Are we born justified?

[pnattmbtc]

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. 

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

This isn't what we see in Scripture.  God doesn't remove Himself from the sinner; the sinner removes Himself from God.  That's what results in death.

The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. (DA 764)

In the life of Christ we see the attitude of God towards sinners:

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. (Matt. 9:10-12)

Robert: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.

To be "under law", as you are using the term, is to be unconverted.  So of course to reject Christ is to remain under law, because if you accepted Christ, you would not longer be unconverted.

Robert:BTW, you have a limited view of sin.

If you disagree with me on some point, quote something I wrote, and present an argument as to why you don't agree with it.  Don't just lash out with unsubstantiated allegations.  Of what purpose is that?  This is a discussion board.

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.  

This just looks like your parroting what I said.  If you're agreeing with me, then when you accuse me have a limited view of sin, you're accusing yourself.  If you disagree with something I wrote, please quote it and explain why.

Here all believers fall short of the glory of God, do you agree? 

Are you asking me if I agree with Romans 3:23?  If so, yes I do. 

[pnattmbtc]

No, that's not my position.

It's what you said earlier in the thread.  I gave an hypothetical age of 8, and asked if the person would be saved at age 7 years 364 days, and lost age age 8, and you said yes.

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.

This is just circular.  Being convicted of a need for Christ isn't the same thing as reaching the age of accountability.  Many people are past the age of accountability before they are convicted of a need for Christ.

To reject Christ is go under law awaiting judgment.  If he remains under law and dies he will be lost.

To reject Christ is the problem, because Christ is life, and to reject life is to choose death.

The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. (DA 764) 

 

[Robert]

This is just circular.  Being convicted of a need for Christ isn't the same thing as reaching the age of accountability.  Many people are past the age of accountability before they are convicted of a need for Christ.

​You have to reach the age of accountability before you can be convicted.  Nothing circular about that....Until the law bring home that you are a sinner in need of Christ then the law cannot legally condemn.....Hence "where there is no law neither is there any wrath."

[pnattmbtc]

​"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.

I asked you:

"​Your argument doesn't just apply to infants, but to all children who have not reached the age of accountability, as I understand it.  I understand your argument to be that because all humans were legally justified in Christ, which justification must be retained by faith once a person reaches the age of acocuntability, all humans before the age of accountability will be taken to heaven.  So, by means of example, let's say the age of accountability for a given person is 8.  And let's say this person accepts Christ as his/her personal Savior at age 9.  Your view is that this person would be taken to heaven if (s)he died before the age of 8, or after the age of 9, but not if (s)he died between the ages of 8 and 9.  Is this correct?"

 

To which you replied, and this is the entirety of your answer

Yes....

[pnattmbtc]

This is just circular.  Being convicted of a need for Christ isn't the same thing as reaching the age of accountability.  Many people are past the age of accountability before they are convicted of a need for Christ.

Robert:​You have to reach the age of accountability before you can be convicted.  Nothing circular about that....Until the law bring home that you are a sinner in need of Christ then the law cannot legally condemn.....Hence "where there is no law neither is there any wrath."

You wrote the following:

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.

This is what is circular.  You did the same thing earlier in regards to faith, when you made the claim that one cannot exercise faith until the age of accountability.

The age of accountability has to do with discerning right and wrong to a sufficient degree that one can be held accountable for one's actions.  This need not be the same time a person can exercise faith, or be convicted of sin.  Discerning right from wrong is cognitively a more difficult task. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Robert]

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

... So, by means of example, let's say the age of accountability for a given person is 8.  And let's say this person accepts Christ as his/her personal Savior at age 9.  Your view is that this person would be taken to heaven if (s)he died before the age of 8, or after the age of 9, but not if (s)he died between the ages of 8 and 9.  Is this correct?"

 

To which you replied, and this is the entirety of your answer

Yes....

I don't remember answering your speculative question.....For one it takes time to harden one's heart against the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion.  So if I did say "yes" (and you'll need to give me a reference) I would have to say I don't know....God is out to save folks, not condemn them.....I'll rightly leave that one up to God to decide.  

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

The age of accountability has to do with discerning right and wrong to a sufficient degree that one can be held accountable for one's actions.  This need not be the same time a person can exercise faith, or be convicted of sin.  Discerning right from wrong is cognitively a more difficult task. 

