Are we born justified?

[8thdaypriest]

Joeb, I like your reference to the ga'al - the kinsman redeemer.  Yes! 

I tried to show the same thing in the concept of "dominion".  THAT is what Adam lost.  THAT is what Christ recovered (ruler-ship and possession of the land). 

Possession and dominion of "the land" was the promise of the Sinai Covenant.  Christ won THAT with perfect obedience. 

At the conclusion of the "court" scene in Daniel 7, "dominion" is given to the Son of Man.  He then will share that dominion with those humans who acknowledge Him and serve Him.  In redeeming them, He now "owns them" - so to speak.  He legally decides what HE will do with them. 

The LORD has given many different illustrations of His redemption.  Ga'al, and inheritance of the covenant promise, and recovery of dominion, and ownership of a slave for 6 years with freedom at the 7th (for Hebrew slaves only by the way), and the marriage covenant.  Those are the main ones.

[8thdaypriest]

I got to thinking last night, about the leper, who was as good as dead.  Where ever he went, he had to proclaim loudly his "uncleanness". 

Step one:  The priest goes "out of the camp" to examine the leper.  If the leprosy is healed, then

Step Two: The priest takes two clean birds.  One is killed in an earthen vessel over running water. [Christ was in an "earthen vessel" - a human body made of dust.]  The other bird is dipped in the blood of the dead bird, along with cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop, and the blood/water is sprinkled on the healed leper.  Then the bird is set free.  

Step Three:  The healed leper is to shave off ALL his hair, and wash himself, and wash his clothes.  [Is this like baptism?] Then he is pronounced "clean".   He can "enter the camp" but STILL may not enter "his house".  Is this "the house of the LORD" ? 

Step Four:  On the 8th day of this process, the healed leper is to take two lambs and one ewe lamb, and a "log of oil" to the door of the Tabernacle. 

The priest who went out to him, is the one who offers the trespass offering.  The priest takes some of the blood of "the trespass offering", and anoints the right ear, right thumb, and right big toe of the healed leper.  Then he takes some of the oil, and anoints the same digits with the oil  [exactly the same as for the consecration of a priest].

Step Five: The priest offers the other two animal sacrifices, and THEN (after atonement is made for the man) "he shall be clean". 

What I noticed is that the man gets cleaner, and cleaner, and cleaner.

He is declared "healed".  Then he is declared "clean", but not quite totally clean, because there are a few more steps.  Finally he actually IS "clean" - not just "declared clean". 

Does this process say something about our salvation process. 

The leper is "healed" without his having to DO ANYTHING.  No works involved.  But that does not get him restored "to the camp" or to "his house".  Healed does not get him actually "clean" in the sight of God.  

[pnattmbtc]

8thdaypriest is correct in that Christ's life and death boght a grace period.  He was our ransom.  So much of this misunderstanding could be cleared up if people would only study the concept of ga'al in the Bible and what Ellen White has to say about the subject.  ga'al is the foundation of the plan of salvation.  Christ came here and lived and died to become human, for only a human could pay our ransom.  Only as a human being could He become the closest relative we have who could pay our debt--who could ransom us.   Christ purchased us.  We weren't "in Christ" in some metaphysical mumbo jumbo.  He became one of us so He could buy us back from the devil who overcome us through deciet and treachery.

 

Notice how these quotes refute Robert's and Samie's assertions.  God paid a price to redeem us, to ransom us back from the first terrorist.  The concept of ga'al completely eliminates the "in Christ" motif for it is basis of the plan of redemption.  Every mention of redemption, being redeemed, or Redeemer in both Testaments is translated directly from ga'al or from words meaning ransom or to purchase.  The link is so strong it cannot be ignored by an honest Bible student.  

 

​

There's more to the cross than just one thing.  For example:

"To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory.

Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion."

"In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner.

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love.  Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God." (Desire of Ages, "It Is Finished")

These texts bring out that the cross was the means to win the Great Controversy, and that it has an impact to angels as well as humans.  I'm giving this as an example of something else the cross accomplishes besides the ransom idea you mentioned, to make the point that the cross is not only about one thing.

