The man of Romans 7

[pnattmbtc]

Paul says nothing remotely like "we experience the first death because we share Adam's life indwelt with sin."

Robert:Then I would have to say you aren't reading Romans 5:12-14

I'll read the rest of your post and respond to it, but wanted to comment on this part, because there is an important point to be made.  You say on a number of occasions that if someone agrees with you, they aren't reading the words of Paul, and that you're just repeating the words of Paul.  This can't possibly be true.  For almost 2000 years the point of view you are expressing has not existed.  If it were simply a matter of repeating the words of Paul, someone along the line would have had the idea before now.

I'm not arguing here that there can't be new light, or that your idea is wrong, but simply that your assertion that you are simply repeating Paul's word is obviously false.  You, like everybody else, are interpreting Paul's words.  What makes for a good discussion is explaining why you are interpreting Paul's words the way you are, and making sound arguments for your case.

[pnattmbtc]

Let's look at what David said concerning himself:

Ps 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth,...."

Then he reaches back further:

"sinful from the time my mother conceived me"

Sinful from when?  When his mother "conceived" him.

What are you at conception?  Not an individual, no identity, just cells. Yet David said the moment he was conceived he was sinful.  How?  Because the biological life that he received from his mother was already sinful. That sinfulness came from Adam.  Here's proof:

Ps 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

David was made from where?  The earth?  Who was made from the dust of the ground?  Right, Adam.  So when God made Adam He made the human race.  So David received from Adam a life that had sinned and was indwelt by sin (our bent).  Hence at conception he was sinful.

 Acts 17:26 ..."He (God) made of one (Adam) every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth...."

1.Psalm 51 is at least as controversial as Romans 7.  We've had the conversation regarding incontroverted passages before.  At any rate, it's impossible that David had this theological argument in mind when he wrote Psalm 51.

You're postlapsarian, aren't you?  That is, you believe Christ took the fallen nature of Adam, don't you?  I've never had to discuss Psalm 51 with a person holding the postlapsarian position before.  The same argument I've been making previously applies, that if we are sinful because of our DNA, then Christ would also have been when He assumed humanity for the same reason, and the fact that He had a divine nature wouldn't change this, because in His humanity His DNA would not be impacted.  The argument of those who hold the prelapsarian position if valid here, if their presuppositions are held.

2.Your argument is, as it appears, David said, "And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed." by which he meant, "I was made from the dust of the ground when Adam was made" and from this we can conclude that David receive from Adam a life that had sinned as was indwelt by sin.  That's quite a leap, even if you assume that when David said "And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed." "And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed." what he meant was "I was made from the dust of the ground when Adam was made".  Also by "my substance" (which you have underlined), it looks like you think David meant "mud".

From a quick search, what I see from the commentaries as the interpretation of "the lowest parts of the earth" is the womb.  So, at a minimum, your interpretation of what David said is at least an open question, or a point which would need to be established (as opposed to simply asserted).  Regarding "my substance", I see this is usually understood as "embryo".  So from the beginning, this argument seems to fall flat.

But even if one assumed your presuppositions, your conclusions wouldn't follow.  Even if what David had in mind is something like we are all made of clay, it wouldn't follow that we received from Adam a life that had sinned.  What does that even mean?  We don't receive life from Adam.  You could argue that we receive life from our parents, and our parents received life from theirs, and so forth going back to Adam, but that simply means that we have been born according to the laws of reproduction following the laws of heredity.

And all of this is scratching where it doesn't itch.  Our problem is one which involves our minds.  Our thinking needs to be fixed, and this has been addressed by God by sending His Son to reveal God's character to us.

 

[Robert]

.... it wouldn't follow that we received from Adam a life that had sinned.  What does that even mean?  We don't receive life from Adam.

You are the multiplication of Adam's life.  Like Eve, you are bone of his bone; flesh of his flesh.  You came from Adam, after the fall.  This means you were born a slave to your love of self (i.e., indwelling sin).  This "love of self" is the same as "the law of sin" that Paul wrote of in Romans chapter 7. You belong to a condemned humanity...

