Are we born justified?

[Woody]

I agree with Sequeira.

[joeb]

Not sure why you are disagreeing with me.  I posted that Jesus did NOT break the Sabbath - ever.  He - as "Lord of the Sabbath" sets the standard for what is lawful or right to do on the Sabbath (not the Pharisees). 

​Sorry about that.  I jumped into the middle of the thread and read where you stated that God could break His own law, but forgot to state what my difference with you was.  I take exception with that idea.  Here's why.  God's law is nothing more or less than His character.  To say that God is not bound the limits of His own character(His law) is to say that God's character is pretty shabby.   It's basically saying that God cannot control Himself.

There is a second reason too.  If God were to act outside His law the devil would immediately jump on that and accuse Him of selfishness, of saying one thing and doing another.  That's basically what he accused God of at the beginning of sin.  God has spent 6000 years unmasking the devil's original lies about Him so why would He give the devil more ammunition to use against Him?

[joeb]

​I did not say Yahushua actually broke the Sabbath. I said that some people say Jesus broke the Sabbath for one or both of the following reasons: 

1) He was God and he could do whatever ever he felt like

2) The Sabbath was only for the Children of Israel

My comment was originally in the context of the argument of being "outside the law".

- joe

​1.  God is bound by His own character.  He is love.  The Bible tells us this, therefore he cannot do what is not love.  If He did He would not be love.  God's character, law, and love are all the exact same thing.  To say He can act in a way that is outside of His character is to feed into the devil's attacks upon God's character.. 

2.  The Sabbath was not just for the COI.  God, through Moses, told the COI that  there was to be one law for Israelite and the stranger who dwelt among them if they desired to join with the Israelites.   

  Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
  49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

[joeb]

I have one more thing to say about the Sabbath being given only to the Jews.  I'll quote Isaiah 56: 1-7.

1 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation isnear to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.^*n1
  2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
  3 ¶Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to theLord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
  4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
  5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
  6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
  7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

[pnattmbtc]

"I jumped into the middle of the thread and read where you stated that God could break His own law, but forgot to state what my difference with you was."

I want to jump in too.  I don't know what the original's poster's point was, but do you believe God has free will?  If He does, then He could break His law, but, of course, He would use His free will not to.  To say God "cannot" break His law is ambiguous.  Are we talking about character or free will?  Another point that comes to min is that Jesus Christ was God, and He certainly could have broken the law.

[Robert]

Salvation from the guilt and punishment of sin.
Salvation from the power and slavery of sin.
Salvation from the nature and presence of sin.

Yes, in Christ we have been saved from the guilt, power and presence of sin.  What Christ does in you is not the gospel.. 

Edited May 13, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Or do you think children before the age of accountability cannot be controlled by Satan? 

​We are born-bent-to-self....Satan polluted the human race in Adam with the love of self.  So if you want to call that controlled by Satan, you go right ahead.  The problem with "controlled by Satan" is it doesn't fly because if Satan died we would still be bent-to-self.

Now, are you controlled by Satan because of your bent????  Keep in mind Rom 3:23 in your answer or 1 John 1:8

Edited May 13, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

"To say God "cannot" break His law is ambiguous.  Are we talking about character or free will?  Another point that comes to min is that Jesus Christ was God, and He certainly could have broken the law.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted , I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Edited May 13, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted , I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

​I think everyone is familiar with this verse.  Is this particular case, it seems clear that James is dealing with character, don't you agree?  Or do you think something else?

[8thdaypriest]

I was speaking of the DIFFERENCE between the CREATOR and the created being. 

God the Father worships NO ONE.  He is HEAD of all.  He is "the head of Christ" who worshiped His Father.  I the END, Christ will submit Himself to His Father, and will turn the Kingdom over to His Father.  (I Cor 15). 

We must at least recognize that we, as created beings, must conform to the Laws set for us.   Christ is our example.  But God the Father is NOT subject to every law that was given FOR US. 

And we must recognize that principal trumps lists of rules.  If I was a prisoner and was going to starve if I did not eat bacon.  I WOULD eat the bacon.  Life trumps lists.  I WOULD lie, if it meant I could rescue someone from captivity or torture.  Etc. Etc.  (I know someone is going to accuse me of situational ethics.)

Remember the story of how David, fleeing from Saul, was given some of the shew bread by the priest.  It was UNLAWFUL for anyone but the priests to eat the shew bread.  But this was about saving the life of God's anointed future king.  Jesus used this story to tell the pharisees that harvesting a few grains for immediate consumption, on the Sabbath was NOT breaking the Sabbath.  I think He was trying to say that something may appear to be sin, when you don't know the true REASON for doing it , in this situation.  Then He said, "The Son of Man is LORD, even of the Sabbath day."  In other words, "I decide what is lawful on this day, and what is not, BECAUSE I am LORD, of this day."   It was one time that He claimed His rightful position. 

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, in Christ we have been saved from the guilt, power and presence of sin.  What Christ does in you is not the gospel.. 

