Are we born justified?

[Robert]

Now certainly if one is trying to gain God's favor by his own works, that would not be doing God's will, but there is no evidence this is what Jesus had in mind here; there's nothing in the context to suggest this. 

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 

22 Many will say to me in that day (the judgment), Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out  devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 

 

 

Okay, what's the issue here?  Notice these that claim Christ (i.e., Lord, Lord) give a list of things they have done:

 

1] Prophesied in they name

 

2] Cast out devils

 

3] did many wonderful works

 

How does Jesus respond to their list of good things?

 

 

23 And then will I profess unto them *, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 

 

 

Jesus said that He never knew them and then he gives the reason "ye that work iniquity". That's a clue right there.  Iniquity is a condition.  It's our bent-to-self.  When the flesh does something it demands a reward.  That's not agape, that's self-love.  So doing "good things" (see the list) for a reward is the basis of all legalism.  That's why Jesus said, "everything they (the Pharisees) do is to be seen of men".  So these are works that demand a reward.  That's salvation by works, but the context will reveal this.  Let's read on:

 

 

24 Therefore whosoever * heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house  upon a rock: 

25 And the rain descended , and the floods came , and the winds blew , and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which  built his house upon the sand....

 

 

Is our house built on the rock Jesus Christ and His righteousness, or is it built on the sands of salvation by works?  If Christ, we are complete in Him.  If the sands of human works, we are incomplete and lost.

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

I think  your misreading this Robert, assuming I'm understanding you correctly.  I'm understanding your idea is that those of whom Christ was speaking were actually doing good things, they weren't actually disobeying Christ and not doing the things that He said, but Christ is rejecting them because they were doing these things with a "bent to self."  If this is your understanding, I don't think there is a soul among those present who would have understood what Christ was saying in that way, so I think such an interpretation is impossible.  For an interpretation to be possible, the recipients of the message have to be able to understand the message.  I have this same criticism of interpretations of Paul's writings, but haven't gotten into that.  That is, Paul wrote his letter to the Romans with the intent that it would be understood by those to whom the letter would be read, so for an interpretation to be a possibly correct one, it has to have the possibility of being understood in that way by those to whom it was addressed.

Getting back to Matt. 7, Jesus was pronouncing blessings upon those who heard His words and practiced them, and woes upon those who didn't, whom He referred to as "workers of iniquity."  This is the clear reading of the text, and is surely how it would have been understood by those to whom He was speaking.  I see that Ellen White understood these words as I am suggesting:

There are persons who believe that they are right, when they are wrong. While claiming Christ as their Lord, and professedly doing great works in His name, they are workers of iniquity. "With their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness." He who declares God's word is to them "as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear Thy words, but they do them not." Ezekiel 33:31, 32.

A mere profession of discipleship is of no value. The faith in Christ which saves the soul is not what it is represented to be by many. "Believe, believe," they say, "and you need not keep the law." But a belief that does not lead to obedience is presumption. The apostle John says, "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4. Let none cherish the idea that special providences or miraculous manifestations are to be the proof of the genuineness of their work or of the ideas they advocate. When persons will speak lightly of the word of God, and set their impressions, feelings, and exercises above the divine standard, we may know that they have no light in them.

Obedience is the test of discipleship. It is the keeping of the commandments that proves the sincerity of our professions of love. When the doctrine we accept kills sin in the heart, purifies the soul from defilement, bears fruit unto holiness, we may know that it is the truth of God. When benevolence, kindness, tenderheartedness, sympathy, are manifest in our lives; when the joy of right doing is in our hearts; when we exalt Christ, and not self, we may know that our faith is of the right order. "Hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." 1 John 2:3.

which is the straight-forward way to understand Christ's words.  A key point is that a profession is not sufficient in and of itself, a point James, for example, also makes.

[Robert]

Obedience is the test of discipleship. It is the keeping of the commandments that proves the sincerity of our professions of love

Then the following believers do not love God, but yet Ellen states they will be saved:

The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary; but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor who is at God’s right hand presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God. All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the merits of Christ’s propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned.

O, that all may see that everything in obedience, in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ. The fragrance of this righteousness ascends like a cloud around the mercy seat (Manuscript 50, 1900).

 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

I think  your misreading this Robert, assuming I'm understanding you correctly.  I'm understanding your idea is that those of whom Christ was speaking were actually doing good things, they weren't actually disobeying Christ and not doing the things that He said, but Christ is rejecting them because they were doing these things with a "bent to self."  If this is your understanding, I don't think there is a soul among those present who would have understood what Christ was saying in that way, so I think such an interpretation is impossible.  For an interpretation to be possible, the recipients of the message have to be able to understand the message.

Wow!  So if doesn't fit your preconceived idea it's wrong?  Whatever.... 