.  Our problem is one which involves our minds.  Our thinking needs to be fixed, and this has been addressed by God by sending His Son to reveal God's character to us.

 

Not just our thinking, everything needs fixed and it has been "in Christ"....

Edited July 7, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

.... it wouldn't follow that we received from Adam a life that had sinned.  What does that even mean?  We don't receive life from Adam.

You are the multiplication of Adam's life.  Like Eve, you are bone of his bone; flesh of his flesh.  You came from Adam, after the fall.  This means you were born a slave to your love of self (i.e., indwelling sin).  This "love of self" is the same as "the law of sin" that Paul wrote of in Romans chapter 7. You belong to a condemned humanity...

 This is getting clearer, but still unnecessarily wordy.  We are born in a fallen condition, having had our DNA impacted by sin, so that Adam's nature has been passed to us.  We are "condemned" in the sense that we have this DNA.  However, Christ came with the same DNA we have, and did not sin.

 

  2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

.  Our problem is one which involves our minds.  Our thinking needs to be fixed, and this has been addressed by God by sending His Son to reveal God's character to us.

 

Robert: Not just our thinking, everything needs fixed and it has been "in Christ"..

Everything is fixed if our thinking if fixed.  In our mind is where the battle is fought. 

[Robert]

 

 This is getting clearer, but still unnecessarily wordy.  

In your opinion....

 We are born in a fallen condition, having had our DNA impacted by sin, so that Adam's nature has been passed to us.  

 

Nature is unnecessarily wordy....What does "nature" mean?  It's better to say that we receive Adam's life at conception and that life is indwelt with our bent-to-self or iniquity.

We are "condemned" in the sense that we have this DNA.  However, Christ came with the same DNA we have, and did not sin.

We are condemned because we share in Adam's fallen life. Christ, as God, assumed our fallen life and came under condemnation as the son of man.  Gal 4:4 makes this clear.  This doesn't mean He sinned (transgressed); it simply means He joined Himself to our condemnation humanity indwelt with our bent.  In so doing He was also "made sin" (see 2 Cor 5:21).

 

Everything is fixed if our thinking if fixed.

No, wrong....

1]You still retain a humanity that is unfit for heaven.

2] You, yes you, are falling short of God's agape love as seen in the life of Christ.

3] Therefore you also stand guilty before God's law.

All 3 of this as been legally answered in the doing and dying of Christ.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

The two Adams:

http://www.jacksequeira.org/2adams.htm

Edited July 8, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

"The reason Adam’s sin brought condemnation and death to all mankind is not because humanity is guilty of Adam’s sin, but because Adam’s sin was a representative sin.  We were in Adam by creation [Acts 17:26] and, therefore, were implicated in his sin at the Fall." [Sequeira]

Edited July 8, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

We are implicated in Adam's sin at the Fall because Adam passed on to his descendants his sinful nature.

[pnattmbtc]

This is getting clearer, but still unnecessarily wordy.  

In your opinion....

Yes, everything I've written is my opinion. 

  Quote

 We are born in a fallen condition, having had our DNA impacted by sin, so that Adam's nature has been passed to us.  

 

Nature is unnecessarily wordy....What does "nature" mean?  It's better to say that we receive Adam's life at conception and that life is indwelt with our bent-to-self or iniquity.

"Nature" is a common theological word upon which there is agreement as to the meaning.  It's only one word, so it's not "wordy".  On the other hand, what you're writing has no generally accepted understanding, and it's not clear as to what you mean.  I've asked for clarification if you mean the same thing as what I wrote. 

  Quote

We are "condemned" in the sense that we have this DNA.  However, Christ came with the same DNA we have, and did not sin.

We are condemned because we share in Adam's fallen life.

