Are we born justified?

[Robert]

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

a] The phrase "inward man" always refers to the converted person:

 Turn to 2 Corinthians 4:16 "Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.."

 Ephesians 3:16: "...that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man".  

b] The man of Romans 7 understands that the law is spiritual, i.e., the law requires not only perfect outward actions, but as the 10th commandment pointed out, it requires perfect thoughts and motives.  

When Paul realized this he exclaimed: "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death." Rom 7:9-10

Was Paul, as a Pharisee ever without law?  No.  By the age of 12 (I believe) they had to memorized the whole of the Pentateuch (the Book of the Law). So Paul knew the law, but he didn't understand the spirit of the law until he understood the requirement of the 10th commandment, "you shall not covet".

Before this Paul, as Pharisee, was taught that eternal life came by the keeping of the law.  That's why He said, "the commandment, which was to bring life". But when he realized the law required perfect thoughts and motives he realized the law actually brought death.  How so?  

Under law if you sin the law places you in prison awaiting the judgment. Paul states that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (His agape love).  In the judgment you either stand before God's law as you are "in Christ" by faith or by your own law performance.  If the latter the curse of the law, the 2nd death, is pronounced against you.  So it's the imputed righteousness of Christ, by faith, that makes us acceptable before God's law.  The imparted righteousness proves our faith, not our righteousness.

c] As I said, the man of Romans 7 is converted.  He loves God's law and he has the law written in his inner man (his mind and heart), but he's failing to keep the spirit of the law.  That is evident when he states the following:

verse 18:  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 

19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the sin I will not to do, that I do. 

20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin (i.e., the law of sin (self-love)) that dwells in me. 

So the man of Romans 7 has the law in his heart and mind, but when the rubber meets the road he is failing to live up to its highest demands (perfect thoughts...perfect motives).  That simply means he isn't truly righteousness!  

So Just because your mind is in harmony with God's law or as you said "the law is written in (my) heart" doesn't mean that you are keeping the law and are therefore righteousness! 

Righteousness is perfect, unblemished performance outwardly and inwardly.  Righteousness is fulfilling the law of agape, "you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself".  Transgression or any failure is sin, or unrighteousness.  So just because you love God's law (and I do) and just because it's written in your mind and heart does equate to being righteousness before God and His law.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2015 by Robert

[8thdaypriest]

Thought just occurred to me that Paul's "flesh" was serving "the law of sin" in the fact that it was dieing.  His mind was renewed - day by day - while his flesh was dieing, because the "law of sin" said "you sin - you die".  Paul was NOT serving "the law of sin" by continuing to commit willful sin.  He even says, "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" - this dieing body. 

[pnattmbtc]

I don't see how to harmonize your concept of things with Waggoner in any way, shape or form.  There are certain core ideas which originated from Waggoner, but you've incorporated them in a structure that's imcompatible with his structure.

 

Then Waggoner is the standard and not the Bible....I'm using the Bible.  That's the measuring stick of truth.

You're using Waggoner => Wieland => Sequeira (skipping the intermediate steps) apparently without an understanding of the development of the thought process involved as the thought evolved to the point where you are. 

[pnattmbtc]

Me: We have common ground here.

You:?????

Robert and I agree about the software.

Edited June 18, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding Romans 7, the question as to whether this is converted Paul or unconverted Paul has been debated for centuries.  The prevalent view nowadays seems to be that the "I" that Paul is referring to is not himself personally, but in general, like we would use the word "one".  This would still raise the question as to whether this "one" is unconverted or not.  That is, is Paul describing the experience of an unconverted person or a converted one.  A principle of Bible interpretation is that controverted texts should not be used to set doctrine, but should be deferred to uncontroverted ones.  There are many, many victory texts in Scripture, and the position of the SDA church, coming from a Wesleyan tradition, has traditionally been, since at least until 1950 with one voice, that it is possible for a converted Christian to live a righteous life.  For example, a typical SDA sttatement:

He who has not sufficient faith in Christ to believe that he can keep him from sinning, has not the faith that will give him an entrance into the kingdom of God. RH March 10, 1904, par. 26

Regarding Romans 7, here is a statement:

By sin we have been severed from the life of God. Our souls are palsied. Of ourselves we are no more capable of living a holy life than was the impotent man capable of walking. Many realize their helplessness; they are longing for that spiritual life which will bring them into harmony with God, and are striving to obtain it. But in vain. In despair they cry, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom. 7:24, margin). Let these desponding, struggling ones look up. The Saviour is bending over the purchase of His blood, saying with inexpressible tenderness and pity, "Wilt thou be made whole?" He bids you arise in health and peace.(LHU 40)

What about Paul Himself?

