Are we born justified?

[8thdaypriest]

Paul is talking about Christ transforming our BODIES on the day of the SC - not our minds.    The living will be raised with immortal spiritual BODIES, and the BODIES of those still living will be "changed" so they are immortal. 

If Jesus could push the "easy button" and instantly transform our minds at the instant we ask Him to, then He should have done that waaaaaay back, just after Eve ate the fruit. 

But THAT would be manipulation.  That is WHY it has taken sooooooo long.   And will still take another thousand years before we are ready to be "priests of God and of Christ". 

[Robert]

If you look at what you quoted in context, instead of just one sentence quoted out of context, you will see it says the same thing I was saying (or rather she) in the other quotes. 

​So the character is not faulty?  Here's what I see in your presentations:  legalism!  I + Christ, instead of not I, but Christ.  We are saved by Christ's finished work.  Good works do not add to Christ's justification of us.  We are complete in Him.  What part of this do you fail to comprehend?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Paul is talking about Christ transforming our BODIES on the day of the SC - not our minds.    ​

50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood (the whole man) cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 

51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we (the whole person) will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 

52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 

 

 

 

The context does not state that only the body is changed.  The whole man is changed.  His bent-to-self, or indwelling sin, is gone.  His mind is in perfect harmony with God's agape.  If not, then God is resurrecting imperfect beings and is therefore responsible for sin.

 

Edited June 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Paul's not talking about our character.

​Really?  Just the body, huh?  Here we go again....

[Robert]

 

​Of course they're transported to heaven without a change.  That's the point; the character doesn't change.

​It's a moot point by EGW.  No one is transported to heaven in his earthly state.  He must be changed because his humanity is polluted with iniquity and cannot enter heaven.  He must receive a new creation.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

So what degree of character perfection should the believer achieve before he is good enough to enter the pearly gates?  

​I didn't get an answer on the above.

[pnattmbtc]

If you look at what you quoted in context, instead of just one sentence quoted out of context, you will see it says the same thing I was saying (or rather she) in the other quotes. 

​Robert:So the character is not faulty?  Here's what I see in your presentations:  legalism!  I + Christ, instead of not I, but Christ.  We are saved by Christ's finished work.  Good works do not add to Christ's justification of us.  We are complete in Him.  What part of this do you fail to comprehend?

What leads you to write in this way?  Frustration?  It's not attractive.

Why do you think I'm failing to comprehend anything?  Do you not think there is another possibility?  Perhaps you're failing to understanding something.  Is that possible?  What's the point in writing something like that?  Why not simply write whatever points you want to make in a respectful manner.  Belittling others and sarcasm doesn't add strength to your argument.

What I see in your writing is that you see the basic problem as a legal one.  I don't see the problem as a legal one, but as a real one, by which I mean we, as human beings, need to be converted.  I don't see that being converted is legalism.

What I believe is that God will take everybody to heaven who will be happy there.  This necessitates being born again.  If conversion were the result of works, then one could argue that this is legalism.  But if conversion is a supernatural experience, something wholly of grace, given as an infinite gift, where is the legalism?

I haven't seen anything in what you're written that addresses the question of character.  Our sinful flesh will be changed when resurrected, but neither the resurrection nor translation will change the character.

[pnattmbtc]

Of course they're transported to heaven without a change.  That's the point; the character doesn't change.

​It's a moot point by EGW.  No one is transported to heaven in his earthly state.  You must be changed because your humanity is polluted with iniquity and cannot enter heaven.  You must received a new creation.

This is the opposite of a moot point.  The character is not changed by either the resurrection or translation.  What could be less moot than that?

The redeemed will no loner have sinful flesh, or mortal bodies.  But the character is not changed.  God cannot change our characters without violating our free will, unless we are a part of the process.  How we see God impacts what decisions we make.  Our decisions decide our character, and our character determines our destiny.  The fundamental problem is how we perceive God, not a legal problem.  This is why the whole purpose of Jesus' mission was the revelation of God, and why Satan is so intent no misrepresenting God's character.

[Robert]

 

What leads you to write in this way?  Frustration?  It's not attractive.

​Was Paul frustrated with the Judaizers when he said, "

Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. ...