[Robert]

  For an interpretation to be possible, the recipients of the message have to be able to understand the message.

2 peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

[Robert]

'!2 peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Who is "you" in the above? 

Answer: Believers

What does Peter say concerning Paul? 

Well, he doesn't repeat your view.  What Peter says of Paul is "some things hard to understand"!

 

[pnattmbtc]

Obedience is the test of discipleship. It is the keeping of the commandments that proves the sincerity of our professions of love

Please be more careful with your quotes.  You presented a quote suggesting I wrote this.  I didn't write this; Ellen White wrote this.  Then you quoted from Ellen White to conclude "then the following believers do not love God", so you are making an argument against Ellen White using Ellen White, which is bound to fail on the face of it, unless you with to argue that she's self-contradictory. 

[pnattmbtc]

Wow!  So if doesn't fit your preconceived idea it's wrong?  Whatever.... 

You misread what I wrote.  I said nothing about my ideas.  I said an interpretation needs to be possibly understood by the hearers of the time, those alive at the time of Jesus or Paul.  I wasn't alive then.

[pnattmbtc]

Who is "you" in the above? 

Answer: Believers

What does Peter say concerning Paul? 

Well, he doesn't repeat your view.  What Peter says of Paul is "some things hard to understand"!

 

It's not "my view."  It's obvious that when Paul wrote an epistle, he expected it would be understood.  Do you really wish to dispute this?  Is it your view that Paul wrote letter expecting they would *not* be understood?  That's the alternative to "my view".  That sounds like something the Gnostics would have claimed.

The letters of Paul would have been read at a single setting to those of a given church, and nearby surrounding churches.  Of course he would have expected they would understand what he was saying to them, or else, what would have been the point?  Nobody writes a letter to be read out loud with the intention that what is read won't be understood.

Peter wrote that "some things" Paul wrote are difficult to understand.  You seem to be suggesting instead that what Peter meant was "everything Paul wrote is difficult to understand".

[Robert]

Please be more careful with your quotes.  You presented a quote suggesting I wrote this.  I didn't write this; Ellen White wrote this.  Then you quoted from Ellen White to conclude "then the following believers do not love God", so you are making an argument against Ellen White using Ellen White, which is bound to fail on the face of it, unless you with to argue that she's self-contradictory. 

No, the contradiction is in the way the perfectionistic, legalistic and self-righteous among SDA use Ellen White to promote their brand of salvation  through Christ's imparted righteousness. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:No, the contradiction is in the way the perfectionistic, legalistic and self-righteous among SDA use Ellen White to promote their brand of salvation  through Christ's imparted righteousness. 

 

Here's something she wrote:

By His perfect obedience He has made it possible for every human being to obey God's commandments. 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 312)

Is this OK?  Is there any contradiction here? 

[8thdaypriest]

I've been reading a book titled "Honor & Shame - Unlocking the Door" by Roland Muller.  It is a small book, available at amazon.  This book has really opened my eyes to a different understanding.  We - in the West, (because of the culture of law which we inherited from the Romans) THINK in terms of "right" vs "wrong" -  "Good" vs "bad" - "guilt vs innocence".  We find the meaning of the "gospel" in the Book of Romans, because that's how we think.  Our movies are almost always the "good guys" vs the "bad guys".   

But there are other cultures which do NOT HAVE those words or those understandings.  Here's a quote from page 32.

"The danger comes, when we take our Roman understanding of the Gospel and apply it to those who do not have a Roman-based culture.  We fruitlessly spend untold hours and incalculable amount of energy explaining to our contact that he is 'guilty' of 'sin' an needs to be 'justified' before God.  The poor person, on the other hand, may not even have a word for sin in his language, or perhaps even the concept of sin.  He struggles to understand 'guilt' and sees no need for 'justification'."

Muller explains that the Muslim culture is "honor vs shame" based.  The shame-based cultures span an area from Morocco to Korea. 

The third influence of sin was FEAR.  And many native and jungle peoples are "fear" based cultures.  Missionaries usually reach these people by  telling them that Jesus DEFEATED the "spirits". 

Muller proposes that Paul adapted his sermon for the men of Athens to a Greek based argument for the "unknown God", and adapted his letter to the Romans in the same way - to fit their Roman law-based culture. 

No - it doesn't answer Robert's question - whether all men are "born justified", but it shows that Robert's question is based in Roman/Western thinking, and any answer, whether "yes" or "no" will not address the complete "gospel". 

 

Edited July 2, 2015 by 8thdaypriest

[LifeHiscost]

To 8thdaypriest

Because, in the reality of a sinful race called mankind all have fallen short of the glory of God, God gives one solution for all, that in the fairness of His love will be evident to every individual according to their need.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved....John 3

²⁰ Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all!....Romans 1

17Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin...James 4.... 9And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world

...Revelation 12

God is Love!  Jesus saves!