Paul realized his weakness, and well he might distrust his own strength. Referring to the law, he says, "The commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." He had trusted in the deeds of the law. He says, concerning his own outward life, that as "touching the law" he was "blameless"; and he put his trust in his own righteousness. But when the mirror of the law was held up before him, and he saw himself as God saw him, full of mistakes, stained with sin, he cried out, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

Paul beheld the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. He heard the voice of Christ saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. "He determined to avail himself of the benefits of saving grace, to become dead to trespasses and sins, to have his guilt washed away in the blood of Christ, to be clothed with Christ's righteousness, to become a branch of the Living Vine. He walked with Christ, and Jesus became to him--not a part of salvation, while his own good deeds were another part, but--his all in all, the first and last and best in everything. He had the faith that draws life from Christ, that enabled him to conform his life to that of the divine example. This faith claims nothing for its possessor because of his righteousness, but claims everything because of the righteousness of Christ. (RH December 22, 1896)

 

I'm not quoting Ellen White here as proof or for exegetical reasons, but to point out what the historical SDA position has been.

Discussing Romans 7 would be an interesting thread of its own.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert, you claimed I caused a theological problem for myself by quoting Isa 51:7 because of Romans 7.  Is it your position that Isa 51:7 contradicts Romans 7?  That hardly seems possible.  Do you think I've misquoted Isa 51:7?

Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law.

What was your point? 

[pnattmbtc]

“So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” That is, of course, while in the condition described in the preceding verses. In purpose he serves the law of God, but in actual practice he serves the law of sin. As described in another place, “The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye can not do the things that ye would.” Galatians 5:17. It is not a state of actual service to God, because we read in our next chapter “they that are in the flesh can not please God.” It is a state from which one may well pray to be delivered, so that he can serve the Lord not merely with the mind, but with his whole being. “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Faithful is he that called you, who also will do it.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 24 (Waggoner on Romans)

[8thdaypriest]

Robert and I agree about the software.

When I click on the symbol for the "last page" of the thread, my screen goes blank.  If I then click on the back button - it goes to the "last page" of the thread.  Same with clicking on any other page. 

[pnattmbtc]

What happens to me is if I go to a new page, the page goes black, but if I go to the url and give it focus, and hit the enter key, then I can see the contents of the page.

 

[Robert]

pnattmbtc: A principle of Bible interpretation is that controverted texts should not be used to set doctrine, but should be deferred to uncontroverted ones.  There are many, many victory texts in Scripture.... 

 

Now that's a cop out if I ever saw one....Come on, you can do better than just ignore Romans 7.  It's not controversial at all, unless one has a legalistic mindset.  If you are going to ignore Romans 7 & 8, why continue?  Rejecting these passages is why so many are caught up in salvation by works & perfectionism.

 

Edited June 18, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: A principle of Bible interpretation is that controverted texts should not be used to set doctrine, but should be deferred to uncontroverted ones.  There are many, many victory texts in Scripture.... 

  19 hours ago, Robert said:

 

Now that's a cop out if I ever saw one

This is a very well known principle.  You're really not familiar with this?  Here's a reference to it: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y0UoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq="controverted+passages"+uncontroverted&source=bl&ots=lkUY2A0xDW&sig=0pAjubK9M4edcfe_ktCZkmNiVQU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FCmDVcDhD4G7sgGhnLCYBA&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q="controverted passages" uncontroverted&f=false

This was written in 1789, and the principle was referred to as well known, so it's been at least over 200 years that this principle has been well known.

 

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: Come on, you can do better than just ignore Romans 7.  It's not controversial at all, unless one has a legalistic mindset.  If you are going to ignore Romans 7 & 8, why continue?  Rejecting these passages is why so many are caught up in salvation by works & perfectionism.