This is not a sentence which make sense.  We don't share in Adam's fallen life.  Adam is dead.  We have our own life.  Paul says nothing about our sharing in a fallen life with Adam.  He says that by Adam sin entered into the world, and death as a consequence.  He is creating a contrast between what happened by way of Adam with what happened by way of Christ, making the point that what happened in Christ is "much more" than what happened by way of Adam.

Christ, as God, assumed our fallen life and came under condemnation as the son of man.  Gal 4:4 makes this clear.  This doesn't mean He sinned (transgressed); it simply means He joined Himself to our condemnation humanity indwelt with our bent.  In so doing He was also "made sin" (see 2 Cor 5:21).

This sounds similar to what Waggoner said (it seems good to quote him, since the idea came from him; Waggoner -> Wieland -> Sequeira -> you)

That Christ should be born under the law was a necessary consequence of his being born of a woman, taking on him the nature of Abraham, being made of the seed of David, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Human nature is sinful, and the law of God condemns all sin. Not that men are born into the world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy they have no knowledge of right and wrong, and are incapable of doing either, but they are born with sinful tendencies, owing to the sins of their ancestors. And when Christ came into the world, he came subject to all the conditions to which other children are subject. {October 21, 1889 EJW, SITI 631.10} 

 

Is this the same thing you have in mind?  Or do you see a difference?

 

  17 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

Everything is fixed if our thinking if fixed.

No, wrong....

1]You still retain a humanity that is unfit for heaven.

2] You, yes you, are falling short of God's agape love as seen in the life of Christ.

3] Therefore you also stand guilty before God's law.

All 3 of this as been legally answered in the doing and dying of Christ.

I'm not sure what you mean by 1.  It sounds like you're talking about our flesh, but of course the resurrection (or translation) takes care of that.  But it's not our flesh which unfits us for heaven, but our character.  Our character is taken care of by our thinking being taken care of ("Have this mind in you, which was in Christ Jesus ...")

Regarding 2, if we are in harmony with God by being justified by faith, as the following describes

By His perfect obedience He has made it possible for every human being to obey God's commandments. When we submit ourselves to Christ, the heart is united with His heart, the will is merged in His will, the mind becomes one with His mind, the thoughts are brought into captivity to Him; we live His life. This is what it means to be clothed with the garment of His righteousness. Then as the Lord looks upon us He sees, not the fig-leaf garment, not the nakedness and deformity of sin, but His own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah. (COL 312)

 where would the problem be?

When one is resurrected (or translated).

Regarding 3, if we are in harmony with God, if we would be happy in heaven (because we have been converted), why would God condemn us?  Certainly the law is not going to condemn us if God doesn't. 

[Robert]

We are implicated in Adam's sin at the Fall because Adam passed on to his descendants his sinful nature.

So we are the multiplication of Adam's fallen life, via, procreation.

[pnattmbtc]

If what you mean by, "So we are the multiplication of Adam's fallen life, via, procreation." is "We are implicated in Adam's sin at the Fall because Adam passed on to his descendants his sinful nature," then ok.  

It appears to me that the primary difference between our points of view is that you perceive the problem of sin to be a legal problem which needs to be solved by legal means, whereas I see the problem of sin to be a problem because of how it impacts us (our thinking, the decisions we make, how we feel about God, etc.) and it needs to be solved by our being converted (i.e., our thinking/decisions/love for God needs to change); in other words, we need to be brought into harmony with God (or, as Peter puts it, "brought to God").

[Robert]

Why did Christ, as our corporate head, take the curse of the law?  Before you try to answer this, let's use the Bible:

Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse"

How did He do this?

Gal 4:4 "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full right sof sons."

And again:

Rom 6:6 "our old life died with Christ on the cross" 

Rom 7:6 "you also died to the law in the body of Christ"

Notice Paul states that "our old life" (i.e., "you") died to the law (it demanded your death).

 

[pnattmbtc]

You're skipping around quite a bit here.  That's not really a good methodology, just taking little snips from here and there.  Better is to look at what's being said in context.

