truth. You take her statements out of context of all that she has to say on this topic.
The fact of the matter is that if sin were only the result of ignorance on our part, Jesus need not have died. All He would have had to do is say, “By the way, your stepping on my foot.” And, we would say, “Oh, do forgive me.” He would say, “Ok.” And, that would be the end of it. There would have been absolutely no reason for Jesus to need to go to the cross in such a situation – to die for mere ignorance.
The reason Jesus had to die for our sins is because our problem isn’t mere ignorance. Our problem is deliberate and willful transgression of what we consciously know is right and good. Deliberate rebellion in the light of truth is a whole different ball of wax altogether!
To obtain a more balanced view of Mrs. White’s position, consider the following comments regarding sin, truth, honest ignorance and guilt (in her discussion of John 9:41):
If God had made it impossible for you to see the truth, your ignorance would involve no guilt. “But now ye say, We see.” You believe yourselves able to see, and reject the means through which alone you could receive sight. To all who realized their need, Christ came with infinite help. But the Pharisees would confess no need; they refused to come to Christ, and hence they were left in blindness,–a blindness for which they were themselves guilty. Jesus said, “Your sin remaineth.” – EGW, DA, p. 475
Ignorance is no excuse for error or sin, when there is every opportunity to know the will of God. – EGW, GC, p. 597
You see, the reason why the guilt of the Pharisees remained is not because of their ignorance. As Mrs. White points out, ignorance would be a valid excuse for sin and a means to free one of moral guilt for sin, if the ignorance was honest ignorance. If the Pharisees had been honestly ignorant both Jesus and Mrs. White declare that they would not have been morally responsible or guilty for their sins of ignorance. Their problem was due to willful ignorance. They refused to investigate what they knew was true – and were therefore left in their self-imposed ignorance. This isn’t the same thing as honest ignorance – which most definitely is recognized, by God, as a valid reason for not being morally responsible for any and all sins committed while in the state of honest ignorance.
Along these lines, Mrs. White makes numerous other statements:
My brethren, if we were blind, we would not sin, but we have been privileged to look upon great light. The treasures of truth and knowledge have been bestowed upon us without limit, and we are guilty in proportion to our failure to live up to the truth that has been placed within our reach. – EGW, RH, Feb 25, 1890
Also, you continually avoid my question to you about the difference between animals and humans? Why is it that animals are not guilty of the sins of their fallen nature? – if completely ignorant humans would be morally guilty for the same acts?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
I guess someone who accepts neo-Darwinism must have some problems with the reality of Biblical prophecy…
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
You didn’t answer my question as to what you would do if you happened to have been in a place like Sandy Hook Elementary School when a shooter entered the building. Or, what you would do if someone threatened the lives of your own family. Also, don’t tell me that Australia has no police force or that the police there don’t carry guns…
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
The Bible and Ellen White are very clear that Satan and his angels were forced to leave heaven just as Adam and Eve were forced to leave Eden after they fell to Satan’s charms. They are also very clear that the wicked will one day be excluded, by force, from the New Jerusalem and will, eventually, be completely destroyed from existence. I don’t think that’s how it worked with you and your family…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