God's Spirit can enlighten only those who can reason. Once that age has come it is up to Him to convict sinners of their need of Christ's righteousness. Otherwise the law cannot legally condemn.  It is being under law that condemns.  That's about as simple as it gets.....

It is God's responsibility to take the imitative. Why?  We didn't ask to be born sinners in a sinful world.....

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[8thdaypriest]

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. 

​OUT OF CONTEXT Robert.  Paul was writing to BELIEVERS at Ephesus - NOT to the general public.

[8thdaypriest]

​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?  

​The justice of God's Law of love - has been fulfilled in Christ - FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE.  

God DID NOT condemn the ignorant.  Neither does His Law.   He provided a "covering" for "sins committed in ignorance" UNTIL the sins become KNOWN.  WHEN the past sin becomes KNOWN, the sinner is condemned (by the Law, and by God) - until he brought a "sin offering" or (under the NT) pleads the blood of Christ. 

[Robert]

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. ....

"9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me...."

We know that Paul didn't die when the spirit of the law revealed to him that he was a sinner.  If not, he couldn't have written what we are reading.  What he means is the law condemned him to death, i.e., put him in death row, in prison, awaiting execution (the judgment)!  See Gal 3:23 

 

13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good (the law), so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Did the law cause Paul's condemnation?    If Paul were sinless the law would have been satisfied with him, but being a sinner under law placed Paul under condemnation.

Verse 13 is a bit difficult, but if you read verses 9 & 10 it helps clarify verse 13.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[8thdaypriest]

​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.

​Thanks for clarifying your position Robert.  Let me see if I can summarize your position correctly.

So essentially - every person begins life "under Christ".  Correct?  ("Under Christ" means  "saved" or "will live eternally".)

WHEN each person (1)  reaches the age of awareness (accountability),  AND (2)  "IS CONVICTED of his/her need of Christ"  

THEN - he/she is placed "under the law" (condemned to eternal death) - UNLESS he/she believes in, what Christ has done.

QUESTION:  How is one "convicted" of ones "need of Christ" ?  HOW does that happen???  Is HEARING any message involved in their becoming "convicted" ?

[8thdaypriest]

I AGREE - that the Law does NOT "cause death".  The Law is good.   

Sin (transgression of the Law) causes death. 

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: I don't remember answering your speculative question.

I noticed.  Not only did you not remember what you actually said, you "remembered" something you didn't say, and called me a liar to boot.  The trifecta!

....For one it takes time to harden one's heart against the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion.  So if I did say "yes" (and you'll need to give me a reference) I would have to say I don't know....God is out to save folks, not condemn them.....I'll rightly leave that one up to God to decide.  

It's on this thread, around May 11th.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:God's Spirit can enlighten only those who can reason. Once that age has come it is up to Him to convict sinners of their need of Christ's righteousness. Otherwise the law cannot legally condemn.  It is being under law that condemns.  That's about as simple as it gets.....

It is God's responsibility to take the imitative. Why?  We didn't ask to be born sinners in a sinful world.....

Our problem is not with the law, but with sin (Paul's point in Romans 7).  That the law is not the main issue is easy to see in a number of ways.  First of all, just on the basis of logic, consider your own relationships.  What is it that causes problems?  It's things like strife, selfishness, a lack of love, etc.  Now these things made lead to a divorce, and the law comes into play, but the law was never the problem, the other things, like strife, etc. were the problem.

The same thing applies in our relationship with God.  Satan has led both men and angels astray by misrepresenting God's character.  As long as we don't trust God, and worse than that, hate Him, we cannot possibly have a loving relationship with Him.  The law recognizes realities, but doesn't create them.  The purpose of the law, as Paul explains in Romans 7 (Galatians 3 is another place) is to make clear to us our need for Christ.  This is why the law was given in the first place to Israel on Sinai, to make it clear to them that they needed Christ.  Abraham didn't need this, because He beleived in Christ.  But the Isarelietes thought that didn't need Christ, so God endeavored to make clear to them that they did.

It is not being under law that condemns, but being separated from Christ.  The condemnation is a result of sin, but without the law, a person would still be lost, because only a relationship with Christ can save.