At any rate, to consider you point, you write, "Notice Paul states that "our old life" (i.e., "you") died to the law (it demanded your death).".

It seems you're reading into the text what you want it to say.  You write that Paul states that our old life died to the law, and in parentheses wrote what you think (it demanded you death).  But Paul didn't write that.  Paul wrote that our old life died to the law.

Here's Romans 6:6

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

This seems to be saying exactly what I've been saying.  I don't see how you could read this and get out of it that the law demanded your death.  The point of the text is "that henceforth we should not serve sin."  This is certainly getting at what happens to us when we are converted.

Waggoner comments:

The reader will notice that the separation from sin is in death. That is because death is in sin. “Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.” James 1:15. Therefore nothing less than death will effect a separation. We could not separate ourselves from sin, because sin was our very life. If it had been possible for us to effect the destruction of sin, it could have been only by the giving up of our lives, and that would have been the end of us. That is why there will be no future for the wicked who die in their sins; their life having been given up or rather, taken from them, they are out of existence. But Christ had the power to lay down his life, and to take it again; and therefore when we lay down our lives in him, we are raised again by his endless life. Remember that he does not give us our own life back again, but that he gives us his own life. In that life there never was a sin; and so it is that our crucifixion and resurrection with him is the separation of sin from us. This thought must be borne in mind when we come to study the next chapter. (Waggoner on Romans)

[Robert]

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

 That's a terrible translation!  "Our old self was crucified with him" is what the more accurate translations state.  What demanded this 2nd death?  The law!  Otherwise why would Christ come to deliver us from under the law????
 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

Do you know Greek?  Just curious as to what basis you are asserting other translations are more accurate.  Do you mean they are more accurate for this particular verse?  Or in general?  Is it your thinking that the translation is grammatically bad?  Or bad for other reasons?

The aorist usually implies a past event in the indicative, but it does not assert pastness, and can be used of present or future events.

 

[Robert]

Do you know Greek?  Just curious as to what basis you are asserting other translations are more accurate.  Do you mean they are more accurate for this particular verse?  Or in general?  Is it your thinking that the translation is grammatically bad?  Or bad for other reasons?

The aorist usually implies a past event in the indicative, but it does not assert pastness, and can be used of present or future events.

 

While you were showing off your grammar skills you failed to answer my question:   What demanded this 2nd death?  The law!  Otherwise why would Christ come to deliver us from under the law????

Let's look at what David said concerning himself:

Ps 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth,...."

Then he reaches back further:

"sinful from the time my mother conceived me"

Sinful from when?  When his mother "conceived" him.

What are you at conception?  Not an individual, no identity, just cells. Yet David said the moment he was conceived he was sinful.  How?  Because the biological life that he received from his mother was already sinful. That sinfulness came from Adam.

You also didn't address Ps 51:5 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

While you were showing off your grammar skills you failed to answer my question:   What demanded this 2nd death?  The law!  Otherwise why would Christ come to deliver us from under the law????

I wrote a post which covered many points, and asked you questions, and all you did was complain about the translation of a single verse as being terrible.  Please respond to the post, especially the questions I asked you.

You're looking at things differently than I am, so the question you are asking is, from my point of view, nonsensical.  You ask what demands the second death, with the answer being the law, as if the law had the capability to do so.  But the law is not a sentient being; it has no will; it has no ability to demand anything.  The law represents the mind of its creator, in this case God.  Only God has the ability to demand anything, not the law.  If we say that some law, any law, demands something, this is a metaphor, the meaning of which is  that the creator of the law is demanding something.

So if a legislature gets together to create a law, the law "demands" the will of the legislature, and the executive part of government has the authority and power to enforce the will of the legislature.

So if we were to look at things as the law demanding something, the meaning is that God is demanding something, which begs the question as to why He is demanding the things He is demanding.  In the case of His law, His law is the transcript of His character.  He "demands" that we be in harmony with His character because to do otherwise would be to live for self, and that can only lead to death, because to separate from God, the only source of life, is to choose to die.

