Are we born justified?

[8thdaypriest]

I'm with pnattmbtc and the Greeks, on the "inward man".  The "inward man" referred to "the source" - the mind/heart/bowls.  Everything that could be physically SEEN - was the "outward" man - the "flesh". 

The mind/heart may or may not - be converted - that is - influenced by (indwelt by) the spirit of Christ. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Hi 8thday.  I wrote this a little while ago:

I liked your post.  Do you perceive the cross does something apart from revelation?  That is, the cross reveals truth (the truth about God, sin, the devil, ourselves), and by that means transforms those who believe the truth (you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free).  Does this encapsulate everything the cross does? (not minimizing this; this is a lot!)

I didn't get an answer to this question, I don't think.  You responded by writing out things the cross revealed, but my question is if you can think of anything the cross did which is outside the realm of revelation.  Don't mean to hound you, but am really interested in your thoughts on this. 

[Robert]

Reasons can be put forth as to what the man in Romans 7 can be viewed as converted or not converted, which is why this is a controverted passage, as there are arguments both ways.

Again, that's a cop out....

 

If you look at the context, continuing the argument through Romans 8, it seems clear to me that Waggoner's interpretation is correct, and his interpretation was held by Ellen White....

 

 Yes, by all means let's skip the context, jump to Romans 8 so we can bring works into the picture.  And that's what many have done for years and thereby have wandered off into a life of legalism and self-righteousness. 

 

Did not the preconverted Paul say "as to the righteousness in the law, blameless"? That's equivalent to "I am holy, I am sinless". But the converted Paul isn't speaking this way in Romans 7.14-25

 

You failed to address the above... 

Edited June 20, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

He who says, “I am holy, I am sinless,” is self-deceived. Some have said this, and some even dare to say, “I am Christ.” To entertain such a thought is blasphemy. Not to see the marked contrast between Christ and ourselves is not to know ourselves. He who does not abhor himself can not understand the meaning of redemption.

Did not the preconverted Paul say "as to the righteousness in the law, blameless"? That's equivalent to "I am holy, I am sinless". But the converted Paul isn't speaking this way in Romans 7.14-25

The preconverted Paul (the Pharisee) was self-righteous.

The converted Paul viewed himself a sinner and said "24 O wretched man (i.e., in comparison to Christ's righteousness) that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death (this dying body indwelt with iniquity)? 

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Did you get it?  The man of Romans 7 (and Paul is using his experience here) is "falling short" of God's love or the spirituality of the law. Therefore he realizes he is "wretched". He desires deliverance from a future grave and indwelling sin.  And he has found (past tense) the answer "in Christ Jesus".

Note that the man of Romans 7 says, "I thank God through Jesus Christ OUR Lord".  That's in the present tense!  He also states "our" Lord.  "Our" is a reference to converted, believers.  

The question is, is there any condemnation to those who are "falling short" of God's agape?  If not, you and everyone on this forum is hell bound because "all have sinned and (in the present tense) fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23) God's glory being his goodness; His agape; His righteousness. (See Ex 33:18,19)

[Robert]

The question is, is there any condemnation to those who are "falling short" of God's agape?  If not, you and everyone on this forum is hell bound because "all have sinned and (in the present tense) fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23) God's glory being his goodness; His agape; His righteousness. (See Ex 33:18,19)

Keeping in mind that the Bible writers didn't have chapter and verses division.  Immediately after the statements found in Rom 7:24,25 comes the good news:

Rom 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death. 

Edited June 20, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Keeping in mind that the Bible writers didn't have chapter and verses division.  Immediately after the statements found in Rom 7:24,25 comes the good news:

Rom 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death. 

Did you get this too? 

What did Paul say in Romans 7:24? O wretched man that I am (present tense)! who shall deliver me from the body of this death (this dying body indwelt with iniquity)!

"The body of this death" or as I stated, "this dying body indwelt with iniquity (our bent-to-self)" is from what Paul desired to be delivered.  That's why in another place he said "to die is gain". 

