Are we born justified?

[Robert]

6 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

If the underlying issue is forensic, then it would make sense that all infants would be saved, but that leads to certain logical problems, not the least of which is, if this were really true, then events such as the slaughter of infants of Herod, should be events of great rejoicing.

Being murdered is never something to rejoice in.  However, I hope those mothers understood the grace of God in Christ Jesus and knew they would see their infants again.

[pnattmbtc]

6 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

If the underlying issue is forensic, then it would make sense that all infants would be saved, but that leads to certain logical problems, not the least of which is, if this were really true, then events such as the slaughter of infants of Herod, should be events of great rejoicing.

Quote

Robert: Being murdered is never something to rejoice in.  However, I hope those mothers understood the grace of God in Christ Jesus and knew they would see their infants again.

Being murdered would be a very small thing in comparison to eternal life.

[Robert]

5 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

It's clear what this is saying, isn't it?

So you think Ellen White is stating the resurrected will be raised with faulty characters?  That would mean we would be raised in imperfection and we wouldn't truly  be in the image and likeness of God.

[Robert]

6 minutes ago, Stan said:

.....unless we become like little children...  you know the rest..  Am good with that.

I might have to go with your view Stan if this gets any deeper....

[Robert]

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

So you think Ellen White is stating the resurrected will be raised with faulty characters?  That would mean we would be raised in imperfection and we wouldn't truly  be in the image and likeness of God.

Tell me it ain't so.....

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

So you think Ellen White is stating the resurrected will be raised with faulty characters?  That would mean we would be raised in imperfection and we wouldn't truly  be in the image and likeness of God.

She wrote the following:

Quote

The traits of character you cherish in life will not be changed by death or by the resurrection. You will come up from the grave with the same disposition you manifested in your home and in society. Jesus does not change the character at His coming. The work of transformation must be done now. 13MR 82

I think she is saying that our character will not be changed by death or by the resurrection.  Do you agree with this? Actually, this is two questions.  I'll split them out.

1.Do you agree that the statement is saying our characters will not be changed.

2.Do you agree that our characters will not be changed.

Here's what I think you think.  I think you think one's character will be changed, if one has a certain cognitive belief, that Christ, by His doing and dying, satisfied the claims of the law, and if one believes this, believe that Christ's righteousness satisfies the law, and stands in place of one's filthy rags righteousness, then God will change the characters of one who believes this when they are resurrected or translated.

[Robert]

Quote

I think she is saying that our character will not be changed ...by the resurrection.  Do you agree with this?

We die with faulty characters and we are raised with perfect characters.

 

[Robert]

I just found this:

Quote

The traits of character you cherish in life will not be changed by death or by the resurrection. You will come up from the grave with the same disposition you manifested in your home and in society. Jesus does not change the character at His coming. The work of transformation must be done now. Our daily lives are determining our destiny. Defects of character must be repented of and overcome through the grace of Christ, and a symmetrical character must be formed while in this probationary state, that we may be fitted for the mansions above. 13MR 82

This is perfectionism....This is terrible!  Salvation by works! 

I now have two choices, as far as EGW is concerned:

1] This is her opinion; after all she did grow in her understanding of Scripture and therefore over time changed some of theological views. This all fits into the fact that she wasn't infallible.

2] She's a false prophet and must be rejected for teaching the heresy of perfectionism.  We are perfect "in Christ" now and in the judgement.   

I chose # 1

[pnattmbtc]

11 minutes ago, Robert said:

I just found this:

This is perfectionism....This is terrible!  Salvation by works! 

I now have two choices, as far as EGW is concerned:

1] This is her opinion; after all she did grow in her understanding of Scripture and therefore over time changed some of theological views. This all fits into the fact that she wasn't infallible.

2] She's a false prophet and must be rejected for teaching the heresy of perfectionism.  We are perfect "in Christ" now and in the judgement.   

I chose # 1

How do you get salvation by works from what she wrote?  She wrote the following:

Quote

There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more earnestly, repeated more frequently, or established more firmly in the minds of all than the impossibility of fallen man meriting anything by his own best good works. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. (FW 19)

So she clearly understood that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone.  Besides your two choices, there is a third possibility, which is that her understanding was better than yours is.  I'll go with that one

[Robert]

1 minute ago, pnattmbtc said:

How do you get salvation by works from what she wrote? 

"Defects of character must be...overcome through the grace of Christ"

That's perfectionism.  We must fully overcome our faulty characters or no heaven for us....That's how I read that.

Quote

So she clearly understood that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone.  Besides your two choices, there is a third possibility, which is that her understanding was better than yours is.  I'll go with that one

Then she needs to make up her mind:

1] Perfectionism?

or 

2] we are complete "in Christ" by faith

 

[pnattmbtc]

To add something regarding Ellen White and the progression of truth, I don't believe Ellen White knew or presented everything, and she makes clear in what she herself wrote that truth is progressive, and there is light yet to shine.  We saw this happen in the 1888 era.  She said she would be as a little child to receive the light the Lord was sending.