Indeed it is God's responsibility to take the initiative, otherwise noone could be saved.  We would never, of ourselves, reach out to Him.  The goodness of God leads us to repentance.  God takes the initiative in leading us to Christ, in order that we may be set right with Him.  A nice EGW quote on this theme:

The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes. (ST 1/20/90)

[pnattmbtc]

Note the similarity between verses 8 and 22. "The Scripture hath concluded [that is, shut up] all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." Verse 22, KJV. "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." Verse 8, KJV. We see that the gospel is preached by the same thing (the Scripture) that "consigns" men under sin.

The word "conclude" means literally "confine," just as is given in verse 23. Of course, a person who is confined by the law is in prison. In human governments a criminal is confined as soon as the law can get hold of him. God's law is everywhere present and always active. Therefore the instant a man sins he is confined. This is the condition of all the world, "for all have sinned," and "there is none righteous, no, not one." Those disobedient ones to whom Christ preached in the days of Noah were in prison. See 1 Peter 3:19, 20. But they, like all other sinners, were "prisoners of hope." Zechariah 9:12. God "hath looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth; to hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death." Psalm 102:19, 20, KJV.

Christ is given "for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." Isaiah 42: 6, 7, KJV Let me speak from personal experience to the one who does not yet know the joy and freedom of the Lord. Someday, if not already, you will be sharply convicted of sin by the Spirit of God. You may have been full of doubts and quibbles, of ready answers and self-defense, but then you will have nothing to say. You will then have no doubt about the reality of God and the Holy Spirit and will need no argument to assure you of it; you will know the voice of God speaking to your soul and will feel, as did ancient Israel, "Let not God speak with us, lest we die." Exodus 20:10. Then you will know what it is to be "confined" in a prison whose walls seem to close on you, not only barring all escape, but seeming to suffocate you. The tales of people condemned to be buried alive with a heavy stone upon them will seem very vivid and real to you as you feel the tables of the law crushing out your life, and a hand of marble seems to be breaking your very heart. Then it will give you joy to remember that you are shut up for the sole purpose that "the promise by faith of Jesus Christ" might be accepted by you. As soon as you lay hold of that promise, you will find it to be the key that unlocks any door in your "Doubting Castle" (see The Pilgrim's Progress). The prison doors will fly open and you will say, "Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we are escaped." Psalm 124:7, KJV

Before faith came we were confined under the law, "shut up" unto the faith, which should afterward be revealed. We know that whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Romans The Glad Tidings Ellet J. Waggoner 55 1888 Most Precious Message, Inc. 14:23); therefore, to be "under the law" is identical with being under sin. The grace of God brings salvation from sin so that when we believe God's grace we are no longer under the law, because we are freed from sin. Those who are under the law therefore are the transgressors of the law. The righteous are not under it, but are walking in it. 

Comments by E. J. Waggoner on Gal. 3:23 

[Robert]

It's on this thread, around May 11th.

Copy and paste it here.....Thanks, 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

to be "under the law" is identical with being under sin. The grace of God brings salvation from sin so that when we believe God's grace we are no longer under the law, because we are freed from sin. Those who are under the law therefore are the transgressors of the law. The righteous are not under it, but are walking in it. 

No, the righteous are righteous "in Christ"....Of themselves they are falling short of God's agape.  Who are you kidding?  Answer:  Not God for He, through Paul, said "there is none righteous, no, not even one." 

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

It's on this thread, around May 11th.

Robert: Copy and paste it here.....Thanks, 

I did.  That's what I quoted from. 

[pnattmbtc]

No, the righteous are righteous "in Christ"....Of themselves they are falling short of God's agape.  Who are you kidding?  Answer:  Not God for He, through Paul, said "there is none righteous, no, not even one." 

Regarding what Paul said, there is one righteous, who is Christ.  Paul's argument is that we all need Christ, because only in Christ can we find righteousness.  For example, the end of the law is righteousness to him who believes.

Christ the End of the Law:  We have seen that the end or object of the law is the righteousness which it requires.  So it is said that Christ is the end of the law “for righteousness.” The law of God is the righteousness of God.  See Isaiah 51:6, 7. But this righteousness is the real life of God himself, and the words of the law are only the shadow of it. That life is found only in Christ, for he alone declares the righteousness of God. Romans 3:24, 25. His life is the law of God, since God was in him. That which the Jews had only in form, is found in fact only in Christ.  In him the end of the law is found. 

