Are we born justified?

[pnattmbtc]

"Retained" doesn't make sense here.  It's just there.  It doesn't need to be "retained."

What does not make sense is to retain something that is not even there.

That's my point; the names of the wicked aren't there to start with. 

[pnattmbtc]

Wicked people raise wicked children, and righteous people raise righteous children (of course, there can be exceptions to this, but this is the general case). So when Isiah saw children in the new earth, it was a class of children, the children of righteous parents.  Isaiah didn't see Canaanite chlidren on the new earth.

​Samie: You have a verse for this? None? Are you then trying to convince me to believe what you say even without basis in Scriptures?

You want me to produce a verse which says that Isaiah didn't see Canaanite children on the new earth?  How about if I said Isaiah didn't see Martians on the new earth?  Would you want a verse for that too?

I don't understand your request here.  Is there something I wrote that you disagree with?  If so, what is it? 

[pnattmbtc]

Consider the Canaanites.  The Isralites were told to destroy all of them, even the little children.  Why all the Canaanities?  Because they were all wicked.  We have precident in Scripture that God makes special effort to save the innocent (consider, e.g., the account of Lot and Sodom).  So even though there will children before the age of accountability, they were still wicked.

Samie:Any verse in the Bible saying there are wicked children among those before the age of accountability?  Ohh, yes. If I remember right, you said there's none. So why insist?

Regarding your first question, is it your contention that there are no wicked children before the age of accountability?  My argument is based on this Scripture which says that all the Canaanities were to be destroyed, and if there were innocent Canaanites, they would have been spared, just as in the case of Sodom.  I didn't present these texts because I assumed you were aware of them.

Samie:And speaking of Canaanites, why do you think did Jesus choose a Canaanite as one of the Twelve?

Because all babies have their names written in the book of life?  I don't know what this has to do with the subject.

Is it your contention that there is no such thing as a wicked child? 

[LifeHiscost]

And I thought an Adventist discussion board, especially this one - Theological Townhall, should base discussions upon Scriptures, which I believe is the basis of Adventist Theology.

​Will this help any? While I suppose it might be otherwise in a small number of cases, since it is Biblical it could be speaking considering no deviation.

6Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it....Proverbs 22

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

 

[Robert]

Because of these basic Bible principles of salvation, it is logical to conclude that all children are born in the default state of saved. That does not mean they are not still born with a sinful nature--that is, a nature that is inherently bent toward selfishness and rebellion. But until a child has reached the age of accountability where he or she is able to decide for himself what to do with the grace of God, that child is the property of God. Jesus paid for him or her.

​

Couldn't have said it better!   

[Robert]

 

What I have maintained is that I agree with Ellen White in her assertion that this is not a subject upon which light has given; i.e., there are no Scripture texts to be given.

​The question has been asked me [Ellen White], "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth [the Bible]. We [Ellen White includes herself] have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

[LifeHiscost]

Couldn't have said it better!   

​

And there is no Scripture that I can think of that referes to names being put into the book of life, which would therefor lead to the conclusion that only those who wouldn't be there are those who will be taken out as a result of refusing to receive repentance for sins committed.

17Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin....James 4

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Robert]

The law is a tool to bring the problem to light, which is not a legal problem per se, but a problem upon which the law sheds light.  It doesn't create the problem, but helps to solve the problem by driving a person to Christ, where He can find righteousness.

​Oh, but it does create a problem.  While part of what you stated is true (i.e., " driving a person to Christ"), the reason that it should drive the sinner to Christ is because remaining "under law" means the curse, the 2nd death.

Your view develops from Reformationist Theology,  which accepts only imputed righteousness, because, according to this theology, it is not possible for any person, apart from Christ, to do anything but sin, because all acts are tainted by original sin. 

1] Original sin states that we are born guilty of Adam's sin.

2] Ultimately it is Christ's imputed righteousness that saves.  Even Ellen White infers this in certain statements.  Our growth in grace doesn't answer the law because the law only accepts perfection.  So our works of faith proves our faith (not our righteous) and gives Christ the legal right to present us perfect "in Himself"

3] The Bible plainly states "Without Me you can do nothing", nothing good, that is.  All we can produce is polluted with self-interest and self-love.

 

Edited June 6, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

 Do you not believe that Jesus Christ as a young child overcame evil?

Jesus wasn't born as we are born.  Jesus, as the  Son of Man, was born "spiritually alive".  This simply means that His mind was under the full control of God's Spirit from conception.  Hence Christ never experienced addiction or slavery to sin because He never sinned, yet He was tempted more severely then we are.  How so?  Because He could have, independent of His Father's will, grabbed hold of His Divinity come down off the cross and saved Himself.  What a temptation!  He was tempted, by our nature, to save Himself using the power of His own Divinity. 