I'm not ignoring Romans 7, and even invited you to open a thread to discuss it.  I was pointing out that it is an established principle that one should prefer uncontroverted passages to controverted ones in trying to establish a position.  I'm a bit surprised that you are not aware of this, and also surprised that apparently you aren't aware that Romans 7 is one of the most controverted passages in Scripture.

[pnattmbtc]

Posted 11 May · Report post

  On 5/11/2015, 11:49:53, pnattmbtc said:

When you say that logic must be biblically grounded, do you mean to say that the assumptions must be Biblical for the argument to work?  Or do you have something else in mind?

Your argument doesn't just apply to infants, but to all children who have not reached the age of accountability, as I understand it.  I understand your argument to be that because all humans were legally justified in Christ, which justification must be retained by faith once a person reaches the age of acocuntability, all humans before the age of accountability will be taken to heaven.  So, by means of example, let's say the age of accountability for a given person is 8.  And let's say this person accepts Christ as his/her personal Savior at age 9.  Your view is that this person would be taken to heaven if (s)he died before the age of 8, or after the age of 9, but not if (s)he died between the ages of 8 and 9.  Is this correct?

Yes....

 Like this

•  
• Quote

[Robert]

 I'm a bit surprised that you are not aware of this, and also surprised that apparently you aren't aware that Romans 7 is one of the most controverted passages in Scripture.

I'm aware, but so is the Sabbath controverted....Understanding Romans 7 is crucial to understanding God's grace upon the believer.  Before I understood Romans 7 and its context I was on the perfectionism trip thinking that's how I made it to heaven.  So, as I said, Romans 7 is crucial to understanding the truth as it is in Christ.

[Robert]

What I said "yes" to was the following 

 "Your argument doesn't just apply to infants, but to all children who have not reached the age of accountability, as I understand it."

Now, if you include your other question in that same paragraph then I could see how you interpreted that I agreed with that summation too, but as I said before I didn't want to speculate.  My answer was to your quote above. Perhaps I should pay more attention to detail.....

Edited June 19, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

a] The phrase "inward man" always refers to the converted person:

 Turn to 2 Corinthians 4:16 "Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.."

 Ephesians 3:16: "...that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man".  

b] The man of Romans 7 understands that the law is spiritual, i.e., the law requires not only perfect outward actions, but as the 10th commandment pointed out, it requires perfect thoughts and motives.  

When Paul realized this he exclaimed: "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death." Rom 7:9-10

Was Paul, as a Pharisee ever without law?  No.  By the age of 12 (I believe) they had to memorize the whole of the Pentateuch (the Book of the Law). So Paul knew the law, but he didn't understand the spirit of the law until he understood the requirement of the 10th commandment, "you shall not covet".

Before this Paul, as Pharisee, was taught that eternal life came by the keeping of the law.  That's why He said, "the commandment, which was to bring life". But when he realized the law required perfect thoughts and motives he realized the law actually brought death.  How so?  

Under law if you sin the law places you in prison awaiting the judgment. Paul states that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (His agape love).  In the judgment you either stand before God's law as you are "in Christ" by faith or by your own law performance.  

If the latter, i.e.,, if you stand before law and present your righteousness before it then the law will pronounce you worthy of death, the 2nd death.  So it's the imputed righteousness of Christ, by faith, that makes us acceptable before God's law.  The imparted righteousness proves our faith, not our righteousness.

c] As I said, the man of Romans 7 is converted.  He loves God's law and he has the law written in his inner man (his mind and heart), but he's failing to keep the spirit of the law.  That is evident when he states the following:

verse 18:  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 

19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the sin I will not to do, that I do. 

20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin (i.e., the law of sin (self-love)) that dwells in me. 

So the man of Romans 7 has the law in his heart and mind, but when the rubber meets the road he is failing to live up to its highest demands (perfect thoughts...perfect motives).  That simply means he isn't truly righteousness!  

So Just because your mind is in harmony with God's law or as you said "the law is written in (my) heart" doesn't mean that you are keeping the law and are therefore righteous! 