However, new light will not disagree with light previously sent.  Truth is progressive; it builds on itself.  So while there are things to learn, and Ellen White was not perfect in either her expression of truth, or understanding of it, if she was inspired, there would have to be at least SOME correspondence between what she wrote, and what the truth actually is.  The ideas you are presenting are light years apart from what Ellen White wrote.  We're not talking about a little tweak here and there, but a completely totally different paradigm, a completely different way of looking at things.

Your idea that the character changes at the resurrection is completely different than what Ellen White taught, or what *any* SDA believed during her lifetime.

[Robert]

8 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Your idea that the character changes at the resurrection is completely different than what Ellen White taught, or what *any* SDA believed during her lifetime.

Then I guess we need to define "character".

If you me the mindset, then that's different.  My mindset is I hate sin (the love of self), but yet I find myself in the Romans 7 experience more than the Romans 8 experience.

Let's read Paul:

Rom 7:22 "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man (my character). 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin (i.e., our bent-to-self or self-love) which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Paul, in his mind (character) delighted in God's law, but in his experience he found himself falling short compared to Christ's perfect life.

That's why he said the following:

Romans 7:15 For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Your thoughts?

 

[pnattmbtc]

11 minutes ago, Robert said:

Then I guess we need to define "character".

If you me the mindset, then that's different.  My mindset is I hate sin (the love of self), but yet I find myself in the Romans 7 experience more than the Romans 8 experience.

Let's read Paul:

Rom 7:22 "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man (my character). 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin (i.e., our bent-to-self or self-love) which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Paul, in his mind (character) delighted in God's law, but in his experience he found himself falling short compared to Christ's perfect life.

That's why he said the following:

Romans 7:15 For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Your thoughts?

 

I think Paul was talking about one who is unconverted here.  

Quote

It is not enough to perceive the loving-kindness of God, to see the benevolence, the fatherly tenderness, of His character. It is not enough to discern the wisdom and justice of His law, to see that it is founded upon the eternal principle of love. Paul the apostle saw all this when he exclaimed, “I consent unto the law that it is good.” “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” But he added, in the bitterness of his soul-anguish and despair, “I am carnal, sold under sin.” Romans 7:16, 12, 14. He longed for the purity, the righteousness, to which in himself he was powerless to attain, and cried out, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?” Romans 7:24, margin. Such is the cry that has gone up from burdened hearts in all lands and in all ages. To all, there is but one answer, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” John 1:29.

I agree with the above, and think it's a good explanation.  I think this makes clear the EGW viewed Paul here as speaking of the unconverted man, and, again, I agree with her.  By the way, once again, this wasn't just her idea but is representative of SDA thought at the time.  For example, take a look at what E. J. Waggoner wrote in regards to Romans 7.

[Robert]

BTW,

Here's the Romans 7 experience:  

Romans 7:15 For what I will to do (the good), that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Here's the Romans 8 experience:

Romans 8:3 "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Now, the man of Romans 7 is failing to walk in the Spirit.  He loves God's law, but when the rubber meets the road the flesh drags him down. Keep in mind the context is the spirit of the law.  It's not that Paul is seeing prostitutes or stealing.  Even people without Christ don't do these things.  So when Paul talks about the man of Romans 7 failures he has the motive and the spirit of the law in mind.

But here's the thing, even though the man of Romans 7 is falling short, his attutide (what I'll call character) is not against God's law, but he delights in it.

So the question is, is there any condemnation to the believer, who loves God's law, but yet is failing to live up to its demands?

Romans 8:2 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 you free from the law of sin and of death. (NASB)

[Robert]

2 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

I think Paul was talking about one who is unconverted here.  

No!  The unconverted do not "delight in the law of God".  Neither do they try to live according to the law.  

You got to be kidding me?

[pnattmbtc]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

No!  The unconverted do not "delight in the law of God".  Neither do they try to live according to the law.  

You got to be kidding me?

Why would you respond this way?  The view I shared is the one Ellen White had, and all her contemporaries.  There were no SDA's which had the view you hold.  Given this is the case, why would you respond as if this were something incredulous?

Quote

“If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.” The fact that we do not wish to do the sins that we are committing shows that we acknowledge the righteousness of the law, which forbids them. But conviction is not conversion, although a very necessary step to that condition. It is not enough to wish to do right. The blessing is pronounced upon those who do his commandments, and not upon those who wish to do them, or who even try to do them. Indeed, if there were no higher position for a professed follower of the Lord than that described in these verses, he would be in a far worse condition than the careless sinner. Both are slaves, only the latter is so hardened that he finds pleasure in his slavery. Now if one must all his life be a slave, it is better for him to be unconscious of his bondage than to be continually fretting over it. But there is something better; therefore it is a blessing that we are convicted of sin, and that our slavery is thereby made as disagreeable as possible. 