 

12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

 

 

You see the Judaizers stated that faith in Christ wasn't enough.  Here, let's look at this point:

 

Act 15:1 & 5:

 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ....

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." 

 

 

So to the "believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" (Judaizers) faith wasn't enough - you must add circumcision and obedience to the Pentateuch. 

 

 

So was Paul frustrated?  

 

 

Edited June 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

 But if conversion is a supernatural experience, something wholly of grace, given as an infinite gift, where is the legalism?

 

"​but unless they possessed Christlike meekness and love, they were not confessing Him." (Ellen White)

That word "love" is agape and according to Paul all have sinned and in the present continuous tense "fall short" of God's glory (his agape/goodness). Therefore if character means living Christ's life then we are all doomed...I call character perfection subtle legalism.

I haven't seen anything in what you're written that addresses the question of character.  Our sinful flesh will be changed when resurrected, but neither the resurrection nor translation will change the character.

All character means is the mindset...."The mind set of the flesh" is anti-God.  

The mind set on the Spirit is towards God, but still imperfect.....Keep in mind 1 John 1:8

Look at Romans 7:

For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 

23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind (the mindset) and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 

 

 

 

Notice, the man of Romans 7 mindset is in harmony with God's love, but in his experience he is failing.  So character doesn't mean law performance.....

 

Edited June 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

The redeemed will no loner have sinful flesh, or mortal bodies.  But the character is not changed.  God cannot change our characters without violating our free will, unless we are a part of the process.  

​Isn't it a violation in removing our "bent-to-self" what Paul terms "sin living in me"? So I don't buy your argument. Our minds will be perfectly in harmony with God's agape at the resurrection.

Again, character simply means mind-set.  Here's another example:

Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; ....11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 6:6 is the gospel.  Our old life from Adam died in Christ and therefore in Him we have a new creation free from indwelling sin and sin's dominion. 

In Romans 6:11 Paul is telling believers to "consider" (that's mindset) ourselves dead to sin.  In other words Paul is saying let's experience what is already true of us in Christ.  We died to sin in Him, now set your mind to this truth.  So this is what Paul would term "obeying the gospel"

Edited June 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

​I didn't get an answer on the above.

​?

[LifeHiscost]

 

Honestly Robert, your gospel makes God's grace and the work of the Holy Spirit appear  completely inadequate to give men and women the power to become sons and daughters of God in this life. (John  1:12 )

Yes, God's grace gives us power;, not a magic wand.

 

​

I know Robert means well but I finally decided to just let the Word give me the peace God promises the individuals that accept Jesus at His Word. Praise God for adding His grace.

…28"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."....Matthew 11 emphasis theirs'  LHC

17If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God......John 7

39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.…John 5

31So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."....John 8

6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.....John 14

164Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.

165Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

God is Love!  Jesus saves!  

 

 

 

[Robert]

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 
 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. 

Is this not the agape love Christ commands us to obtain in this life?

​How did Christ love?  Was He not willing to give up His life forever so that we sinners could have heaven in His place?

Rom 5:8 God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners (His enemies), Christ died for us....10 ... when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son....

[pnattmbtc]

What leads you to write in this way?  Frustration?  It's not attractive.

?Was Paul frustrated with the Judaizers when he said, "

Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. ... 12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.  You see the Judaizers stated that faith in Christ wasn't enough.  Here, let's look at this point: Act 15:1 & 5: Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ....5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."   So to the "believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" (Judaizers) faith wasn't enough - you must add circumcision and obedience to the Pentateuch.   So was Paul frustrated? 

This reminds me of the Dan Quail, Lloyd Bentsen debate: "You're no John Kennedy".  Paul also said, "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race".  Can you say this with Paul?  If not, perhaps it would be better to control your frustration.  

[pnattmbtc]

Me:But if conversion is a supernatural experience, something wholly of grace, given as an infinite gift, where is the legalism? 

"but unless they possessed Christlike meekness and love, they were not confessing Him." (Ellen White)

Robert:That word "love" is agape and according to Paul all have sinned and in the present continuous tense "fall short" of God's glory (his agape/goodness). Therefore if character means living Christ's life then we are all doomed...I call character perfection subtle legalism.