Your assetion that these quotes refute Robert and Samie's doesn't follow logically because they are talking about different things.  It would only follow logically if either the cross only dealt with one thing (the thing you quoted), or there were a logical contradiction believing the ransom idea and the corporate idea, but you haven't pointed out any such contradiction.

Actually one of the quotes ties in very well with what Robert and Samie have been saying:

The world does not acknowledge that, at an infinite cost, Christ has purchased the human race. They do not acknowledge that by creation and by redemption He holds a just claim to every human being. But as the Redeemer of the fallen race, He has been given the deed of possession, which entitles Him to claim them as His property.—Letter 136, 1902.

This is a corporate idea.  The human race was redeemed in Christ, thus every individual human being is in debt to God.

[joeb]

his is a corporate idea.  The human race was redeemed in Christ, thus every individual human being is in debt to God.

Of course every individual is indebted to the human race.  Christ paid our ransom.  He became a human being so that he could say that He was the closest relative of any human who has ever lived so that he could be our ga'al.  That is the corporate part of Christ's sacrifice, the ransom He paid. That is a far cry from everyone of being "in Christ" on the cross and basically being born justified.  The ransom is the legal jusifification for justification for God as creditor had the right to set the price for everyone who believes and accepts the ransom Christ paid.  He paid to free us from our jailor who keeps us in jail unlawfully.  That means lhe ransom paid to free us from sin, the penalty of sin, and our misapprehension of the character of God..  All three gifts must be accepted or non is.  This is an all or nothing proposition. We cannot cling to sin or the devil's lies about God, and be justified.  . 

We're not guilty of Adam's sin.  We weren't "in Adam" when he died spiritually and thus guilty of his sin.  That is completely against scripture, yet you will hear the advocates of the "in Christ" motif repeat this lie again and again.  Why?  Because they have to say this to justifiy their assertion that we were all "in Christ" on the cross.  They know they cannot have it both ways so they are willing to deny plain scripture to stay logically consistent.  It's the same way with their concept of justification.  They contradict plain scripture on the subject by pointing to something that can be twisted into agreeing with their assertion.  Scripture does not contradict itself, and if a person must make it do that create a theological concept then something is very wrong with the concept.

Edited May 7, 2015 by joeb

[8thdaypriest]

Doesn't Scripture say that Levi was "in Abraham" when he paid tithes to the King of Salem, and that because Levi was "in Abraham", Levi paid tithe to Melchizedek?

Wouldn't that mean that I was "in Adam" when Adam sinned ?  So I sinned - in Adam.  That would be the doctrine of "original sin".   If Jesus reconciled THAT ORIGINAL SIN, then we don't have any "original sin" to worry about. 

The whole "sin of the father" thing is demonstrated in Scripture.  There are instances when the LORD - in effect - punished the children of an offender for their father's sin.  Achan comes to mind, and Korah, Dathan, and Abirim.  Korah's whole immediate family went into the pit with him.  Achan's "sons and his daughters" (and his livestock) were brought to the place of execution, and were stoned and then burned along with Achan.  When Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, little children were killed right along with their parents.  When God commanded Joshua to "kill everything that breathes", that INCLUDED the children.   All these are examples of corporate punishment, because of the "sin of the fathers".

When Ham sodomized his father Noah, the curse fell upon Canaan, who had done nothing to Noah.  The commandment says "visiting the iniquity of the father's upon the children".  OK

If I was in Adam, then when he sinned - then I sinned also.  I think this might be the "original sin" of Adam that Christ completely resolved. 

In one sense, our Creator is our Father - because we came from His hand. Adam was called "the Son of God".  (Though we did not descend from Him.)  The Son of God WAS "the Creator".  I'm not opposed to the idea that "the Creator" of Adam died in place of ADAM, thus clearing everyone who would descend from Adam, of Adam's sin. 