To Whom?  To whom is Christ the end of the law for righteousness? “To every one that believes.” Christ dwells in the heart by faith. Ephesians 3:17. The perfect righteousness of the law is found only in him. It is in Him in absolute perfection. Therefore since Christ dwells in the heart of the believer, in Him only is the end of the law attained. “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:29. “With the heart man believes unto righteousness.” (Waggoner on Romans)

The idea, or the germ of the idea, you are suggesting comes not from Paul but Reformation theology, a vestige of the concept of original sin.  The idea is that because of original sin it is impossible for a person, even converted, to do a righteous act because of the taint of original sin.  Therefore righteousness can only be something declared by God, imputed righteousness, a "legal fiction".  This has been argued for centuries, where Baptists (not all but most), Presbyterians, Lutherans, to name a few, have taken the position you are taking, and Methodists and others have taken the position that we inherited as SDA's.

Our tradition, as SDA's, does not allow for Reformation theology.  Whether one quotes from Ellen White, or any other SDA at any time for 100 years since the Great Disappointment, one will not find a trace of this idea.

What Jones and Waggoner developed, at least on of the things, one of the principle things, was that Christ took not the nature of Adam before the fall, but after the fall, which would not be possible if original sin tainted one making it impossible for such a one to perform righteous acts.

[joeb]

Regarding what Paul said, there is one righteous, who is Christ.  Paul's argument is that we all need Christ, because only in Christ can we find righteousness.  For example, the end of the law is righteousness to him who believes.

The idea, or the germ of the idea, you are suggesting comes not from Paul but Reformation theology, a vestige of the concept of original sin.  The idea is that because of original sin it is impossible for a person, even converted, to do a righteous act because of the taint of original sin.  Therefore righteousness can only be something declared by God, imputed righteousness, a "legal fiction".  This has been argued for centuries, where Baptists (not all but most), Presbyterians, Lutherans, to name a few, have taken the position you are taking, and Methodists and others have taken the position that we inherited as SDA's.

Our tradition, as SDA's, does not allow for Reformation theology.  Whether one quotes from Ellen White, or any other SDA at any time for 100 years since the Great Disappointment, one will not find a trace of this idea.

What Jones and Waggoner developed, at least on of the things, one of the principle things, was that Christ took not the nature of Adam before the fall, but after the fall, which would not be possible if original sin tainted one making it impossible for such a one to perform righteous acts.

​

End End ([e^]nd), n. [OE. & AS. ende; akin to OS. endi, D.
 einde, eind, OHG. enti, G. ende, Icel. endir, endi, Sw.
 [aum]nde, Dan. ende, Goth. andeis, Skr. anta. [root]208. Cf.
 Ante-, Anti-, Answer.]
 1. The extreme or last point or part of any material thing
 considered lengthwise (the extremity of breadth being
 side); hence, extremity, in general; the concluding part;
 termination; close; limit; as, the end of a field, line,
 pole, road; the end of a year, of a discourse; put an end
 to pain; -- opposed to beginning, when used of anything
 having a first part.
 [1913 Webster]

 Better is the end of a thing than the beginning
 thereof. --Eccl. vii.
 8.
 [1913 Webster]

 2. Point beyond which no procession can be made; conclusion;
 issue; result, whether successful or otherwise; conclusive
 event; consequence.
 [1913 Webster]

 My guilt be on my head, and there an end. --Shak.
 [1913 Webster]

 O that a man might know
 The end of this day's business ere it come! --Shak.
 [1913 Webster]

 3. Termination of being; death; destruction; extermination;
 also, cause of death or destruction.
 [1913 Webster]

 Unblamed through life, lamented in thy end. --Pope.
 [1913 Webster]

 Confound your hidden falsehood, and award
 Either of you to be the other's end. --Shak.
 [1913 Webster]

 I shall see an end of him. --Shak.
 [1913 Webster]

 4. The object aimed at in any effort considered as the close
 and effect of exertion; purpose; intention; aim; as, to
 labor for private or public ends.
 [1913 Webster]

 Losing her, the end of living lose. --Dryden.
 [1913 Webster]

 When every man is his own end, all things will come
 to a bad end. --Coleridge.
 [1913 Webster]

 5. That which is left; a remnant; a fragment; a scrap; as,
 odds and ends.
 [1913 Webster]

 I clothe my naked villainy
 With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ,
 And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.
 --Shak.
 [1913 Webster]

 6. (Carpet Manuf.) One of the yarns of the worsted warp in a
 Brussels carpet.
 [1913 Webster]

 An end.
 (a) On end; upright; erect; endways. --Spenser
 (b) To the end; continuously. [Obs.] --Richardson.