Is there any condemnation to the believer who is failing to meet the requirements of the spirit of God's law as is the man of Romans 7?  The answer is there is no condemnation to those who are "in Christ Jesus"!  To be "in Christ" is to  have accepted the gospel.  This I can prove without a shadow of a doubt. 

What happened "in Christ"?

The power of the Spirit, in Christ (not in me), has delivered (or set me free) from two things:

1] The law of sin or indwelling iniquity.  Therefore in Christ I have been delivered (set free) from all aspects of sin, especially my "bent-to-self" or iniquity. Compare to Rom 6:6,7

2] Death, i.e., the 2nd death, the curse of the law

 

 

Edited June 20, 2015 by Robert

[joeb]

God's LAW flows from His person - from His nature.  God created LAW.  It's the WAY THINGS WORK.  Like the "Law of gravity" for instance.  It's "cause and effect".   Violation of LAW, results in ill effects for us and for those around us.  

Humankind sinned....  How to reverse the effects????   Only HEALING could reverse the effects.  But HEALING must be allowed.   It cannot be artificially imposed (That would be manipulation.)  CONSENT must be given/obtained - which requires the restoration of TRUST.  

HENCE - Christ came to restore TRUST in God.  

God's Law - as revealed to Israel - did NOT ALLOW one man to be punished for another's sin.   I have always felt the notion that God killed His own Son, to receive payment for our sins (to satisfy the claims of the Law), does NOT give a correct, or at least a full understanding.   

ONLY fully healed persons will be ABLE to live in peace with each other and with God, for all eternity.  HERE we only consent to the healing process.   We do THAT when we acknowledge Christ as LORD and healer.  Some folks drop out of the program.  Some folks never consent.  Some folks consent for the wrong reasons.  Some folks never KNEW about the healing program. 

Robert has folks who NEVER CONSENTED - just automatically healed, because Christ "paid the price".  It seems to me that Robert's doctrine is the more legalistic.

Yes.  Far more legalistic.  There is, to me, very little in what he has to say that is relational, and it is our relationship with Christ that saves us. 

 

[Robert]

Yes.  Far more legalistic. 

 

What I present is legalistic?  How? 

[Robert]

I think I'll start another thread, which I'll name "the man of Romans 7", since we've drifted off topic.

[8thdaypriest]

Hi 8thday.  I wrote this a little while ago:

I didn't get an answer to this question, I don't think.  You responded by writing out things the cross revealed, but my question is if you can think of anything the cross did which is outside the realm of revelation.  Don't mean to hound you, but am really interested in your thoughts on this. 

WHAT JESUS DID - BY PERFECTLY OBEYING THE LAW OF HIS FATHER (aside from the revelations).

By His perfect obedience - "obedient unto death striving against sin" - Christ fulfilled the TERMS of the Covenant between God and Israel,  and the terms of the Covenant between God and man. 

Having thus fulfilled the TERMS, Christ was entitled to the promised rewards - the "land", "dominion", eternal life. 

THIS is what the judgment is ABOUT.  The judgment is NOT ABOUT us!!  It is about Jesus Christ.  Did HE fulfill the terms perfectly?  If the answer is YES, then Christ can be awarded "dominion" of earth.  With the "dominion" Christ is legally entitled to displace Satan as "ruler of this world".  He is also entitled to decide which humans He will have within His dominion, and which He will not have.  Hence - "all judgment is given to the Son". 

God the Father - in the person of His Son - withheld judgment - UNTIL all things could be revealed.  THEN the responsibility (guilt) for "sin" was SHOWN clearly to have begun in Satan's mind.   And it was REVEALED that Satan would destroy God Himself, rather than humble himself. 