What did THAT accomplish??  The punishment of God the Father's Law would NOT come upon us because of ADAM's sin.    

We don't need to baptize babies to free them from the sin of Adam, BECAUSE Jesus already took care of THAT SIN. 

So - IF - and I say IF, it was the sin of Adam that we have all be justified from, I can agree with that part ONLY. 

But the punishment for sin (eternal death) WOULD come upon individuals because of their OWN individual sins.  That's a separate issue from Adam's sin. 

When Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law, He recovered the dominion that Adam lost.  That dominion would include every human living within that dominion.  As the HEAD of earth dominion, He (Christ) will judge every individual, and decide what He will do with each individual.  

According to "the Law" Christ can legally pay the ransom for His kinsmen. Who are His kinsmen?  Jesus said,  "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother (My kin )." (Mar 3:35 NAU)  I think Paul said it also, "only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham". (Gal 3:7 NKJ) 

Which brings us right back to the requirement that individuals BELIEVE and HAVE FAITH. 

[8thdaypriest]

Infants and children CANNOT be left "as if they never were" because they are NOT beasts, and they are NOT GUILTY of the sin of Adam. 

BUT

They cannot be given eternal life either, BECAUSE they have never "believed" in Christ as Lord and King and Savior. 

"God so love the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him, might not perish, but have eternal life"  (John 3:16).

"Repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."  (Repentance and baptism express belief and submission.)

No matter how hard you try, you cannot bypass that requirement. 

THAT is why I say that those who had no knowledge or mental maturity to BELIEVE, must be resurrected to continue their physical lives, to learn of Him, and then to choose. 

[pnattmbtc]

Of course every individual is indebted to the human race.  Christ paid our ransom.  He became a human being so that he could say that He was the closest relative of any human who has ever lived so that he could be our ga'al.  That is the corporate part of Christ's sacrifice, the ransom He paid. That is a far cry from everyone of being "in Christ" on the cross and basically being born justified.  The ransom is the legal jusifification for justification for God as creditor had the right to set the price for everyone who believes and accepts the ransom Christ paid.  He paid to free us from our jailor who keeps us in jail unlawfully.  That means lhe ransom paid to free us from sin, the penalty of sin, and our misapprehension of the character of God..  All three gifts must be accepted or non is.  This is an all or nothing proposition. We cannot cling to sin or the devil's lies about God, and be justified.  . 

We're not guilty of Adam's sin.  We weren't "in Adam" when he died spiritually and thus guilty of his sin.  That is completely against scripture, yet you will hear the advocates of the "in Christ" motif repeat this lie again and again.  Why?  Because they have to say this to justifiy their assertion that we were all "in Christ" on the cross.  They know they cannot have it both ways so they are willing to deny plain scripture to stay logically consistent.  It's the same way with their concept of justification.  They contradict plain scripture on the subject by pointing to something that can be twisted into agreeing with their assertion.  Scripture does not contradict itself, and if a person must make it do that create a theological concept then something is very wrong with the concept.

​

That is a far cry from everyone of being "in Christ" on the cross and basically being born justified.  

     Indeed, it is.  It's not the whole story.

The ransom is the legal justification for justification for God as creditor had the right to set the price for everyone who believes and accepts the ransom Christ paid.  

     This isn't a corporate idea.

He paid to free us from our jailor who keeps us in jail unlawfully.  That means lhe ransom paid to free us from sin, the penalty of sin, and our misapprehension of the character of God..  All three gifts must be accepted or non is.  This is an all or nothing proposition. We cannot cling to sin or the devil's lies about God, and be justified.

     This is only one aspect of the problem.  This isn't all there is.

We're not guilty of Adam's sin.  

     No one is claiming this.

We weren't "in Adam" when he died spiritually and thus guilty of his sin.  

     Paul doesn't say we were guilty of Adam's sin.  He does say we were in Adam, however.  This concept applies elsewhere as well.  For example, Levi paid tithe to Melchizadek.

That is completely against scripture, yet you will hear the advocates of the "in Christ" motif repeat this lie again and again.