 

[Robert]

 

Here's something she wrote:

Is this OK?  Is there any contradiction here? 

By His perfect obedience He has made it possible for every human being to obey God's commandments. 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 312)

What He does in me (His imparted righteousness, i.e., sanctification) is not what it means to be clothed in the robe of His righteousness.

What He did in my corporate humanity, accepted by faith, is what is it means to be clothed in His righteousness.

When you make sanctification the means of justification by faith you have Catholicism.  I'm sure EGW didn't mean it this way....That's why we must ultimately go to the Bible, just as Ellen said we should. 

Edited July 3, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: What He does in me (His imparted righteousness, i.e., sanctification) is not what it means to be clothed in the robe of His righteousness.

What He did in my corporate humanity, accepted by faith, is what is it means to be clothed in His righteousness.

When you make sanctification the means of justification by faith you have Catholicism.  I'm sure EGW didn't mean it this way....That's why we must ultimately go to the Bible, just as Ellen said we should.

It's not sanctification she's talking about, but justification.  This is clear by looking at the context.  Also in one of the quotes, about the merging process and the robe of Christ's righteousness, she uses the word "justification".  The point is that justification by faith changes the individual; the believer is converted, the law is written in the heart and mind, etc.  Again, this is justification, not sanctification, she is talking about. 

8thday: No - it doesn't answer Robert's question - whether all men are "born justified", but it shows that Robert's question is based in Roman/Western thinking, and any answer, whether "yes" or "no" will not address the complete "gospel". 

I've had a similar response to what Robert has written, which is that it would have Paul speaking to people about issues which they weren't thinking about.  It's not considering what the culture was like the time, what issues Paul would really have had to face, but is reinterpreting everything in the eyes of a 21st century westerner, from a post-Reformation standpoint.

A great thing about the Gospel is that it reaches people from all sorts of cultures, so we can think of things the way we do and get a blessing from it (i.e., in terms of "justification" and "retributive justice" and "the demands of the law"; ideas developed by Calvin), but if we want to know what Paul was wanting to communicate, we need to have some idea as to how people back then thought, and what issues Paul would have been grappling with. 

I tried many times to make this a separate post, but the software wouldn't agree.

Edited July 6, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Robert]

It's not sanctification she's talking about, but justification.  

No!  Justification is standing before God "in Christ"....What He does in me is the process called sanctification.  This is the fruits of justification by faith and is therefore something experienced.  

Edited July 7, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: No!  Justification is standing before God "in Christ"....What He does in me is the process called sanctification.  This is the fruits of justification by faith and is therefore something experienced. 

I know this is your thought, but it's not hers.  Or Waggoner's.  I've already presented quotes.  I'll present some more.

And the thought is totally Biblical.  For example, consider the New Covenant.  What is this talking about?  Justification by faith, correct? 

[pnattmbtc]

Nothing can man devise to supply the place of his lost robe of innocence. No fig-leaf garment, no worldly citizen dress, can be worn by those who sit down with Christ and angels at the marriage supper of the Lamb.{COL 311.2}
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.” Revelation 3:18.{COL 311.3}
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. “All our righteousness are as filthy rags.” Isaiah 64:6. Everything that we of ourselves can do is defiled by sin. But the Son of God “was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin.” Sin is defined to be “the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:5, 4. But Christ was obedient to every requirement of the law. He said of Himself, “I delight to do Thy will, O My God; yea, Thy law is within My heart.” Psalm 40:8. When on earth, He said to His disciples, “I have kept My Father’s commandments.” John 15:10. By His perfect obedience He has made it possible for every human being to obey God’s commandments. 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 311.4}

It's clear this is talking about justification by faith, isn't it?  She says, " Nothing can man devise to supply the place of his lost robe of innocence. No fig-leaf garment, no worldly citizen dress, can be worn by those who sit down with Christ and angels at the marriage supper of the Lamb." and goes on to explain that only the robe of Christ's righteousness will do.  So, from the context, we can see she is talking about justification by faith.

[Robert]

 

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. 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. ....By His perfect obedience He has made it possible for every human being to obey God’s commandments. 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.

Here's EGW:

"The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted."

Therefore what you quoted is speaking of sanctification and not justification by faith.

...and goes on to explain that only the robe of Christ's righteousness will do....

What, makes me perfect?  Well, it isn't working....