 End bulb one of the bulblike bodies in which some
 sensory nerve fibers end in certain parts of the skin and
 mucous membranes; -- also called end corpuscles.

 End fly, bobfly.

 End for end, end for the other; in reversed order.

 End man, last man in a row; one of the two men at the
 extremities of a line of minstrels.

 End on bow foremost.

 End organ the structure in which a nerve fiber
 ends, either peripherally or centrally.

 End plate one of the flat expansions in which
 motor nerve fibers terminate on muscular fibers.

 End play movement endwise, or room for such
 movement.

 End stone one of the two plates of a jewel in a
 timepiece; the part that limits the pivot's end play.

 Ends of the earth, remotest regions of the earth.

 In the end, --Shak.

 On end, erect.

 To the end, order. --Bacon.

 To make both ends meet, live within one's income.
 --Fuller.

 To put an end to, destroy.
 [1913 Webster]
 
    -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

The object aimed at.  The intention of....  Christ is the point of the law.  He is the intention of the law.  He is the object the law is aimed at.  The law is the schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.  Unless we want to try to make Paul disagree with himself we must accept this definition of "end".  The law is not the final point.  It's the beginning point.  It is the thing that points us to the finish line.  It's the thing that points us to Christ.  That is its job.  That is its purpose.  That is why it exists. 

And, when it has pointed us to our need of Christ it has done its job.  When we have complied with its intent, that we need Christ, we are no longer under its condemnation.  We have done what it requires of us.  Its intention is to point us to Him. 

[pnattmbtc]

joeb:The object aimed at.  The intention of....  Christ is the point of the law.  He is the intention of the law.  He is the object the law is aimed at.  The law is the schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.  Unless we want to try to make Paul disagree with himself we must accept this definition of "end".  The law is not the final point.  It's the beginning point.  It is the thing that points us to the finish line.  It's the thing that points us to Christ.  That is its job.  That is its purpose.  That is why it exists. 

And, when it has pointed us to our need of Christ it has done its job.  When we have complied with its intent, that we need Christ, we are no longer under its condemnation.  We have done what it requires of us.  Its intention is to point us to Him. 

Since the New Testament was written in Greek, it's the Greek definitions that are most relevant.  Interestingly the Greek word, "telos", has the same possible definitions as "end" such as "purpose" or "goal", which goes along with your analysis. 

[Robert]

 

​

This software is not very good.... 

Edited June 17, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Our tradition, as SDA's, does not allow for Reformation theology.  Whether one quotes from Ellen White, or any other SDA at any time for 100 years since the Great Disappointment, one will not find a trace of this idea.

What Jones and Waggoner developed, at least on of the things, one of the principle things, was that Christ took not the nature of Adam before the fall, but after the fall, which would not be possible if original sin tainted one making it impossible for such a one to perform righteous acts.

The primary reason Christ as God assumed our fallen life was to legally fulfill the law so that humanity could be saved from the law that justly condemned it!.  Anything outside this truth is legalism or perfectionism - a damnable heresy. 

Edited June 17, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

"My brethren and sisters, humble your hearts before the Lord. Seek him earnestly. I have an intense desire to see you walking in the light as Christ is in the light. I pray most earnestly for you. But I can not fail to see that the light which God has given me is not favorable to our ministers or our churches. You have left your first love. Self-righteousness is not the wedding-garment.  A failure to follow the clear light of truth is our fearful danger. The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people." [Ellen White]

In order to experience "agape" the believer must be first resting in the finished work of Christ.  If he isn't resting in that work then he is automatically producing self-righteousness, which will condemn him in the judgement as "works of the law".  It is pride, Laodicean pride that has a hold on most traditional SDA to their own demise.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Robert