     You're asserting that the idea that we a guilty of Adam's sin is against Scripture, but who is asserting this?

Why?  Because they have to say this to justifiy their assertion that we were all "in Christ" on the cross.  They know they cannot have it both ways so they are willing to deny plain scripture to stay logically consistent.  It's the same way with their concept of justification.  They contradict plain scripture on the subject by pointing to something that can be twisted into agreeing with their assertion.  Scripture does not contradict itself, and if a person must make it do that create a theological concept then something is very wrong with the concept.

     Before one can be in a position to refute the argument of another, one must understand that argument being presented.  I have doubts that you are understanding what is being asserted, based on what you're writing here.  It appears to me you are arguing against a straw man.  Would you please succintly state what it is you think Robert, or whoever's position you are arguing against is, and see if they agree?  If you get agreement as to what it is you are in disagreement with, then you can cnosider whether you agree with it or not, and if not, make a case against it, but there's no point in making a case against an argument noone is making.

Edited May 7, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

Doesn't Scripture say that Levi was "in Abraham" when he paid tithes to the King of Salem, and that because Levi was "in Abraham", Levi paid tithe to Melchizedek?

Wouldn't that mean that I was "in Adam" when Adam sinned ?  So I sinned - in Adam.  That would be the doctrine of "original sin".   If Jesus reconciled THAT ORIGINAL SIN, then we don't have any "original sin" to worry about. 

The whole "sin of the father" thing is demonstrated in Scripture.  There are instances when the LORD - in effect - punished the children of an offender for their father's sin.  Achan comes to mind, and Korah, Dathan, and Abirim.  Korah's whole immediate family went into the pit with him.  Achan's "sons and his daughters" (and his livestock) were brought to the place of execution, and were stoned and then burned along with Achan.  When Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, little children were killed right along with their parents.  When God commanded Joshua to "kill everything that breathes", that INCLUDED the children.   All these are examples of corporate punishment, because of the "sin of the fathers".

When Ham sodomized his father Noah, the curse fell upon Canaan, who had done nothing to Noah.  The commandment says "visiting the iniquity of the father's upon the children".  OK

If I was in Adam, then when he sinned - then I sinned also.  I think this might be the "original sin" of Adam that Christ completely resolved. 

In one sense, our Creator is our Father - because we came from His hand. Adam was called "the Son of God".  (Though we did not descend from Him.)  The Son of God WAS "the Creator".  I'm not opposed to the idea that "the Creator" of Adam died in place of ADAM, thus clearing everyone who would descend from Adam, of Adam's sin. 

What did THAT accomplish??  The punishment of God the Father's Law would NOT come upon us because of ADAM's sin.    

We don't need to baptize babies to free them from the sin of Adam, BECAUSE Jesus already took care of THAT SIN. 

So - IF - and I say IF, it was the sin of Adam that we have all be justified from, I can agree with that part ONLY. 

But the punishment for sin (eternal death) WOULD come upon individuals because of their OWN individual sins.  That's a separate issue from Adam's sin. 

When Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law, He recovered the dominion that Adam lost.  That dominion would include every human living within that dominion.  As the HEAD of earth dominion, He (Christ) will judge every individual, and decide what He will do with each individual.  

According to "the Law" Christ can legally pay the ransom for His kinsmen. Who are His kinsmen?  Jesus said,  "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother (My kin )." (Mar 3:35 NAU)  I think Paul said it also, "only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham". (Gal 3:7 NKJ) 

Which brings us right back to the requirement that individuals BELIEVE and HAVE FAITH. 

​

But the punishment for sin (eternal death) WOULD come upon individuals because of their OWN individual sins.  That's a separate issue from Adam's sin. 

    (me)If you're going to look at this as a legal problem (which I don't think is the best way, but I'll go along) Christ died for these sins too.

When Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law, He recovered the dominion that Adam lost.  That dominion would include every human living within that dominion.  As the HEAD of earth dominion, He (Christ) will judge every individual, and decide what He will do with each individual.  

