Are we born justified?

[Robert]

​As long as a believer continues to believe, God will not condemn Him.  

Okay, we are off subject.  Babies can't believe or disbelieve.  It is my position that babies who die before they are able to "exercise faith" are saved by what Christ did 2000 years ago because their lives have already answered God's law in the doing and dying of Christ.   

[Robert]

​Can't quite agree with you there, Robert.

…30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' 31"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."....Mark 12

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

​Self-love or "love...yourself" is not a requirement of the law.  In fact self-love is what Satan's kingdom is based on.  

What the law requires is for you to love your neighbor as you naturally love yourself.  The law doesn't say:

1] Love your neighbor 

and

2] Love yourself

[LifeHiscost]

​Self-love or "love...yourself" is not a requirement of the law.  In fact self-love is what Satan's kingdom is based on.  

What the law requires is for you to love your neighbor as you naturally love yourself.  The law doesn't say:

1] Love your neighbor 

and

2] Love yourself

​To paraphrase at at the risk of plagiarizing, God said it, I believe it and that's good enough for me.

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[8thdaypriest]

Those of us who have argued against Robert's position, have offered SEVERAL different Scriptural "proofs".  Robert just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating his assertion that Christ saved everyone 2000 years ago.  The ONLY way to then be UN-SAVED, is to fail to "believe" when presented with evidence - (as one of responsible age) - evidence which should prompt one to belief. 

IS THIS FAIR, or JUST ??? 

Why is EVERYONE not tested in this way?  Why are only certain individuals tested - those who reach responsible age, who live in just the right circumstances ? 

Under the scenario that I believe in - God will TEST every human being.  Those who DIE before the age of responsibility, or DIE before missionaries can get to them, or DIED with no knowledge of Yahweh (much less His Son) will be resurrected with "the rest of the dead", to be governed and educated in the "ways of the LORD" by His Melchizedek priesthood.  EVERY ONE of them will then CHOOSE whom they will serve.  Those who REFUSE to submit to Christ as King, will come up as the army of Gog/Magog. 

Someone is going to quote, "God cannot be tempted, neither tempts He any man."   REALLY??  Then why  release Satan from the pit, to deceive the nations ?  Christ ALLOWED Satan to sit in that Tree, and Christ sets Satan free from the pit, after the 1000 years.  You could say that Satan does the tempting.  Yes - but God allows him to do it , therefore God is ultimately responsible for this testing.  I believe God accepted that responsibility.  And He paid the ultimate penalty. 

The point to me is that there ARE TWO SIDES to this conflict.  Each human being MUST CHOOSE a side.  We are FORCED to choose.   NOT choosing Christ, is the SAME AS choosing the Evil One.  Every sentient being - whether man or angel MUST CHOOSE.  

Robert's contention is that God has bypassed that necessity (for CHOICE) for millions of human beings.  Question:  Why do THEY get a free pass, when others do not ?????  Is THAT just?

[Robert]

​To paraphrase at at the risk of plagiarizing, God said it, I believe it and that's good enough for me.

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

​Does God say "love yourself"?

[Stan]

A:  In order to go to heaven we have to be justified.

Children are innocent, we corrupt them. (STAN's thinking)

We are to become like little Children

New International Version
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

​Any further questions?

[Robert]

Those of us who have argued against Robert's position, have offered SEVERAL different Scriptural "proofs".  Robert just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating his assertion that Christ saved everyone 2000 years ago.  The ONLY way to then be UN-SAVED, is to fail to "believe" when presented with evidence - (as one of responsible age) - evidence which should prompt one to belief. 

IS THIS FAIR, or JUST ??? 

Was it fair for God to create Lucifer knowing He would become Satan the adversary and cause all the pain, suffering and death we see all around us everyday? 

Is it fair for all those billions of aborted fetuses (living beings) to be butchered at the hands of doctors because mom is too busy loving herself and doesn't have room for another life?  Who is watching out for them?  Are we to assume that it's too bad for them? So sorry, but you didn't exercise faith and do some good works!

And was if fair for Christ to save us in Himself, without any human contribution, or is faith after all the Savior?

 

Edited June 14, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

A:  In order to go to heaven we have to be justified.

Children are innocent, we corrupt them. (STAN's thinking)

We are to become like little Children

New International Version
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

​Any further questions?

​

[Robert]

Okay, we are off subject.  Babies can't believe or disbelieve.  It is my position that babies who die before they are able to "exercise faith" are saved by what Christ did 2000 years ago because their lives have already answered God's law in the doing and dying of Christ.   

​Again:

Eph 2:4.... "God, who is rich in mercy, 

5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions (i.e., sinners and lost, see verse 1)--it is by grace you have been saved."

 

 

 

 

 

[Robert]

​Again:

Eph 2:4.... "God, who is rich in mercy, 

5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions (i.e., sinners and lost, see verse 1)--it is by grace you have been saved."