Righteousness is perfect, unblemished performance outwardly and inwardly.  Righteousness is fulfilling the law of agape, "you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself".  Transgression or any failure is sin, or unrighteousness.  So just because you love God's law (and I do) and just because it's written in your mind and heart doesn't equate to being righteous before God and His law.  

 

Where do you disagree with the above (I made some corrections)? 

Edited June 19, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

 

Robert: I'm aware, but so is the Sabbath controverted....Understanding Romans 7 is crucial to understanding God's grace upon the believer.  Before I understood Romans 7 and its context I was on the perfectionism trip thinking that's how I made it to heaven.  So, as I said, Romans 7 is crucial to understanding the truth as it is in Christ.

I appreciate you're sharing this, as it helps to understand where you're coming from.  There are more than two possibilities.  That is, there is:

1.Where you were before, we'll call it X

2.Where you are now, Y.

Just because someone disagrees with Y doesn't mean they are where you were before, at X.  There are more than two possibilities.  One can disagree with you, and still not be a legalist.

 Regarding controverted texts, context is important.  For example, not everyone believes in creation, so if the audience involved consists of evolutionists and creationists, then creation texts will be controverted.  In our context, such texts are not controverted, nor are Sabbath texts.  It used to be the case the Romans 7 was not a controverted text within Seventh-day Adventism, before around 1950 or so you couldn't have found an SDA arguing your position, but now it is a controverted passage (i.e. who the "I" is referring to in Romans 7).

Regarding why controverted texts should be avoided, consider that even if two sides agree as to what the facts are, it is still possible (and indeed happens all the time) that people arrive at different conclusions.  Now if the two sides to not even agree as to what the facts are, then you can see how difficult it becomes to make progress.  Arguing from a controverted text is like assuming a fact not in evidence.  For example, you make the claim that the "inward man" is a converted person, but your argument from the point of view of someone who doesn't hold your position just looks circular an unpersuasive.  Paul is discussing the "inward man" in contrast to the flesh.  To establish your point, you'd have to argue or show that an unconverted person only consists of flesh.

At any rate, if you could argue your position from some text rather than perhaps the most debated text in all Scripture (Romans 9 is another one that comes to mind), that would be more likely to get somewhere.

Actually Romans 9 is a good analogy.  This is a passage that Calvinists use to argue their position.  This is a text upon which there is a great deal of disagreement, even among those who have a general agreement as to a point of view.  Romans 7 is like that.  If you are dependent upon a text which is extremely controverted, that doesn't speak well to the probability of having a correct position.  There are many texts which speak to the reality of free will (to counteract the controverted passages in Romans 9 to support Calvinism), and there are many texts in Scripture, including many by Paul, which speak of victory over sin (to counteract the controverted Romans 7 passage that would have believers pleading for a different experience).

[pnattmbtc]

I'm aware, but so is the Sabbath controverted....Understanding Romans 7 is crucial to understanding God's grace upon the believer.  Before I understood Romans 7 and its context I was on the perfectionism trip thinking that's how I made it to heaven.  So, as I said, Romans 7 is crucial to understanding the truth as it is in Christ.

I asked you the following:

Your view is that this person would be taken to heaven if (s)he died before the age of 8, or after the age of 9, but not if (s)he died between the ages of 8 and 9.  Is this correct?

To which you answered, "yes".  If by "yes" you meant yes to some other question I wasn't asking, then yes, you should pay more attention, and you certainly shouldn't accuse me of lying when I correctly represent what I asked you and your response. 

[pnattmbtc]

Where do you disagree with the above (I made some corrections)? 

I disagree with "a", that the "inward man" must of necessity be converted.  Before Paul was converted, you yourself make the point that it was the commandment regarding covetousness which made him aware of the spirituality of the law.  So by your own point, Paul, before he was converted, must have had an inward man to discern the spirituality of the law which he wasn't following.

I agree with "b".

I disagree with "c" for similar reasons to disagreeing with "a".

Paul, as an unconverted man, became aware of his failures, and of his wretchedness.  This is contrasted with Romans 8, which speaks of a different experience than Romans 7.

[Robert]

[Robert]

 Before Paul was converted, you yourself make the point that it was the commandment regarding covetousness which made him aware of the spirituality of the law.  So by your own point, Paul, before he was converted, must have had an inward man to discern the spirituality of the law which he wasn't following.