Quote

“So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” That is, of course, while in the condition described in the preceding verses. In purpose he serves the law of God, but in actual practice he serves the law of sin. As described in another place, “The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye can not do the things that ye would.” Galatians 5:17. It is not a state of actual service to God, because we read in our next chapter “they that are in the flesh can not please God.” It is a state from which one may well pray to be delivered, so that he can serve the Lord not merely with the mind, but with his whole being. “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Faithful is he that called you, who also will do it.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 24

The above is from Waggoner.

[Robert]

6 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Why would you respond this way?  The view I shared is the one Ellen White had, and all her contemporaries.  There were no SDA's which had the view you hold.  Given this is the case, why would you respond as if this were something incredulous?

 

 

You know, I don't care what view Ellen White had....I don't care if SDA agree or not.  Neither of these are my judge or my salvation.  

You need to start quoting the Bible - not Ellen White and SDA.  Perhaps this is why some view the SDA denomination as a cult?

Ellen White stated the measuring stick of truth was the Bible.  Not her writings...not the SDA denomination - the Bible.

Now, if the man of Romans 7 is unsaved and converted, then Romans 8:1 is even more interesting!  Why?  

Because there's no condemnation to the uncoverted.  They are saved.  This, of course, is universalism.. 

Therefore the man of Romans 7 must be converted.

[Robert]

29 minutes ago, Robert said:

Now, if the man of Romans 7 is unsaved and converted, then Romans 8:1 is even more interesting!  Why?  

Because there's no condemnation to the uncoverted.  They are saved.  This, of course, is universalism.. 

Therefore the man of Romans 7 must be converted.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 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.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus...

Keep in mind that in the original manuscripts, chapters and verses didn't exist.  

So let's look at it as Paul wrote it:

"So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus"

The man of Romans 7 has to be converted because with his mind/heart he serves the law of God, but when the rubber meets the road he finds himself falling short.  Is there any condemnation to such a believer?  No!  Why?  Because  "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death"

What does that mean?

It means that "in Christ" I am a "new creation" and that "the new man" has been delivered from the sin nature and the curse.  That's my position "in Christ" by faith, even though in my walk I come up short.

[Robert]

You state that the man of Romans 7 is unconverted.  You reference EGW and Waggoner, instead of going to your Bible.  There's your problem.

Now, look at Romans 8:7" the mind set on the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be"

Back to Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 25....with the mind I myself serve the law of God,

See the difference?

The uncoverted hate God and His law.  They hate agape....They live to serve self in all its forms.  So they do not delight in God's law.

[pnattmbtc]

21 minutes ago, Robert said:

You state that the man of Romans 7 is unconverted.  You reference EGW and Waggoner, instead of going to your Bible.

 

I was making the point that your position is different than what Ellen White or her contemporaries believed.  This is not something I could establish from quoting Scripture!  Your point here is off target.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Now, look at Romans 8:7" the mind set on the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be"

Back to Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 25....with the mind I myself serve the law of God,

See the difference?

The uncoverted hate God and His law.  They hate agape....They live to serve self in all its forms.  So they do not delight in God's law.

 

Quote

 

Paul was raised a Jew and knew the law, but apart from Christ it could only condemn him, so he cried out for deliverance from it.  There are many unconverted people who love the law (or, at a minimum, think they do).  There are many unconverted SDA's who would assert that they love the law, many Jews, and many others.  Their perception is that the *do* delight in the law of God.  If you asked them, this is exactly what they would, just like Paul did.

[pnattmbtc]

What Paul wrote in Romans 7 is perhaps the most controverted portion of Scripture, surely one of them.  It's a poor practice to rely on such texts to try to establish a position.  Let's take an easy statement from Jesus: "The words that I speak to your are spirit and they are life".  Also "you will not come to me that you might have life."  I don't see how either of these statements could make sense to you, given the views you have presented.  What do you think Jesus meant by these words?

[Robert]

5 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

 There are many unconverted people who love the law....

Supposition....You have no proof and furthermore the Bible states you are in error on this point.

[pnattmbtc]

Just now, Robert said:

Supposition....You have no proof and furthermore the Bible states you are in error on this point.

I've got me as proof!  I've experienced this personally, and Ellen White spoke of many who, like Paul, had experienced this.  So did Waggoner.  Many SDA's have experienced this.  I don't know how you could not know this, assuming you've spent any time in an SDA community.  This is a *very* common experience.

 

[Robert]

4 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

What Paul wrote in Romans 7 is perhaps the most controverted portion of Scripture, 

To you maybe, not to me....

Quote

It's a poor practice to rely on such texts to try to establish a position.

Your funny....It's very plain, but with folks like yourself that rely on commentaries outside the Bible, I understand your confusion.