 

 

​Then when you reach the age of accountability, (assuming you reach it) the following applies:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith....

 

[Robert]

Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one (Adam), death reigned through the one (Adam), much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

 

 

Again, can an infant receive Christ?  No!  SO then verse 18 applies to all, for whatever reason, who cannot:

 

 

18 So then as through one transgression (Adam's) there resulted condemnation (not guilt) to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men

 

Edited June 14, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: Was it fair for God to create Lucifer knowing He would become Satan the adversary and cause all the pain, suffering and death we see all around us everyday? 

Is it fair for all those billions of aborted fetuses (living beings) to be butchered at the hands of doctors because mom is too busy loving herself and doesn't have room for another life?  Who is watching out for them?  Are we to assume that it's too bad for them? So sorry, but you didn't exercise faith and do some good works!

And was if fair for Christ to save us in Himself, without any human contribution, or is faith after all the Savior?

Your response looks to be, "Yes, it is unfair, but here are some other ways in which God is also unfair."   

I disagree with your assertion.  God is fair, and this is a key point of Paul's argument in Romans (see especially chapter 3).  A better response would be to assert that your position is fair, and present an argument as to why.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:No, absolutely not!  To be under law is to be ruled by the law.  The law has jurisdiction over a man as long as he lives.  It says, "obey & live", "disobey & die".  Disobedience brings the curse, which is God abandonment.

Typo, should read,   "Under law" as you are using it is synonomous with being "unconverted."  This typo should have been obvious by reading the post.

Regarding "the law can't condemn", this is again speaking as if the law were a sentient being. 

Your argument is with Paul; not me.  Paul states "the law brings wrath"; he doesn't state "God brings wrath".  So argue with him and you do that by disproving him to me since he has passed on. 

Paul knew the law isn't a sentient being.  Paul explains his meaning clearly.

The law, any law, reflects the mind of its creator.  The law of God reflects the mind and will of God.  Also Paul is clear in his meaning.  In Romans 7, Paul asks the question, does the law cause my death? and answers his own question emphatically "No!, rather it is sin".  So Paul is clear as can be that it is death which causes sin, and not the law, so you are taking issue with what Paul says, not me.

Is it reasonable, understanding that "the law condemns" = "God condemns", that God would condemn sin?  If we consider what sin is, adultery, murder, lying, etc., this is absolutely reasonable.  People who practice such things, and refuse to turn away from them, could not possibly be happy in a kingdom whose principles are the principles of agape.

[pnattmbtc]

8thday: Those of us who have argued against Robert's position, have offered SEVERAL different Scriptural "proofs".  Robert just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating his assertion that Christ saved everyone 2000 years ago.  The ONLY way to then be UN-SAVED, is to fail to "believe" when presented with evidence - (as one of responsible age) - evidence which should prompt one to belief. 

IS THIS FAIR, or JUST ??? 

 

 

This isn't quite Robert's position.  Robert's position is that at the age of accountability, at that instant, a person becomes lost,
regardless of whether or not he has been presented with evidence.  The only way a person could continue to be saved would be to have
evidence being presented at the very instant the person reaches the age of accountability, and believe at that instant.

It's not the least bit logical, not to mention fair or just.

[pnattmbtc]

I can see it!!

Thanks for your response.  I still can't see page 33, so if there is anything on that page that someone would like me to respond to, please repost it. 

[8thdaypriest]

 

This isn't quite Robert's position.  Robert's position is that at the age of accountability, at that instant, a person becomes lost,
regardless of whether or not he has been presented with evidence.  The only way a person could continue to be saved would be to have
evidence being presented at the very instant the person reaches the age of accountability, and believe at that instant.

It's not the least bit logical, not to mention fair or just.

​Oh my !!!  That's even WORSE than I had understood his belief to be.  Are you SURE his position is quite THAT BAD? 

I know that Samie believes one must "overcome evil with good" in order to REMAIN saved. 

[pnattmbtc]

Yes I'm sure this is Robert's position, as I asked him this question earlier in the thread.  Specifically I suggest 8 years old as the hypothetical age of accountability for a hypothetical case, and asked him if his position was that the person would be saved up through 7 years 364 days, and then lost at age 8 years old, until believing the Gospel, and he affirmed this was his position.

I was trying to clarify Samie's position, but haven't heard from him for awhile.  His position would seem to be somewhat similar, except that Samie's idea would be that the person would be saved until they failed to overcome, which, would presumably amount to the same thing, as how could a person overcome a day or an hour without being converted?

Samie has the idea that one is attached to Christ and spiritually alive up through the age of accountability, because otherwise the person would not be able to make a spiritual act, such as exercise faith.  Where I see a problem (one of many) is that when one fails to overcome evil, at that point the person gets blotted from the book of life (up to here, Samie has stated this as his position), and presumably becomes spiritually dead (haven't had the oppotunity to ask Samie this yet, but don't see how it could be otherwise, or else, what would a spiritually dead person entail?).  But if the person is spiritually dead, then he wouldn't be able to exercise faith, so how could such a person possibly be saved?  So this would mean as soon as person failed to overcome, they would be lost.  I don't know how Samie would get around this.