According to "the Law" Christ can legally pay the ransom for His kinsmen. Who are His kinsmen?  Jesus said,  "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother (My kin )." (Mar 3:35 NAU)  I think Paul said it also, "only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham". (Gal 3:7 NKJ) 
    (me)That Christ's paid only for the redeemed is Calvinism.  Armeniasm states that Christ's died for all.  "To the death of Christ, we owe even our earthly life."  It sounds like you are asserting the Calvinist position.  Am I misunderstanding you?

Which brings us right back to the requirement that individuals BELIEVE and HAVE FAITH.
    (me)Personally I wouldn't say it's so much a requirement as reality.  That is, we are estranged from God "alienated and enemies in our own mind", and need to be reconciled to God.  This isn't so much a legal problem as a real problem.  In our natural state, we really don't like God and want nothing to do with Him.  We need to be reconciled to God so that we love Him instead of hating Him, and desire to do His will, rather than wanting to have nothing to do with Him.  The cross is the means of accompllishing this.  For example:

"But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love.  Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 761, 762)"    

[Robert]

​

I understand that by virtue of Christ's corporate work, we were saved from the second death, and we live physically.

​The 2nd death is the curse of the law.  So we have been saved from under law.  The "we" is the human race.  We come into this world justified, but when we mature we need to accept this truth by faith in order to retain Christ's righteousness.

[Robert]

They cannot be given eternal life either, BECAUSE they have never "believed" in Christ as Lord and King and Savior.

​What you are essentially doing is making "faith" meritorious.  "Faith" is not the Savior.  Christ is the Savior and for those who cannot chose, His righteousness covers such individuals.  

Edited May 8, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

We're not guilty of Adam's sin.  We weren't "in Adam" when he died spiritually and thus guilty of his sin.  That is completely against scripture, yet you will hear the advocates of the "in Christ" motif repeat this lie again and again.  

​We share Adam's life with its "bent-to-self" and therefore we stand condemned. 

Rom 5:18 "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men..."

We aren't guilty of Adam's specific sin unless we do the same.  Guilt involves volition, that is, the breaking of a known law or command.  "Original sin" (which is not a term used in the Bible) means we stand "condemned" because we share Adam's fallen life.  

Turn to Gen 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man (Adam), He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind (i.e., Adam) in the day they were created.  3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years (keep in mind this was after the fall), and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 

At creation Adam was made in God's image and therefore he perfectly reflected God's agape love, but after the fall this agape love became bent-back-to-self, which is self-love.  So when Adam had a son the only thing he could pass to him was a life that had sinned and a life bent-to-self.  

 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Robert

[Samie]

8thdaypriest is correct in that Christ's life and death boght a grace period.  He was our ransom.  So much of this misunderstanding could be cleared up if people would only study the concept of ga'al in the Bible and what Ellen White has to say about the subject.  ga'al is the foundation of the plan of salvation.  Christ came here and lived and died to become human, for only a human could pay our ransom.  Only as a human being could He become the closest relative we have who could pay our debt--who could ransom us.   Christ purchased us.  We weren't "in Christ" in some metaphysical mumbo jumbo.  He became one of us so He could buy us back from the devil who overcome us through deciet and treachery.

Notice how these quotes refute Robert's and Samie's assertions.  God paid a price to redeem us, to ransom us back from the first terrorist.  The concept of ga'al completely eliminates the "in Christ" motif for it is basis of the plan of redemption.  Every mention of redemption, being redeemed, or Redeemer in both Testaments is translated directly from ga'al or from words meaning ransom or to purchase.  The link is so strong it cannot be ignored by an honest Bible student.

Many preachers teach that one MUST first accept Christ before he can be attached to Him. This is just like saying that while separate from Christ, one can do SOMETHING to be attached to Christ. But Christ has emphatically said that unless attached to Him one can do NOTHING (John 15:5).

I think it is better to believe in what our Savior said than in what many preachers teach.