Edited June 6, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

....if there were innocent Canaanites, they would have been spared, just as in the case of Sodom.

That supposition.  Again, infants cannot understand their actions.  

Who allowed sin?  Answer: God

I mean He knew Lucifer would invent his system of self-love, but He created him anyway.  Why?  There's no answer, now.

So while God didn't invent sin, He is responsible for allowing it.

Babies are born bent to self, at no fault of their own, because God allowed it and therefore ultimately He responsible for sin. Therefore if a baby is born lost (as you state) then God is making humanity the scapegoat instead of taking the responsibility.  But that's not the case because God has taken responsibility for all that's wrong as if He did it Himself:

Is 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Deut 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill , and I make alive ; I wound , and I heal : neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.:

 

Edited June 6, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

​Will this help any? While I suppose it might be otherwise in a small number of cases, since it is Biblical it could be speaking considering no deviation.

6Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it....Proverbs 22

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

 

​Okay, fine, but if that child dies before he/she can understand spiritual truths, then what?  Too bad for them?

Again, we would not have sin if God hadn't allow it.  Why did He? There's no answer. Therefore while God didn't create sin, He is responsible for allowing it.  Why then would a loving God, who has allowed sin to develop, put the blame on the innocent?  Infants didn't ask to be born sinners in a sinful world dominated by self-love. That's why God sent Christ to legally delivery us from under law and yet maintain legitimacy for His law.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law

Edited June 6, 2015 by Robert

[joeb]

​

And there is no Scripture that I can think of that referes to names being put into the book of life, which would therefor lead to the conclusion that only those who wouldn't be there are those who will be taken out as a result of refusing to receive repentance for sins committed.

17Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin....James 4

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

​First, arguing from silence is a very weak argument.  Second the book of Revelation speaks several times of people whose names are written in the book of life....  It also speaks of those whose names were not written in the book.  It doesn't say they weren't ever there, it just states that they aren't at the time of the end. 

The only other conclusion is once saved always saved if you want to follow your conclusion to it's logical end.  God said who would be saved and all the rest were created only to be destroyed.  You really want to buy into that?

[pnattmbtc]

​The question has been asked me [Ellen White], "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth [the Bible]. We [Ellen White includes herself] have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

​This would, obviously, be in regards to subjects upon which the Scriptures are not silent.

[pnattmbtc]

The law is a tool to bring the problem to light, which is not a legal problem per se, but a problem upon which the law sheds light.  It doesn't create the problem, but helps to solve the problem by driving a person to Christ, where He can find righteousness.

​Oh, but it does create a problem.  While part of what you stated is true (i.e., " driving a person to Christ"), the reason that it should drive the sinner to Christ is because remaining "under law" means the curse, the 2nd death.

It does not create any problems which didn't already exist, but sheds light on what's happening.  Death would always be the result of separating oneself from God, who alone is the source of life.  

[pnattmbtc]

Your view develops from Reformationist Theology,  which accepts only imputed righteousness, because, according to this theology, it is not possible for any person, apart from Christ, to do anything but sin, because all acts are tainted by original sin. 

Robert: 1] Original sin states that we are born guilty of Adam's sin.

The doctrine of original sin is more about depravity than guilt:

Original sin is the doctrine which holds that human nature has been morally and ethically corrupted due to the disobedience of mankind's first parents to the revealed will of God. (www.theodepedia.com)

 

2] Ultimately it is Christ's imputed righteousness that saves.  Even Ellen White infers this in certain statements.  Our growth in grace doesn't answer the law because the law only accepts perfection.  So our works of faith proves our faith (not our righteous) and gives Christ the legal right to present us perfect "in Himself"

I think you mean she implies it.  But it would clearer what you had in mind if you quoted a statement you had in mind.

3] The Bible plainly states "Without Me you can do nothing", nothing good, that is.  All we can produce is polluted with self-interest and self-love.

This is similar to the original sin idea, and was the point of my post.  As long as the doctrine of original sin is held (or something similar, like what you're proposing), then righteousness by faith can only have to do with imputed righteousness, because any imparted righteousness would be polluted.  But consider the following:

Only the covering which Christ Himself has provided can make us meet to appear in God's presence. This covering, the robe of His own righteousness, Christ will put upon every repenting, believing soul. "I counsel thee," He says, "to buy of Me . . . white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear." Rev. 3:18.

This robe, woven in the loom of heaven, has in it not one thread of human devising. Christ in His humanity wrought out a perfect character, and this character He offers to impart to us....