​

You cut out the part I emphasized.

​In view of this, all three aspects of salvation constitute the Good News of salvation, and since they all come to us in one parcel, Jesus Christ, they are inseparable and we cannot choose to receive one without the other. "(emphasis mine).

Do you disagree with this?  

[8thdaypriest]

I am obviously NOT Trinitarian.  I worship only the Father and His Son. 

[pnattmbtc]

​We are born-bent-to-self....Satan polluted the human race in Adam with the love of self.  So if you want to call that controlled by Satan, you go right ahead.  The problem with "controlled by Satan" is it doesn't fly because if Satan died we would still be bent-to-self.

Now, are you controlled by Satan because of your bent????  Keep in mind Rom 3:23 in your answer or 1 John 1:8

​​Robert, you are cutting out things and destroying the context.  Please consider the entire argument that is being made, and don't take little snippets out of context.  I didn't say one is controlled by Satan because one has a bent to self, you did.  If you wish to make this assertion, please provide some evidence for your assertion.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

[8thdaypriest]

Yes, in Christ we have been saved from the guilt, power and presence of sin.  What Christ does in you is not the gospel.. 

​What Christ can and will do "in you" IS the good news, because if we can't stop sinning, then we WILL die - eternally.  The ONLY THING that will make us fit for His Kingdom, IS His work in us.   His sacrifice on the cross, won for Him the power and the right to do those things, IN US. 

"The last Adam was made a life giving spirit."  (I Cor 15:45). 

Jesus returned to be with "with you always" .  And HE is "in us".   "Christ in me, the hope of glory".  (Paul) 

"I in them, and you in me, that they may be one in us".  (Jn cpt 17)  This was Jesus speaking to His Father.  His last prayer.

Edited May 13, 2015 by 8thdaypriest

[pnattmbtc]

I was speaking of the DIFFERENCE between the CREATOR and the created being. 

God the Father worships NO ONE.  He is HEAD of all.  He is "the head of Christ" who worshiped His Father.  I the END, Christ will submit Himself to His Father, and will turn the Kingdom over to His Father.  (I Cor 15). 

We must at least recognize that we, as created beings, must conform to the Laws set for us.   Christ is our example.  But God the Father is NOT subject to every law that was given FOR US. 

And we must recognize that principal trumps lists of rules.  If I was a prisoner and was going to starve if I did not eat bacon.  I WOULD eat the bacon.  Life trumps lists.  I WOULD lie, if it meant I could rescue someone from captivity or torture.  Etc. Etc.  (I know someone is going to accuse me of situational ethics.)

Remember the story of how David, fleeing from Saul, was given some of the shew bread by the priest.  It was UNLAWFUL for anyone but the priests to eat the shew bread.  But this was about saving the life of God's anointed future king.  Jesus used this story to tell the pharisees that harvesting a few grains for immediate consumption, on the Sabbath was NOT breaking the Sabbath.  I think He was trying to say that something may appear to be sin, when you don't know the true REASON for doing it , in this situation.  Then He said, "The Son of Man is LORD, even of the Sabbath day."  In other words, "I decide what is lawful on this day, and what is not, BECAUSE I am LORD, of this day."   It was one time that He claimed His rightful position. 

​You don't seem to be differentiating between the moral and ceremonial law here.  Am I misunderstanding you?

[8thdaypriest]

​You don't seem to be differentiating between the moral and ceremonial law here.  Am I misunderstanding you?

​Are you saying that the Sabbath is a "MORAL LAW" and NOT a "ceremonial one" ?   I believe that the system of animal sacrifice under an exclusive Aaronic priesthood is done.  But I believe that we will go up from one Sabbath to another, to worship the LORD, in His forever kingdom.  These will NOT just be the 7th day Sabbaths.  This is speaking of all the "appointed times".  Jesus said that we will eat the Passover with Him, in His Father's kingdom.  He turns the Kingdom over to the Father as the FINAL act in the Great Controversy drama. 

[Robert]

​

You cut out the part I emphasized.

​In view of this, all three aspects of salvation constitute the Good News of salvation, and since they all come to us in one parcel, Jesus Christ, they are inseparable and we cannot choose to receive one without the other. "(emphasis mine).

Do you disagree with this?  

​Sequeira is speaking of our position "in Christ", not our performance.

[Robert]

​I think everyone is familiar with this verse.  Is this particular case, it seems clear that James is dealing with character, don't you agree?  Or do you think something else?

​Call it what you wish, God can't be tempted.

Christ was God.  He couldn't be tempted, but in becoming what He was not by Divine right (i.e., one of us), He could.  And His temptations  were much more than ours because He could have used His Divinity, which He had handed the independent use over to His Father. 

[Robert]

​​Robert, you are cutting out things and destroying the context.  Please consider the entire argument that is being made, and don't take little snippets out of context.  I didn't say one is controlled by Satan because one has a bent to self, you did.  If you wish to make this assertion, please provide some evidence for your assertion.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

​I don't believe that I did take it out of context.  Review your question.....