We believe, repent, decide to be baptized, etc., not to be attached to Christ but because we had been attached to Him Who is our strength for overcoming evil with good (Rom 12:21; Phil 4:13). And Christ said that overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5). "Blotting" signifies that names were written down first otherwise there is nothing to blot. God, through Christ, empowered as first, before He required us to do anything. Many preachers seem not to notice they teach the opposite of what Christ Himself taught. And the gospel these preachers preach is the brand of gospel the world has known.

And we wonder why Christ has not yet returned?

It's because the gospel He wanted preached to the world before He comes again is not the gospel preached by many. Christian preachers teach non-Christians that unless converted to Christianity, they cannot be made part of the Body of Christ - His Church. Compare that message with the message telling non-Christians that they too are already part of the Body of Christ, and attached to Him, they have His power to overcome evil with good, that their names may not be blotted out from the book of life. We were written in the book of life because of God's grace He gave us through Christ before the world began (2 Tim 1:9)!

When Christ returns, He will reward everyone according to what each has done (Matt 16:27; Rev 22:12). Those whose names are found written in the book of life will be allowed entry into the heavenly portals (Rev 21:27); all others will suffer God's wrath (Rom 2:5-8) and finally thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).

[Samie]

Many preachers teach that people are born separate from Christ and that it is only when they believe in Christ or enter into a covenant relationship with God, that they are attached to Christ. In effect they teach that attaching to Christ comes AFTER people believe. These preachers also know that a person is spiritually dead while separate from Christ. So how can a spiritually dead do any spiritual act, like believing?

Do we tell the unconscious to believe the doctor's instructions so he can be revived? No! Of course not. And separate from Christ, one is not only unconscious; he is dead, spiritually dead. So why tell the spiritually dead to first believe the Great Physician so he can be made spiritually alive?

The fact that people - born in Christian or Non-christian homes - can believe is PROOF enough that people are born spiritually alive! All because of God's grace given us in Christ before time began!

NKJ 2 Timothy 1:9 [God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began

That grace caused us to be born with our names already in the book of life. And only overcomers will not be blotted out from it (Rev 3:5).

[Robert]

We believe, repent, decide to be baptized, etc., not to be attached to Christ....

​Right....

[Samie]

 Born with their names in the book of life, babies who die at infancy are sure of heaven and the new earth. In fact, the prophet Isaiah, in vision, saw them there playing with the lion and the leopard and the snake!

KJV Isaiah 11

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 

7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 

8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

The teaching that babies who die at infancy will be resurrected at the 8th millennium and given the chance to select whom to serve. seem to have no basis in Scriptures, for by the time they know whom to select they are no longer babies. If that were true, then there are no babies in the new earth. Isaiah's vision negates this teaching.

Those resurrected at the end of the 7th millennium are the unrighteous who were slain at the battle of Armageddon - their first death, and will be thrown into the lake of fire - their second death (Rev 19:19-21; 20:5-15). The righteous, Christ said, will never see death (John 8:51). The death people experience now is but sleep in the Savior's eyes (Ps 13:3; John 11:11).

[8thdaypriest]

Samie said,

"Those resurrected at the end of the 7th millennium are the unrighteous who were slain at the battle of Armageddon - their first death, and will be thrown into the lake of fire - their second death (Rev 19:19-21; 20:5-15). The righteous, Christ said, will never see death (John 8:51). The death people experience now is but sleep in the Savior's eyes (Ps 13:3; John 11:11)."

The references you cited do NOT prove that "the rest of the dead" are all already condemned, when they are resurrected after the 1000 years.   SDAs and other have woven a theory around the "second resurrection", which they must cite Ellen White to "prove". 

[8thdaypriest]

Because Isaiah was shown little children living within the Kingdom of Messiah ruling on the earth, does NOT PROVE those children have already received immortality  (immortal spiritual bodies).  They COULD have been raised with "the rest of the dead", to continue their physical lives, and then choose whom they will serve.  Those who rebel will come up as the army of Gog/Magog. 