God Himself - in the person of His Son - carried the blame for sin.  Sin itself - ALL SIN - was put on to Christ.  He "became sin".  The Father "made Him to BE SIN.  "The Lord has laid on Him, the transgression of us all."   I'm saying ALL SIN - past/present/future was put onto Jesus Christ - 2000 years ago.   That is where sin STILL IS.  It is ON HIM.  He will carry SIN - UNTIL - the judgment.  When the judgment sits - Jesus will be given authority to displace Satan as ruler of earth BECAUSE Satan has been fully REVEALED as the prime and root cause of sin.   In the Tabernacle prophecy the "sins" are transferred FROM the Tabernacle veil (Jesus), TO the scapegoat.   THAT is a representation - in symbols - of what happens at the judgment.  

It's NOT the whole Tabernacle that not "soiled".  It's Jesus.  He is the stained "veil". 

The judgment of Daniel 7, is NOT ABOUT my individual sins, or yours.  It's ABOUT Jesus. 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

The TRUTH about Satan's evil mind was REVEALED at the cross, to heavenly intelligences.  The truth was KNOWN - waaaaay back then.  So WHY did the judgment not take place immediately after Jesus was raised and then ascended to Heaven????  THAT's the question.  WHY wait sooooooo long to oust Satan, and give "dominion" of earth to Jesus?   The angels were READY 2000 years ago. 

There are more reasons - I'm sure - than we can understand from our present perspective. 

Humans NEEDED to EXPERIENCE the rule of Satan.  They NEEDED to feel the pain of Pharoah - so they would KNOW for all eternity - that he is a liar and a cruel taskmaster.  The intelligences of other dimensions NEEDED to WITNESS the pain and destruction. 

All heavenly intelligences were FORCED to CHOOSE between Christ and Satan.  Some may not have fully and finally chosen Christ UNTIL they saw for themselves, what Satan did to Him. 

Humans must also CHOOSE a side.  In order to CHOOSE a side, one must clearly SEE both sides.  One must observe the two options.  Hence - Satan must be left alive and active UNTIL every sentient being has SEEN and then CHOSEN "whom they will serve". 

The REASON why Satan is left alive, and is then released for a short time AFTER the judgment sits, is BECAUSE there are humans who have NOT YET SEEN the two sides clearly.  They are people who were never reached with the truth of God's side.  They are people who COULD not CHOOSE a side, because they died as children, or were mentally unable.  

NOW - is it fair that these people are raised to continue their lives in a kingdom under Christ's direct rulership - where Satan is only a deceiver (not a ruler)?   Is this not what we see in Israel - delivered from Egypt, and now ruled by the LORD - visible in the glorious pillar of cloud ?  They were taught by Moses, Aaron, and the priests.  

Was it unfair of the LORD to favor a people in this way - to give them such an advantage?  Did His direct and open dealing with Israel in this way, result in most of these people crossing into the "promised land" of His eternal kingdom.  No!    Most of them rebelled - and were consumed by the wilderness.  I think probably MOST of "the nations" will rebel against Him during The 8th Day - coming up as the great army of Gog/Magog.  Most - but NOT ALL.  He will save a few.   

Most will rebel - just like the 250 princes - who thought they could better govern Israel.  They were consumed by "fire" that flashed from the cloud.  And the army of Gog/Magog will be consumed by "the fire" of God, poured out from Heaven. 

[pnattmbtc]

Reasons can be put forth as to what the man in Romans 7 can be viewed as converted or not converted, which is why this is a controverted passage, as there are arguments both ways.

Again, that's a cop out....

 

I explained at length why using uncontroverted passages to explain controverted ones is standard operating procedure.  This isn't something I made up.  As I showed, at least since the 18th century this has been known.

[pnattmbtc]

If you look at the context, continuing the argument through Romans 8, it seems clear to me that Waggoner's interpretation is correct, and his interpretation was held by Ellen White....

 

 Yes, by all means let's skip the context, jump to Romans 8 so we can bring works into the picture.