[joeb]

There have been many children down throughout history who have been powerful preachers.  I'd also like to point out that Samuel was used by God at a very young age.  He was spoken to directly and his influence changed the direction of the nation he lived in.  Thus, to say that God cannot influence children in powerful ways, and that they cannot make decisions before a certain age is simply wrong.  I think this is a very individual thing.

I can remember being powerfully influenced by the Spirit at the age of 7 or 8.  That's not to say I'm something special.  I just remember it vividly, and I am not alone in this.  Joel so much as says the same thing for he uses the terms sons and daughters with no restriction as to age, and in Peter's Pentacost sermon he tells those listening to him that the promise is for them and their children.  

I don't see how, unless a child is too young to understand who Jesus is, and they can understand that at quite a young age, they are too young to be converted and saved.  I've seen kids at 3 or 4 years of age run around singing about Jesus and rebuking adults for not being like Jesus. 

[Robert]

Your response looks to be, "Yes, it is unfair, but here are some other ways in which God is also unfair."   

I disagree with your assertion.  God is fair, and this is a key point of Paul's argument in Romans (see especially chapter 3).  A better response would be to assert that your position is fair, and present an argument as to why.

I already have....Reread Eph chapter 2:4-5

4 But because of his great love (agape) for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 

5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

In Romans 7, Paul asks the question, does the law cause my death? and answers his own question emphatically "No!, rather it is sin".  So Paul is clear as can be that it is death which causes sin, and not the law, so you are taking issue with what Paul says, not me.

No my issue is with you!  Paul and I are in harmony because Paul is speaking in the present tense.  He is speaking of himself after conversion.  Therefore Paul wasn't under the jurisdiction of the law because he had accepted his position in Christ. Under the law there's death, the 2nd death.  

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Is it reasonable, understanding that "the law condemns" = "God condemns", that God would condemn sin?  If we consider what sin is, adultery, murder, lying, etc., this is absolutely reasonable. 

​God condemns sin by removing Himself from the sinner.  This fulfills the justice of God's law.  

However, the justice of God's law has been fulfilled in Christ. To reject Christ is to remain under law.  That's the clear teaching of Paul's writings.

BTW, you have a limited view of sin.  The Pharisees had a limited view too and therefore they thought they were keeping the law.  The law is spiritual.  It requires only agape love.  Self-love, self-interests and self-seeking are the essence of sin.  Here all believers fall short of the glory of God, do you agree?  

[Robert]

 

 Robert's position is that at the age of accountability, at that instant, a person becomes lost,
regardless of whether or not he has been presented with evidence.  The only way a person could continue to be saved would be to have
evidence being presented at the very instant the person reaches the age of accountability, and believe at that instant.

It's not the least bit logical, not to mention fair or just.

​No, that's not my position.

When a person is convicted (hence he has reached the age of accountability) of his need of Christ he can then accept Christ or not.  To reject Christ is go under law awaiting judgment.  If he remains under law and dies he will be lost.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Yes I'm sure this is Robert's position, as I asked him this question earlier in the thread.  Specifically I suggest 8 years old as the hypothetical age of accountability for a hypothetical case, and asked him if his position was that the person would be saved up through 7 years 364 days, and then lost at age 8 years old, until believing the Gospel, and he affirmed this was his position.

​"Thou shall not bear false witness".....

I clearly rejected your argument and refused to answer it. I called it speculation and nonsensical, if you remember.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:Paul and I are in harmony because Paul is speaking in the present tense.  He is speaking of himself after conversion.  Therefore Paul wasn't under the jurisdiction of the law because he had accepted his position in Christ. Under the law there's death, the 2nd death.  

Paul wrote the following:

But still, the law itself is holy, and its commands are holy and right and good.  But how can that be? Did the law, which is good, cause my death? Of course not! Sin used what was good to bring about my condemnation to death. So we can see how terrible sin really is. It uses God's good commands for its own evil purposes. Romans 7:12,13

Paul is saying here that the law is good, and asks the rhetorical question if that which is good caused his death.  He explains that it did not, but sin caused his death, which is, of course, the case.  How could it not be the case that sin would cause death?  What is the principle of sin?  It is, "me first."  How could "me first" possibly not result in death?  How could "me first" possibly coexist with agape?

[pnattmbtc]

I already have....Reread Eph chapter 2:4-5

4 But because of his great love (agape) for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 

5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. 

​How does this answer 8thday's questions regading the fairness of your position?  It doesn't look to be even addressing it.

Also why when she asked about the fairness of your position, did you ask questions in return regarding God's being fair in other areas?