[pnattmbtc]

​What you are essentially doing is making "faith" meritorious.  "Faith" is not the Savior.  Christ is the Savior and for those who cannot chose, His righteousness covers such individuals.  

​It appears to me you are viewing "justified" as a status, and are saying that we are all born with the status of justified, but when we reach the age of accountability we need to accept the truth that we have this status, or we will lose it.

[Samie]

Samie said,

"Those resurrected at the end of the 7th millennium are the unrighteous who were slain at the battle of Armageddon - their first death, and will be thrown into the lake of fire - their second death (Rev 19:19-21; 20:5-15). The righteous, Christ said, will never see death (John 8:51). The death people experience now is but sleep in the Savior's eyes (Ps 13:3; John 11:11)."

The references you cited do NOT prove that "the rest of the dead" are all already condemned, when they are resurrected after the 1000 years.   ...

​Christ said that when He comes again He will reward EVERYONE according to what each has done (Matt 16:27; Rev 22:12).

At the second coming, all dead are resurrected, with the righteous getting resurrected first, followed by the unrighteous (John 5:28,29; Acts 24:15; Dan 12:1,2; 1 Thes 4:16). Together with the living, all will see Christ coming in the clouds of heaven (Rev 1:7). All are then present to each receive his own reward. The righteous will inherit life eternal; the unrighteous will suffer God's wrath - the 7 plagues (Rom 2:5-8; Rev 15:1). The 7 plagues are poured upon the wicked on earth after the righteous have sung the song of Moses and of the Lamb in the sea of glass in heaven (Rev 15:2-7; 16:1). All will have by then joined the group they belong to: the righteous with the group of the righteous; the unrighteous with the group of the unrighteous.

Rev 19 tells us that the righteous are married with the Lamb in heaven (Rev 19:1-10); the marriage occurs after the start of the 7th plague where the harlot is judged (Rev 16:17-19; 19:1 ,2).  The unrighteous are led by the beast and his false prophet in the battle of Armageddon against Christ with His bride and His army when they come down to earth after the marriage in heaven (Rev 19:11-19). The beast and his false prophet will be thrown alive into the lake of fire (v20); the "rest" (Greek loipoi, loipoy) will all be slain (v21). This same group - already condemned as unrighteous - are  the "rest of the dead" resurrected after the 1000 years, to be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:5-15).

[8thdaypriest]

So - God resurrects them, judges them, then horribly torments them with 7 plagues, then kills them,

only to resurrect them again (after 1000 years) to execute them AGAIN. 

Is that about right?

[phkrause]

So - God resurrects them, judges them, then horribly torments them with 7 plagues, then kills them,

only to resurrect them again (after 1000 years) to execute them AGAIN. 

Is that about right?

​Sounds about right 8thdaypriest, I don't buy it for one minute, or even a second, etc.

[LifeHiscost]

​

[Robert]

​It appears to me you are viewing "justified" as a status, and are saying that we are all born with the status of justified, but when we reach the age of accountability we need to accept the truth that we have this status, or we will lose it.​

Justification is standing just before God's law in Christ Jesus.

Before "we" reached the age of accountability we were infants.   Infants cannot be held accountable to God's law.  However, because infants share Adam's life they stand condemned,  But Christ has legally changed our status from condemnation to justification of life. Hence we are born under the umbrella of justification.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

So - God resurrects them, judges them, then horribly torments them with 7 plagues, then kills them,

only to resurrect them again (after 1000 years) to execute them AGAIN. 

Is that about right?

​This made me laugh, but I had a similar sort of reaction.  It doesn't present God in a very favorable light, does it?

[pnattmbtc]

Justification is standing just before God's law in Christ Jesus.

Before "we" reached the age of accountability we were infants.   Infants cannot be held accountable to God's law.  However, because infants share Adam's life they stand condemned,  But Christ has legally changed our status from condemnation to justification of life. Hence we are born under the umbrella of justification.

​​The problems which confront us, and God, are not chiefly legal ones.