[pnattmbtc]

I asked the question because in the post about the law being principles and not rules, you referred to both the ceremonial and moral law in your example apparently interchangeably.  That's why I was asking if you weren't differentiating between them.

[8thdaypriest]

I will post here, what I posted in another thread.

Human beings were created to be INDWELT.  Without that symbiosis (so-to-speak) we are carnal (self seeking).  Yes - Satan COULD disappear, and we would still be carnal, IF we did not have the indwelling of the divine nature.  Since he first deceived Eve, Satan's GOAL has been to separate us from the indwelling.  To separate us individually, and corporately.  Without the indwelling, we will consume one another, and self-destruct. 

Because we humans have that capacity to be "indwelt" - Satan sometimes uses that for his own indwelling.  We call that "demon possession".

When the Son of God agreed to become a human, and to be TESTED as a human, He won [done deal] for humanity:

1.  continued existence for a period of time (A. not executed and B. limited protection from Satan)  [I THINK Robert calls this "standing justified before God.] 

2.  the indwelling (thru His spirit)

Continued existence - as a race of human beings, did NOT have to be earned, or requested by the humans.  It was a gift.  It was "grace".  It WAS unmerited.  Adam and Eve SHOULD have been left to die, or been consumed in the "fire of God".

But "the indwelling" MUST BE consented to.  

When Jesus DIED, He won the right to the dominion of earth.  Which meant that Satan would be removed (along with anyone who has totally resisted the indwelling), and Christ would govern the humans.  

So - WHY - did Jesus not immediately TAKE CONTROL of the earth (and the people), and oust Satan ?  I was BECAUSE of that TIME thing.  It  takes time - to win over a human being (much less millions of them.)  It was all BECAUSE God does not, and will not, take over control of a human mind.  He pleads.  He "knocks".  He demonstrates His love.  He allows us to experience the pain of carnality.    He wants a relationship - not robots!!!!

THAT fact - the need for TIME, lead me to the concept of "The 8th Day".  So long as more children - more human beings, are coming into existence, thru conception and birth,  the fight for humanity cannot END.  These new human beings also NEED TIME.  God wants to woo them also.  He WILL NOT just simply transport them into His kingdom.  He would HAVE TO take over their minds (the indwelling WITHOUT their consent), to render them forever in accord with His Law.  These children HAVE NOT consented to the indwelling.  They are carnal.  If you have ever lived with a 2 year old - you KNOW what that means. 

I believe the descriptions of children with tame carnivores in Isaiah Cpt 11 are giving us a view of the 1000 year reign of Messiah on the earth AFTER the 7th millennium.  "The 8th Day" kingdom of Messiah on the earth. 

Robert and Samie keep trying to convince anyone who will read their posts, that children and anyone who has sinned in ignorance, will be given eternal life, without their having to CONSENT to the indwelling, or to CHOOSE whom they will serve.  I don't mind, because it just gives me yet more opportunity to counter with my understanding of "The 8th Day". 

[pnattmbtc]

Robert, here's my question:

"Those who have chosen Satan as their leader and have been controlled by his power are not prepared to enter the presence of God. Pride, deception, licentiousness, cruelty, have become fixed in their characters. Can they enter heaven to dwell forever with those whom they despised and hated on earth? Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests?"

Do you disagree with the points being made here?  Do you think it's possible that those who have cnotroled by Satan can enter heaven and be happy there?  Or do you think children before the age of accountability cannot be controlled by Satan?  Or that they don't have characters?  How do you get around the problem that these children have made thousands, if not millions of decisions, directed against the principles of heaven, and have formed a character which contradicts the principles of heaven.  How can they be happy in heaven?  Will God change their character?

[joeb]

So what Christ does in the believer is the gospel?  If so, then the believer can stand justified before God's law through his works of the law.  That's Romanism at its best.  It's legalism and anti-gospel.

​Really, Robert?  What Christ does in the believer, through the believer's faith in Christ, is legalism?  You're really getting off on the deep end here, Robert.  Sanctification is as much by faith as is justification.  It's plain that you do not understand that.  To you it is something that the believer does of himself.  IOWs, you think a believer can overcome sin on his own.

[Robert]

​Really, Robert?  What Christ does in the believer, through the believer's faith in Christ, is legalism?  You're really getting off on the deep end here, Robert.  Sanctification is as much by faith as is justification.  It's plain that you do not understand that.  To you it is something that the believer does of himself.  IOWs, you think a believer can overcome sin on his own.

​But it's not the gospel.  If you make it the gospel then it's legalism. The gospel is how Christ saved us in Himself plus nothing....

[Robert]

Robert, here's my question:

"Those who have chosen Satan as their leader and have been controlled by his power are not prepared to enter the presence of God. Pride, deception, licentiousness, cruelty, have become fixed in their characters. Can they enter heaven to dwell forever with those whom they despised and hated on earth? Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests?"

Sin will not be taken to heaven. No indwelling bent will be in the resurrected for they will be changed.