You're conflating several concepts here.  It's easier if we talk about one thing at a time.  I wasn't talking about "character perfection", but simply character.  I was making the point that the character does not change at resurrection or translation.  Character means "The combination of mental characteristics and behavior that distinguishes a person".  Our mental characteristics and behavior must be in harmony with the principles of heaven, or we wouldn't be happy there.

Me:I haven't seen anything in what you're written that addresses the question of character.  Our sinful flesh will be changed when resurrected, but neither the resurrection nor translation will change the character.

Robert:All character means is the mindset...."The mind set of the flesh" is anti-God.  

The mind set on the Spirit is towards God, but still imperfect.....Keep in mind 1 John 1:8

Ok, then let's try it this way.  The mind must be set on the Spirit, or one would not be happy in heaven.  God will not change the mindset when one is translated or resurrected.

To keep this from being too long, I'll consider Romans 7 separately.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:Isn't it a violation in removing our "bent-to-self" what Paul terms "sin living in me"? 

No.  There are two different things here.  One is the mind and the other is the flesh.  The flesh changes, and it is not a violation of will to have that changed, because that doesn't change our minds.  We are defined by how we think.  God isn't going to magically change the way we think.  *That* would be a violation of free will.

If we are going to love God, we need to learn to do that now.  He won't change our thinking so that instead of hating Him we love Him because we believe some fact.

Robert:So I don't buy your argument. Our minds will be perfectly in harmony with God's agape at the resurrection.

Only if our minds are in harmony with God's agape now.  It's a dangerous delusion to think otherwise.  If we don't love God now, we won't love Him in the hereafter.

Robert: Again, character simply means mind-set.

Character means "The combination of mental characteristics and behavior that distinguishes a person".

Robert: Here's another example:

Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; ....11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 6:6 is the gospel.  Our old life from Adam died in Christ and therefore in Him we have a new creation free from indwelling sin and sin's dominion.

I agree with this except instead of "have a new creation" I would say "are a new creation." 

In Romans 6:11 Paul is telling believers to "consider" (that's mindset) ourselves dead to sin.  In other words Paul is saying let's experience what is already true of us in Christ.  We died to sin in Him, now set your mind to this truth.  So this is what Paul would term "obeying the gospel"

It's difficult to follow your train of thought here.  We were discussing that the character is not changed upon resurrection or translation.  I see you are considering character to be the same thing as mindset (not sure why), and applying a text which deals with mindset, but don't see how this ties into the issue of one's character not changing upon resurrection or translation.

Regarding "obeying the gospel," which is an interesting phrase, I only see one time where "obey the gospel" is used, and in context those who do not obey the gospel are those who "know not God."  hypakouousin, the word used in 2 Thess 1:8, comes from hupakouó, where akouó has to do with hearing.  A couple of verses translated this is "responding to the Gospel" or "recognizing the Gospel" which I think captures the thought, as "gospel" is "good news", and "obeying good news" isn't something we would normally say, although we would say "recognize good news" or "respond to good news".

[pnattmbtc]

So what degree of character perfection should the believer achieve before he is good enough to enter the pearly gates? 

One needs a character such that one would not want to flee from heaven because being there would be torture. 

[Samie]

I already did, but I'm happy to repeat it.  I wrote, in the top paragraph:

"None of these verses say that everybody's name is written in the book of life.  None of them say that every baby's name is written in the book of life.  Even worse, none of them are even discussing this as a subject."

This is the heremneutical problem.  Where you are doing this especially is here:

Isaiah is not discussing the question as to whether baby's names are written in the book of life.  Your whole argument is based on this one text, which has nothing to do with what you're talking about.  Also, your logic is wrong.  You're arguing that God has to write every baby's name in the book of life or He would be impartial.  That would only be true if there were no pertinent differences between babies.  You can't infer that from what is written here.

I have shown you how it can be inferred from those verses. Here: 

​Scriptures tell of only two salvational destinations: Destination #1: New Heaven, New Earth; and Destination #2:  Lake of Fire.