When we submit ourselves to Christ, the heart is united with His heart, the will is merged in His will, the mind becomes one with His mind, the thoughts are brought into captivity to Him; we live His life. This is what it means to be clothed with the garment of His righteousness. Then as the Lord looks upon us He sees, not the fig-leaf garment, not the nakedness and deformity of sin, but His own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah. (COL 311)

 Not believing in original sin allows for the possibility of the Gospel not being limited to imputed righteousness, as this quote illustrates.  Notice that Christ wrought out a perfect character, which He offers to impart to us.  Also note what being clothed in Christ's righteousness means: the heart is united with His heart, the will with His will, and the thoughts brought into captivity to Him.

[pnattmbtc]

....if there were innocent Canaanites, they would have been spared, just as in the case of Sodom.

Robert:That supposition.  Again, infants cannot understand their actions.  

Who allowed sin?  Answer: God

I mean He knew Lucifer would invent his system of self-love, but He created him anyway.  Why?  There's no answer, now.

So while God didn't invent sin, He is responsible for allowing it.

Babies are born bent to self, at no fault of their own, because God allowed it and therefore ultimately He responsible for sin. Therefore if a baby is born lost (as you state) then God is making humanity the scapegoat instead of taking the responsibility.  But that's not the case because God has taken responsibility for all that's wrong as if He did it Himself:

Is 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Deut 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill , and I make alive ; I wound , and I heal : neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.:

1.What I asserted is that there is ample Scriptural evidence that God will spare the righteous, and the story of Sodom is an example of this.  Why would this be considered supposition?

2.I disagree with your assertion regarding Lucifer.  There's a thread dealing with the subject of foreknowledge, if you would like to discuss it.

3.I do agree that God is responsible for allowing sin.

4.Why are you asserting I stated that a baby is born lost?  I never said that.  I've been arguing against the idea that all babies are born with their names written in the book of life.

5. Why did you quote the last two texts?  When you quote texts, please explain why you are quoting them.  What point were you wishing to make with these texts?

[Robert]

 

1.What I asserted is that there is ample Scriptural evidence that God will spare the righteous, and the story of Sodom is an example of this.  Why would this be considered supposition?

[And there are examples where God does not, such as Heb 11:35-38]

2.I disagree with your assertion regarding Lucifer.  There's a thread dealing with the subject of foreknowledge, if you would like to discuss it.

[So God, being omniscient, had no idea what was coming?]

3.I do agree that God is responsible for allowing sin.

[He created Lucifer. He knew Lucifer would rebel against His agape love.  Nothing catches God by surprise.]

4.Why are you asserting I stated that a baby is born lost?  I never said that.  I've been arguing against the idea that all babies are born with their names written in the book of life.

[So babies are born saved by grace?]

5. Why did you quote the last two texts?  When you quote texts, please explain why you are quoting them.  What point were you wishing to make with these texts?

[Because God assumes the blame since He has allowed sin to enter this world.  He assumes the responsibility for iniquity until the day of atonement.  In these texts God portrays Himself as "creating evil" because He allowed sin to develop.]

​

Edited June 7, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

​This would, obviously, be in regards to subjects upon which the Scriptures are not silent.

​Really?  Prove this using Ellen White's writings.  Furthermore she never claimed infallibility. 

[Robert]

 

It does not create any problems which didn't already exist, but sheds light on what's happening.  Death would always be the result of separating oneself from God, who alone is the source of life.  

​The wages of sin is death.  Death, the 2nd death, is the result of rejecting the righteousness of Christ.  Those who reject Christ must stand before God's law in their own so called righteousness. 

[Robert]

 

​​Notice that Christ wrought out a perfect character, which He offers to impart to us.  Also note what being clothed in Christ's righteousness means: the heart is united with His heart, the will with His will, and the thoughts brought into captivity to Him.

So, what you are telling Me is that Christ in His earthly birth, life, death & resurrection produced a perfect character, but this character isn't imputed to the believer in terms of salvation, it's imparted.  This makes justification by faith meaningless and places the emphasis on Christ's imparted righteousness (what He does in the believer).  Hence it is salvation by what Christ does in us.  This is heresy!!!!

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by Robert

[LifeHiscost]

​First, arguing from silence is a very weak argument.  Second the book of Revelation speaks several times of people whose names are written in the book of life....  It also speaks of those whose names were not written in the book.  It doesn't say they weren't ever there, it just states that they aren't at the time of the end. 

The only other conclusion is once saved always saved if you want to follow your conclusion to it's logical end.  God said who would be saved and all the rest were created only to be destroyed.  You really want to buy into that?