Another way of looking at this is that the principle of sin is based on living for self, which is a principle which could only ever lead to death; it's not a life supporting principle.  It could only possibly be a life supporting principle for someone who had life in himself, which could only possibly apply to God, but God is agape.

To be under the law is to live for self.  Christ came to deliver us from this because this is a terrible way to live.

 

 

 

[Robert]

 

To be under the law is to live for self.  Christ came to deliver us from this because this is a terrible way to live.

 You are inferring that the believer is not under the law because he is keeping the law.  I had a feeling that you were presenting a subtle form of legalism; now I know it for a fact.

What you are stating is opposite what Paul said:

Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 

5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 

 

 

 

What you are inferring is that Christ came to go from living for self to living a life of agape!  That would make Christ a sinner who became righteous.

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

What you are inferring is that Christ came to go from living for self to living a life of agape!  That would make Christ a sinner who became righteous.

Please explain what you're tying to say here, as I have no idea what you're trying to say.  What would make Christ a sinner who became righteous? 

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 ; 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. (Waggoner, The Glad Tidings)

I agree with Waggoner's view here regarding "Under the Law".  If you see this as legalism, I don't know why, as it simply is explaining what conversion is.  It's the same idea as I posted from "Nicodemus" in "The Desire of Ages" earlier today. 

[Robert]

Please explain what you're tying to say here, as I have no idea what you're trying to say.  What would make Christ a sinner who became righteous? 

Like I stated, "You are inferring that the believer is not under the law because he is keeping the law."  Gal 4:4 states that Christ was born "under the law".  Using your logic that would make Christ selfish for He was "born under the law".

I agree with Waggoner's view here regarding "Under the Law".  If you see this as legalism, I don't know why, as it simply is explaining what conversion is.  It's the same idea as I posted from "Nicodemus" in "The Desire of Ages" earlier today. 

I could care less what Waggoner's view are.  I'm concerned with Paul's, understand?  You keep trying to pit me against those who you have placed upon a pedestal. 

Those who are under the law therefore are the transgressors of the law. The righteous are not under it, but are walking in it. 

Bull!  "There is none righteous, no, not even one"  We are not under law because we have accepted the gospel - the gospel  where Christ legally saved us from under law to under grace.

Also, again, Christ was born under law.  Using Waggoner's own logic that would infer Christ was a transgressor. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

You mentioned a number of different things, which I'd like to address separately.  Regarding Christ being "made under the law"

"That Christ should be born under the law was a necessary consequence of his being born of a woman, taking on him the nature of Abraham, being made of the seed of David, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Human nature is sinful, and the law of God condemns all sin. Not that men are born into the world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy they have no knowledge of right and wrong, and are incapable of doing either, but they are born with sinful tendencies, owing to the sins of their ancestors. And when Christ came into the world, he came subject to all the conditions to which other children are subject. {October 21, 1889 EJW, SITI 631.10} 

This is something Waggoner wrote.  To help our conversation, can you tell what of this you agree with and disagree with?

From what you're written previously, it is my understanding that you understand "under the law" to mean "under the jurisdicution of the law".  We could start with this.  Do you understand this is always the meaning of the phrase "under the law", or does it have a different meaning depening on the text?

Another question is, I understand that you believe the Christ took our fallen nature.  If that's the case, why would you argue that this would make Him selfish?  The same arguments I would use to counteract this argument are the same ones you would use.

Perhaps you'd like to start a thread regarding what "under the law" (or "under law") means.

 

[Robert]

 

Perhaps you'd like to start a thread regarding what "under the law" (or "under law") means.

Under law means that you are under its dominion for as long as you live.  See Romans 7:1  The law demands perfection, but if it detects sin then the law demands death (goodbye to life forever).  Where ever sin is it must perish. To allow sin to progress is to bring disaster. 