No, you know very well God's Spirit convicts externally, then when invited, He takes up residence in the heart ("the mind, character, inner self, will" Strong's). That's the "inward man".  Hence, I gave you two verses illustrating that "the inward man" always refers to conversion.

As to Paul the Pharisee, he had a very high opinion of his righteousness.  We can see this in Phil 3:6

"As for righteousness based on the law, faultless." 

However, when the Spirit of God convicted him of the spirituality of the law, he saw himself as a sinner.  This is what brought about his conversion.

Here's Ellen White in SC 29,30:

Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (faultless) (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment (i.e., the 10th commandment) came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem (i.e., pride in his law keeping) was gone.

 

Edited June 19, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

Paul, as an unconverted man, became aware of his failures, and of his wretchedness.  

Laodicea, refers to converted Christians,  who are self-righteous. They are converted, yet Christ calls them "wretched":

Rev 3:17-18

 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see (i.e., your condition)

 

Edited June 19, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Again, Ellen White:

Many see much to admire in the life of Christ. But true love for him can never dwell in the heart of the self-righteous. Not to see our own deformity is not to see the beauty of Christ’s character. When we are fully awake to our own sinfulness, we shall appreciate Christ. The more humble are our views of ourselves, the more clearly we shall see the spotless character of Jesus. He who says, “I am holy, I am sinless,” is self-deceived. Some have said this, and some even dare to say, “I am Christ.” To entertain such a thought is blasphemy. Not to see the marked contrast between Christ and ourselves is not to know ourselves. He who does not abhor himself can not understand the meaning of redemption.

 

Did not the preconverted Paul say "as to the righteousness in the law, blameless"? That's equivalent to "I am holy, I am sinless". But the converted Paul isn't speaking this way in Romans 7.14-25

 

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

No, you know very well God's Spirit convicts externally, then when invited, He takes up residence in the heart ("the mind, character, inner self, will" Strong's). That's the "inward man".  Hence, I gave you two verses illustrating that "the inward man" always refers to conversion.

As to Paul the Pharisee, he had a very high opinion of his righteousness.  We can see this in Phil 3:6

"As for righteousness based on the law, faultless." 

However, when the Spirit of God convicted him of the spirituality of the law, he saw himself as a sinner.  This is what brought about his conversion.

Here's Ellen White in SC 29,30:

Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (faultless) (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment (i.e., the 10th commandment) came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem (i.e., pride in his law keeping) was gone.

 

Regarding the "inward man", this was a commonly used expression used by Greek writers, including Plato, which simply meant the rational part of a man.

As to the rest of the post, continuing further down Romans 7 and Ellen White's comments:

Paul realized his weakness, and well he might distrust his own strength. Referring to the law, he says, "The commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." He had trusted in the deeds of the law. He says, concerning his own outward life, that as "touching the law" he was "blameless"; and he put his trust in his own righteousness. But when the mirror of the law was held up before him, and he saw himself as God saw him, full of mistakes, stained with sin, he cried out, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

So it is clear that from her perspective that Romans 7 is dealing with the experience of an unconverted man.

[pnattmbtc]

Laodicea, refers to converted Christians,  who are self-righteous. They are converted, yet Christ calls them "wretched":

Rev 3:17-18

 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see (i.e., your condition)

 

Your point here looks to be that a converted person can realize he is in a wretched condition, so therefore the man in Romans 7 could be converted and be in a wretched condition.  However, even accepting this, this would not prove that the man in Romans 7 *was* converted, unless you wish to argue that only converted people can realize they are in a wretched condition.

Reasons can be put forth as to what the man in Romans 7 can be viewed as converted or not converted, which is why this is a controverted passage, as there are arguments both ways.

If you look at the context, continuing the argument through Romans 8, it seems clear to me that Waggoner's interpretation is correct, and his interpretation was held by Ellen White and endorsed by her as well, and was the normative (actually only) point of view of our church at that time and for many decades to come.

I know of her statement regarding new light, which is a great statement, but new light doesn't contradict existing light, and it also can't mean that all of our views and writings about righteousness by faith were just plain wrong.