"skip the context"?  Romans 8 *is* the context.  It's not "jumping" to Romans 8.  Paul didn't write chapters; these were added later.  Paul wrote a letter he expected would be read all at once, not parsed word by word.  Romans 8 is part of the same line of thought as Romans 7.  

[pnattmbtc]

WHAT JESUS DID - BY PERFECTLY OBEYING THE LAW OF HIS FATHER (aside from the revelations).

By His perfect obedience - "obedient unto death striving against sin" - Christ fulfilled the TERMS of the Covenant between God and Israel,  and the terms of the Covenant between God and man. 

Having thus fulfilled the TERMS, Christ was entitled to the promised rewards - the "land", "dominion", eternal life. 

THIS is what the judgment is ABOUT.  The judgment is NOT ABOUT us!!  It is about Jesus Christ.  Did HE fulfill the terms perfectly?  If the answer is YES, then Christ can be awarded "dominion" of earth.  With the "dominion" Christ is legally entitled to displace Satan as "ruler of this world".  He is also entitled to decide which humans He will have within His dominion, and which He will not have.  Hence - "all judgment is given to the Son". 

God the Father - in the person of His Son - withheld judgment - UNTIL all things could be revealed.  THEN the responsibility (guilt) for "sin" was SHOWN clearly to have begun in Satan's mind.   And it was REVEALED that Satan would destroy God Himself, rather than humble himself. 

God Himself - in the person of His Son - carried the blame for sin.  Sin itself - ALL SIN - was put on to Christ.  He "became sin".  The Father "made Him to BE SIN.  "The Lord has laid on Him, the transgression of us all."   I'm saying ALL SIN - past/present/future was put onto Jesus Christ - 2000 years ago.   That is where sin STILL IS.  It is ON HIM.  He will carry SIN - UNTIL - the judgment.  When the judgment sits - Jesus will be given authority to displace Satan as ruler of earth BECAUSE Satan has been fully REVEALED as the prime and root cause of sin.   In the Tabernacle prophecy the "sins" are transferred FROM the Tabernacle veil (Jesus), TO the scapegoat.   THAT is a representation - in symbols - of what happens at the judgment.  

It's NOT the whole Tabernacle that not "soiled".  It's Jesus.  He is the stained "veil". 

The judgment of Daniel 7, is NOT ABOUT my individual sins, or yours.  It's ABOUT Jesus. 

 

 

Thanks for your response.

[pnattmbtc]

Did not the preconverted Paul say "as to the righteousness in the law, blameless"? That's equivalent to "I am holy, I am sinless". But the converted Paul isn't speaking this way in Romans 7.14-25

In general, the last few posts in this thread look like you're responding to post you've posted yourself.  I comment on points you made, but don't see responses to those posts.  Well, since you started a new thread, I guess we can discuss things there.

Regarding your post here, I don't know what your point is.  Your use of "converted Paul" and "preconverted Paul" is a bit hard to follow.  Everything we read that Paul wrote was written by "converted Paul".  He can write about experiences he had before he was converted.  It was converted Paul who said that he was blameless as far as the law was concerned, if one was concerned with how a Pharisee would consider things.  That was as true after he was converted as after, as in this passage he is not dealing with how he, Paul, view things, but with how Pharisees viewed such things.  So he affirmed that as Pharisses viewed things, he was blameless.

In Romans 7 (and through Romans 8), he is talking about his conversion experience.  He came to view that the law involved more than outward behavior, which is why he was convicted by the law of covetousness.

[Robert]

In Romans 7 (and through Romans 8), he is talking about his conversion experience.  

Paul explains how he was converted in Romans 7:7-13

In Romans 7:14-25 Paul presents the converted man's struggle.  Two things to remember when reading this:

1] The failures Paul writes of involve the spirituality of the law.

2] The man of Romans 7 is trying to use his converted mind ("the law of my mind" or will) to defeat his bent-to-self ("the law of sin"). 

[pnattmbtc]

Paul explains how he was converted in Romans 7:7-13

In Romans 7:14-25 Paul presents the converted man's struggle.  Two things to remember when reading this:

1] The failures Paul writes of involve the spirituality of the law.