​BTW, I'm not arguing. If silence isn't good enough evidence, present better evidence.

16Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me , When as yet there was none of them.....Psalms 139

I'm only assuming that's the book of life, revealing already having been written, just as read.

4People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”..... 8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.Revelation 13

God has foreknowledge of who will decide for Him and who will not. The right to free will is the risk God's creation, not once saved always saved which would make automatons.The final condition of the angel Lucifer is proof enough for me.

Give him this message from the Sovereign Lord: “You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and exquisite in beauty. 13You were in Eden, the garden of God. Your clothing was adorned with every precious stone^b—

red carnelian, pale-green peridot, white moonstone, blue-green beryl, onyx, green jasper, blue lapis lazuli, turquoise, and emerald—all beautifully crafted for you and set in the finest gold. They were given to you on the day you were created.

14I ordained and anointed you as the mighty angelic guardian.^c You had access to the holy mountain of God and walked among the stones of fire. 15“You were blameless in all you did from the day you were created until the day evil was found in you.

16Your rich commerce led you to violence, and you sinned. So I banished you in disgrace from the mountain of God. I expelled you, O mighty guardian, from your place among the stones of fire. 17Your heart was filled with pride

because of all your beauty. Your wisdom was corrupted by your love of splendor. So I threw you to the ground and exposed you to the curious gaze of kings. 18You defiled your sanctuaries with your many sins and your dishonest trade.

So I brought fire out from within you, and it consumed you. I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. 19All who knew you are appalled at your fate. You have come to a terrible end, and you will exist no more.”

.....Ezekial 28

Since this above is all written while Satan is down here having a heyday, that would seem to reveal God's foreknowledge.

…11"And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. 12"For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time."....Revelation 12

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

[Robert]

​​Prophets and Kings page 586

In his own strength, man cannot meet the charges of the enemy. In sin-stained garments, confessing his guilt, he stands before God. But Jesus, our Advocate, presents an effectual plea in behalf of all who by repentance and faith have committed the keeping of their souls to Him. He pleads their cause, and by the mighty arguments of Calvary, vanquishes their accuser. His perfect obedience to God's law has given Him all power in heaven and in earth, and He claims from His Father mercy and reconciliation for guilty man. To the accuser of His people He declares:

Page 587

"The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. These are the purchase of My blood, brands plucked from the burning." And to those who rely on Him in faith, He gives the assurance, "Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment." Zechariah 3:4.

Righteousness without a blemish can be obtained only through the imputed righteousness of Christ (Ellen G. White, inReview and Herald, Sept. 3, 1901).

....As Joshua pleaded before the Angel, so the remnant church, with brokenness of heart and unfaltering faith, will plead for pardon and deliverance through Jesus, their Advocate. They are fully conscious of the sinfulness of their lives, they see their weakness and unworthiness; and they are ready to despair.

The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer. He endeavors to affright them with the thought that their case is hopeless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed away. He hopes so to destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, and turn from their allegiance to God.

Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins that he has tempted God's people to commit, and he urges his accusations against them, declaring, that by their sins they have forfeited divine protection, and claiming that he has the right to destroy them. He pronounces them just as deserving as himself of exclusion from the favor of God. "Are

Page 589

these," he says, "the people who are to take my place in heaven, and the place of the angels who united with me? They profess to obey the law of God; but have they kept its precepts? Have they not been lovers of self more than lovers of God? Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred of one another. Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them."

But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves up to be controlled by the satanic agencies. They have repented of their sins and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin and also their penitence, declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands. They may have imperfections of character; they may have failed in their endeavors; but they have repented, and I have forgiven and accepted them."

[pnattmbtc]

1.What I asserted is that there is ample Scriptural evidence that God will spare the righteous, and the story of Sodom is an example of this.  Why would this be considered supposition?

[And there are examples where God does not, such as Heb 11:35-38]

This text supports my position, not yours.  Consider who is being addressed by the text and what is happening.  What do you think my argument is?  I'm asking because if you think the text you cited is a counter-argument, it seems like you may not be understanding the argument.

2.I disagree with your assertion regarding Lucifer.  There's a thread dealing with the subject of foreknowledge, if you would like to discuss it.

[So God, being omniscient, had no idea what was coming?]

Foreknowledge thread please!

3.I do agree that God is responsible for allowing sin.

[He created Lucifer. He knew Lucifer would rebel against His agape love.  Nothing catches God by surprise.]

Foreknowledge thread please!

4.Why are you asserting I stated that a baby is born lost?  I never said that.  I've been arguing against the idea that all babies are born with their names written in the book of life.