 That Christ should be born under the law was a necessary consequence of his being born of a woman, taking on him the nature of Abraham, being made of the seed of David, in the likeness of sinful flesh. 

Right.  Because Christ, as the son of man, assumed our nature ("indwelling sin" or "the law of sin" i.e., our bent-to-self) Christ's humanity came under the law's condemnation.  The phrase "likeness of sinful flesh" means that as God it wasn't His nature rather it was ours.  Therefore it is a mistake to say Christ had a sinful nature.  Christ assumed our nature by taking our humanity on to His Deity. Because of this the son of man came under the law's condemnation.

...they are born with sinful tendencies....

Actually we are born slaves to sin because our minds and natures are in harmony.  Hence we are born spiritually dead.  

Christ was born spiritually alive.  This simply means He wasn't born a slave to our nature. He never sinned not even by a thought.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

I agree with Waggoner's view here regarding "Under the Law".  If you see this as legalism, I don't know why, as it simply is explaining what conversion is.  It's the same idea as I posted from "Nicodemus" in "The Desire of Ages" earlier today. 

Robert: I could care less what Waggoner's view are.  I'm concerned with Paul's, understand?  You keep trying to pit me against those who you have placed upon a pedestal. 

For you to understand Paul, it would be helpful for you to understand the origination and development of the ideas you hold.  You got many of your ideas from Sequeira, who got many of his from Wieland, who got many of his from Waggoner.  You miss a lot by not being aware of how the ideas you hold developed.  Sequeira is aware of all this.

Another reason I quote from Waggoner and Ellen White is because of your pejorative language.  I want to make as clear as possible that the ideas I'm presenting are held by others, and that your pejorative language applies to others greater than I.

Finally I quote from Waggoner because he has such an outstanding understanding of the Gospel, endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy on countless occasions as a heavenly message given to us by the Lord, which endorsements I believe.  But just from my own personal experience, I cannot read Waggoner without learning something new.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's a law question for you.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything you are saying about the law is correct, in terms of what it condemns and why.  Now you would agree that the law of God was created by God, and He is the one who implemented it.  My question is, for what purpose would God make the law work the way you are suggesting?

For example, you assert that the law demands perfection and requires the second death if that perfection is not met.  Why would God want to do this?  What purpose does this serve?

[Robert]

My question is, for what purpose would God make the law work the way you are suggesting?

For example, you assert that the law demands perfection and requires the second death if that perfection is not met.  Why would God want to do this?  What purpose does this serve?

Excellent question!  Let me quote Ellen White and then I'll expound latter:

What is justification by faith? It is the work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to do for himself. When men see their own nothingness, they are prepared to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ.

Those whom heaven recognizes as holy ones are the last to parade their own goodness. The apostle Peter became a faithful minister of Christ, and he was greatly honored with divine light and power; he had an active part in the upbuilding of Christ’s church; but Peter never forgot the fearful experience of his humiliation; his sin was forgiven; yet well he knew that for the weakness of character which had caused his fall only the grace of Christ could avail. He found in himself nothing in which to glory.

None of the apostles or prophets ever claimed to be without sin. Men who have lived nearest to God, men who would sacrifice life itself rather than knowingly commit a wrong act, men whom God had honored with divine light and power, have confessed the sinfulness of their own nature. They have put no confidence in the flesh, have claimed no righteousness of their own, but have trusted wholly in the righteousness of Christ. So will it be with all who behold Christ.

The righteousness of Christ, as a pure white pearl, has no defect, no stain, no guilt. This righteousness may be ours. Salvation, with its blood-bought, inestimable treasures, is the pearl of great price.

The thought that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, not because of any merit on our part, but as a free gift from God, is a precious thought. The enemy of God and man is not willing that this truth should be clearly presented; for he knows that if the people receive it fully, his power will be broken.

  Ref: http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=FLB&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=111&QUERY=Jesus+Christ&resultId=3078

Edited July 9, 2015 by Robert