NRS Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

NRS Revelation 20:15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

From the above verses, Destination #1 is for those whose names are in the book of life; and Destination #2 is for those whose names are not found written in the book of life.

God Himself showed Isaiah that there will be babies in the new earth (Isa 11:6-9), therefore, their names are in the book of life. And since God shows no partiality, names of all babies were initially written in the book of life. Therefore, we were born with our names in the book of life, UNTIL blotted out at death for not overcoming evil while alive.

Can you explain why God Who shows no partiality would only write SOME and not ALL names of babies into the book of life? Please provide Bible verse(s) for your explanation.

[Samie]

In Isaiah 11:6-9, God told Isaiah of babies in the new Earth. This same God Who showed the vision to Isaiah, also gave His Revelation to our Lord Jesus Christ, that only those who are written in the book of life can be there, and those not found written will be cast into the lake of fire. I don't think it is "a cardinal error of Biblical hermeneutics" to conclude that babies in the new earth have their names in the book of life. What would perhaps constitute a cardinal error is to conclude otherwise.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: I have shown you how it can be inferred from those verses.

It's not a good inference for the reasons I explained. 

Samie: Can you explain why God Who shows no partiality would only write SOME and not ALL names of babies into the book of life? Please provide Bible verse(s) for your explanation.

I already explained why your argument of partiality in regards to babies doesn't apply.  Twice.  Regarding a Bible verse, I've already explained that I agree with Sister White's contention that the Bible doesn't discuss this issue, so I could hardly present Bible verses, or I'd be contradicting what I said. 

Edited June 3, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

In Isaiah 11:6-9, God told Isaiah of babies in the new Earth. This same God Who showed the vision to Isaiah, also gave His Revelation to our Lord Jesus Christ, that only those who are written in the book of life can be there, and those not found written will be cast into the lake of fire. I don't think it is "a cardinal error of Biblical hermeneutics" to conclude that babies in the new earth have their names in the book of life. What would perhaps constitute a cardinal error is to conclude otherwise.

The error is, as I've explained a couple of times now, to use texts to create a doctrine when the author of the texts is not discussing the issue for which you are making the doctrine.  Isaiah is not talking about babies having their names written in the book of life.  All he said is he saw babies in the new earth, and from this you're concluding that every baby has its name written there.  That's not valid logic.

You added the condition that God is not partial, which is true, and conclude that all babies must have their names in the book of life, or else God would not be impartial.  You haven't established this fact either by logic or any Scripture texts.

That is, what you need to show, in order for your argument to be valid, is that if God did not put every baby's name in the book of life, He would not be impartial. 

Edited June 3, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

God shows NO partiality. If babies in the new earth He wrote in the book of life, why would He not write names of all babies? That I think He really did can be gleaned from how Jesus Who represented the Father, described those who would make it to heaven:

Matthew 18:2-3   2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,  3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:13-14   13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.  14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

In the first instance, only one child was used to represent every other little child. In the second instance, the little children that disciples hindered to come near Him, Jesus used to represent all little children. I believe it is not "a cardinal error in Biblical hermeneutics" to conclude that Jesus was NOT excluding any little child in both instances.

[Samie]

In Isaiah 11:6-9, God told Isaiah of babies in the new Earth. This same God Who showed the vision to Isaiah, also gave His Revelation to our Lord Jesus Christ, that only those who are written in the book of life can be there, and those not found written will be cast into the lake of fire. I don't think it is "a cardinal error of Biblical hermeneutics" to conclude that babies in the new earth have their names in the book of life. What would perhaps constitute a cardinal error is to conclude otherwise.

To the above post, you replied:

The error is, as I've explained a couple of times now, to use texts to create a doctrine when the author of the texts is not discussing the issue for which you are making the doctrine.  Isaiah is not talking about babies having their names written in the book of life.  All he said is he saw babies in the new earth, and from this you're concluding that every baby has its name written there.  That's not valid logic.

​You seemed to have failed to notice that it was God Who spoke Isa 11:6-9. Again, He is the same God Who gave His Revelation to our Savior that only those written in the book of life can be in the new earth. He is the real Author in both instances. I don't think that the real Author of the texts I used is not discussing the issue.

[Robert]

  14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Good one...