Edited July 8, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

I don't see that you responded to my post.  I asked you a question, which you didn't respond to, which is that it is whether the quote I provided about the robe of Christ's righteousness is talking about justification by faith.  In this quote she makes clear that justification by faith involves more than book-keeping, but that we as human beings are impacted when we are justified by faith.  Waggoner makes the same point here:

Notice in the above account that the taking away of the filthy garments is the same as causing the iniquity to pass from the person. And so we [66] find that when Christ covers us with the robe of His own righteousness, He does not furnish a cloak for sin, but takes the sin away. And this shows that the forgiveness of sins is something more than a mere form, something more than a mere entry in the books of record in heaven, to the effect that the sin has been canceled. The forgiveness of sins is a reality; it is something tangible, something that vitally affects the individual. It actually clears him from guilt; and if he is cleared from guilt, is justified, made righteous, he has certainly undergone a radical change. He is, indeed, another person. For he obtained this righteousness for the remission of sins, in Christ. It was obtained only by putting on Christ. But "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." 2 Cor. 5:17.

And so the full and free forgiveness of sins carries with it that wonderful and miraculous change known as the Christ And His Righteousness. new birth; for a man cannot become a new creature except by a new birth. This is the same as having a new, or a clean, heart. The new heart is a heart that loves righteousness and hates sin. It is a heart of willingness to be led into the paths of righteousness. It is such a heart as the Lord wished Israel to have when He20 said, "O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!" Deut. 5:29. In short, it is a heart free from the love of sin as well as from the guilt of sin. (Christ and His Righteousness)

This is from material presented at the 1888 General Conference session which Ellen White attended and reacted very enthusiastically to Waggoner's presentations. 

[pnattmbtc]

Here's a statement from Ellen White from "Nicodemus" in "The Desire of Ages"

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8.

There can be no question that Ellen White is addressing justification by faith here.  She asks the question, "How, then, are we to be saved?"  The answer to this question can only be an explanation of justification by faith, because justification is the only means of salvation.  You agree with this, correct?

Now notice that the explanation of justification by faith includes things which happen to us; indeed, the entire explanation is about things which happen to us.  So from Ellen White's perspective, justification by faith involves things which are happening to us.  The process of justification by faith explained here is synonymous with conversion.

[Robert]

On 7/8/2015 at 0:44 PM, pnattmbtc said:

She asks the question, "How, then, are we to be saved?"  The answer to this question can only be an explanation of justification by faith, because justification is the only means of salvation.  You agree with this, correct?

Yes and no....

Yes to those who know of the law; know they are sinners and know they need Christ's righteousness.

No to those who do not know of God's law and therefore do not understand they are sinners.  

Justification by faith is for those know....Justification applies to those who do not, at no fault of their own. 

Let's just keep it simply.  All men are born justified because of what Christ did in His birth, life, death and resurrection.  Romans 5:18 states so.  

[Wingnut]

On 18 March 2015 at 8:59 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Robert (and Samie also) teaches that all children are born in a saved condition, and can only be "lost" if/when they reject Christ as their savior. 

 

Samie answered one's questions openly and honestly and directly.

If you are viewing this thread - a big "Hi" to you Samie.

And a big "Hello" to Pnatt too.  

[pnattmbtc]

19 hours ago, Robert said:

Yes and no....

Yes to those who know of the law; know they are sinners and know they need Christ's righteousness.

No to those who do not know of God's law and therefore do not understand they are sinners.  

Justification by faith is for those know....Justification applies to those who do not, at no fault of their own. 

Let's just keep it simply.  All men are born justified because of what Christ did in His birth, life, death and resurrection.  Romans 5:18 states so.  

Thanks Wingnut.  Same to you.  Also nice to have a post from Robert to get a discussion going.  Happy New Year everyone!

Quote

Robert (and Samie also) teaches that all children are born in a saved condition, and can only be "lost" if/when they reject Christ as their savior. (quoting from 8th day)

I half agree with this.  I agree with the part that one must reject Christ in order to be lost.  From the same EGW quote that Robert responded to:

Quote

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. DA 176.

Regarding the fate of newborns, what makes sense to me is that some will be saved, and some will "be as though they had not been", meaning they won't be resurrected.  I believe God will take everyone to heaven who will be happy there.

[pnattmbtc]

19 hours ago, Robert said:

Yes and no....

Yes to those who know of the law; know they are sinners and know they need Christ's righteousness.

No to those who do not know of God's law and therefore do not understand they are sinners.  

Justification by faith is for those know....Justification applies to those who do not, at no fault of their own. 

Let's just keep it simply.  All men are born justified because of what Christ did in His birth, life, death and resurrection.  Romans 5:18 states so.  

When Jesus said to Nicodemus, "A man must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven", what He really meant was, "A man, who knows the law, must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven" is what I'm understanding you to be saying.  As long as one doesn't know the law, one doesn't need Christ (in the sense of needing to receive Him as one's personal savior).

A problem I see with this idea is that the reason Nicodemus needed to receive Christ was not because he knew the law, but because he needed to be converted.