2] The man of Romans 7 is trying to use his converted mind ("the law of my mind" or will) to defeat his bent-to-self ("the law of sin"). 

1.A person doesn't need to be converted to have a problem with the spirituality of the law.
Wouldn't we agree that the spirituality of the had a role in Paul's conversion?

2.What wouldn't a man use the converted mind would do what Romans 8
says?  Why would the converted mind choose the defeat of Romans 7 over the victory
Romans 8?

[pnattmbtc]

What I present is legalistic?  How? 

He explained how, in the portion of what he typed that you left out: (I put it in bold).

Yes.  Far more legalistic.  There is, to me, very little in what he has to say that is relational, and it is our relationship with Christ that saves us.

[Robert]

 

He explained how, in the portion of what he typed that you left out: (I put it in bold).

That's not legalism....Thinking "faith" is the Savior is legalism.....Christ saves, not my faith or relationship.   My faith accepts His righteousness.

[pnattmbtc]

What joeb wrote is that he feels what you wrote is legalistic because it is missing a relational element, and that it is our relationship with Christ that saves us.  I don't see how you could infer from this that faith is our savior.

You write that Christ save, not faith or relationship, as if these options were either/or.  How can you have Christ without faith?  o how can you be saved without having a relationship with Christ? (i.e. accepting Christ as your personal savior)

[LifeHiscost]

 You write that Christ save, not faith or relationship, as if these options were either/or.  How can you have Christ without faith?  o how can you be saved without having a relationship with Christ? (i.e. accepting Christ as your personal savior)  

11......WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. 12"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.".....Acts 4

21“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23But I will reply, 'I never knew you'. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’....Matt 7

God is Love!   Jesus saves! 

[Robert]

You write that Christ save, not faith or relationship, as if these options were either/or.  How can you have Christ without faith?  o how can you be saved without having a relationship with Christ? (i.e. accepting Christ as your personal savior)

I assume you are speaking about after the age of accountability. If so, yes accepting Christ's righteousness is what saves.  We do that through faith....

[Robert]

 

 

But I will reply, 'I never knew you'. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’....Matt 7

No, "you who practice iniquity" is what the non-paraphrased  versions read.  

The context of your quote is works of the law (legalism).  Salvation by works is trying to do good things while bent-to-self and then expecting a reward.  Such works are filthy rags.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

No, "you who practice iniquity" is what the non-paraphrased  versions read.  

The context of your quote is works of the law (legalism).  Salvation by works is trying to do good things while bent-to-self and then expecting a reward.  Such works are filthy rags.

The context is the previous verse, which you cut out, which says, "“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter." or, if you want a different version, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.".

Those who practice iniquity are in contrast to this class of people, which are those who "do the will of my Father in heaven."  Now certainly if one is trying to gain God's favor by his own works, that would not be doing God's will, but there is no evidence this is what Jesus had in mind here; there's nothing in the context to suggest this.

The previous verse Jesus says, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them," so the context is clear: Jesus is saying by the fruits one can recognize whether one is following Jesus' words or not.  Of course that doesn't mean that one's motivation is not important, but that is not what Jesus is addressing here (although He addresses it elsewhere).

[pnattmbtc]

That's not legalism....Thinking "faith" is the Savior is legalism.....Christ saves, not my faith or relationship.   My faith accepts His righteousness.

I think what joeb is getting at, and it seems the same way to me (assuming I'm reading him correctly), is that you seem to be treating this as if it were something like a math problem.  That is, we are saved by believing something esoteric, a fact, as opposed to having a relationship with a person, as Christ related in the parable about His being the vine and we are the branches.  Or the idea of Christ knocking at the door of the heart. So the idea is that there is something personal going on, that Christ, through the Spirit, is making an appeal to be involved in our lives, and our response to this appeal is what results in our having a saving relationship with Christ.