[So babies are born saved by grace?]

Your framework for looking at things is different than mine.  You see things as primarily (or perhaps even only, not sure) as legal problems; I do not.  As I've stated quite a few times, my belief is that God will take all to heaven who would be happy there.  So if the given infant, or child before the age of accountability (or after, for the principle always applies), God will take them to heaven.

In your view, if the age of accountability for a given child is, say, 8 years old, that child would be taken to heaven if it died between the ages of 0 and 7 years 364 days, but not if it died age 8 years 0 days.  This makes no sense on the face of it.  In my view, the child would be taken to heaven, regardless of its age, provided it would be happy in heaven.

5. Why did you quote the last two texts?  When you quote texts, please explain why you are quoting them.  What point were you wishing to make with these texts?

[Because God assumes the blame since He has allowed sin to enter this world.  He assumes the responsibility for iniquity until the day of atonement.  In these texts God portrays Himself as "creating evil" because He allowed sin to develop.]

I think we may on the same page here, although not positive.  What I would say is that God has never been responsible for sin, but this wasn't known, or wasn't completely clear, until the cross, when the loyal angels and other worlds became convinced of God's innocence and Satan's guilt.  Only humans remain in doubt.  God's "responsibility" will continue until the judgment, which is when every knee will confess and tongue confess.  The reason this confession happens is because this is when the wicked (the last remaining group that has doubts) become convinced of God's innocence.  When all are convinced, then the universe can be cleansed of sin.

Our primary job as Christians is to let the world know the truth about God, so that they can join God's cause.  The truth about God is the Gospel.  The Gospel is primarily about God; it's not limited to a how a legal problem was solved.  The big picture, the large message of which the Gospel consists, is how God solves the sin problem, which is a problem involving His character (i.e. accusations about His character).  In solving this problem, God also solves man's problem; both God's problem and man's problem are solved by the cross.  This is the message of Romans (esp. Romans 3:21-29).

[pnattmbtc]

This would, obviously, be in regards to subjects upon which the Scriptures are not silent.

Robert:​Really?  Prove this using Ellen White's writings.  Furthermore she never claimed infallibility. 

From Ellen White:

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense.

She said this a number of times.  I can provide a reference if you want, or you can find one yourself, but I don't think it should be necessary.

So, using common sense:

1.If Ellen White says that the Scriptures are silent about a certain subject, then, if she is correct, then they are.

2.If the Scriptures are silent about a given subject, then there can be no new light (from the Scriptures; there could be new light outside of Scripture) about that subject.

3.Therefore you cannot quote Ellen White (i.e. quote her in a valid way, that supports your point of view) in regards to a subject about which she says Scripture is silent, because the moment you do, you are hoisted in your own petard, as she says the Scripture is silent about the subject you are quoting her on, and no new light can change that fact.

4.In conclusion, we can, and will, and are, receive(ing) new light, but any new light in regards to Scripture can only be about subjects upon which the Scriptures are not silent, so not about babies in heaven (insofar as Scripture is concerned). 

[Robert]

 

Christ's righteousness:

...." His perfect obedience to God's law has given Him all power in heaven and in earth, and He claims from His Father mercy and reconciliation for guilty man. 

"...to those who rely on Him in faith, He gives the assurance, "Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment." Zechariah 3:4.....

Our falling short:

The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ....

...."Have they not been lovers of self more than lovers of God? Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred of one another. ....Justice demands that sentence (death) be pronounced against them."

​Clearly believers are not measuring up to God's law, yet they have not given themselves totally over to the flesh.  That difference proves their faith, not their righteousness.

Here's another great EGW quote on this subject of "falling short" or our imperfection:

Jesus stands in the holy of holies, now to appear in the presence of God for us. There He ceases not to present His people moment by moment, complete in Himself. But because we are thus represented before the Father, we are not to imagine that we are to presume upon His mercy and become careless, indifferent, and self-indulgent (i.e., practice known sin as a legitimate lifestyle, see also Gal 5:19-21). Christ is not the minister of sin. We are complete in Him, accepted in the Beloved, only as we abide in Him by faith.

Perfection through our own good works we can never attain. The soul who sees Jesus by faith repudiates his own righteousness. He sees himself as incomplete, his repentance insufficient, his strongest faith but feebleness, his most costly sacrifice as meager, and he sinks in humility at the foot of the cross. But a voice speaks to him from the oracles of God’s Word. In amazement he hears the message, “Ye are complete in him” (Colossians 2:10). Now all is at rest in his soul. No longer must he strive to find some worthiness in himself, some meritorious deed by which to gain the favor of God.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Robert