Justification and the Cross

[Samie]

https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/theology-salvation/justification-and-cross

[Samie]

The first paragraph in "C. General Remarks and Conclusion" of this BRI publication says:

Quote

Paul is obviously contrasting the result of the sin of Adam with the result of the salvific work of Christ. He is not arguing that the way sin came into the world parallels the way the gift of God came into the world. The parallel is basically limited to the fact that what Adam did had a universal impact and what Christ did also has a universal impact. The implicit reason is that Adam stood at the head of the human race and what he did determined the fate of his descendants. Now Christ is the one who stands at the head of the human race and determines its destiny in terms of the response we give to his offer of salvation (Rom 5:17). Since Adam could not pass on to his descendants what he did not posses, the result of his sin was death and sin for all members of the human race. Grace is not an enslaving power but its benefits are intended for all human beings (it has a universal dimension) who by faith receive it. Grace, like sin and death, reigns, but it does it through righteousness not through fate.

Notice the second to the last sentence: "Grace is not an enslaving power but its benefits are intended for all human beings (it has a universal dimension) who by faith receive it." So, unless received by faith, man can not benefit from grace. Let us take a look at how the author describes people prior to his acceptance of the gift of grace (3rd paragraph):

Quote

However, we must acknowledge that the sin of Adam had a universal impact. That is exactly what Paul is arguing. We are all sinners, we are all separated from God because of the sin of Adam. Paul explains what he means by saying that when Adam sinned sin and death came into the world. Certainly, Adam's sin is not our sin, but he made it impossible for any human being not to sin because death as a universal power came into the world as a result of Adam's sin. This is physical and spiritual death. We were separated from God as a race with a human nature that could not resist the power of sin. Our sinful condition was followed by sinful acts because we were spiritually dead. Paul says, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God" (Rom 8:7). It is that natural condition that we obtained from Adam; "in Adam all die" (1 Cor 15:22). We are sinners not because when Adam sinned we, who allegedly were in him, sinned, but because we came under the power of death, separated from God, making sin unavoidable or inescapable to us.

Prior to his accepting grace by faith, man is described above as separated from God and spiritually dead. I tried searching throughout the paper to see whether the author discusses anything on how one who is separated from God and spiritually dead can do the spiritual act of receiving grace by faith. Sadly, I found none.

Since the brand of gospel popularly preached echoes what the author of the BRI paper wrote, could anyone who teaches the same brand of gospel discuss how one who is spiritually dead able to accept grace by faith?

[Robert]

Quote

We are sinners not because when Adam sinned we, who allegedly were in him, sinned, but because we came under the power of death, separated from God, making sin unavoidable or inescapable to us.

"Allegedly"? Paul doesn't make that statement, but the BRI does.  When Adam sinned the human race was in him.  After all we are the multiplication of Adam's life indwelt by our bent.  When Adam sinned he polluted the humanity within himself. At that very instant our humanity became a slave to the love of self.  This is our inheritance from Adam, which fully disqualifies us from heaven.  We are sinners by birth.  

[Samie]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

We are sinners by birth.

What do you mean by that?  How can that be not inconsistent with what you said, if I remember right, that people are born justified?

I thought you believe humanity was with Christ when He died and made alive together with Him?  If we are the body of Christ, how can we be sinners by birth, when Christ has already cleansed us from all sin?

[Samie]

Righteousness by faith, yes. But whose faith? Most preachers say it is man's faith IN Christ. But Scriptures say, the faith of the Son of God.

^KJV Romans 3:21-22   ²¹ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;  ²² Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

[Robert]

11 hours ago, Samie said:

What do you mean by that?  How can that be not inconsistent with what you said, if I remember right, that people are born justified?

Sinners not transgressors.....

[Tom Wetmore]

What is the difference between sinners and transgressors?

 

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

What is the difference between sinners and transgressors?

 

Transgression requires volition. 

[Tom Wetmore]

That seems to me to be a rather artificial, if not strained, distinction.  

When one looks up those words in an ordinary dictionary that is not an apparent distinction.  To the contrary, the normal meaning would have them nearly synonymous or with the opposite  of what you have determined.  A sinner is one who sins and to sin is defined as one who has transgressed by choice or conscious decision.  A transgressor is one who violates a law.  In common usage for civil laws one can transgress a law even without knowing it.  You have heard that saying that ignorance of the law is no defense.  (Although as a practical matter that may not be entirely true in all cases.)   

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

That seems to me to be a rather artificial, if not strained, distinction.  

Not at all.  Paul defines this concept well in Romans chapter 5

Quote

When one looks up those words in an ordinary dictionary that is not an apparent distinction.

Here you need to be careful.  Biblical definitions are not always the same a secular ones.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

 You have heard that saying that ignorance of the law is no defense.  (Although as a practical matter that may not be entirely true in all cases.)   

Well, God is not unfair. 

Rom 7:7 I would not have come to know sin except through the Law.

Rom 3:20 Through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Rom 5:13 Sin is not imputed when there is no law

 

[Tom Wetmore]

But you are using English words that are used to talk about what is in Scripture. If you use English words and redefine them to your liking or theory of  things, you creatin and articulate meaning that is not helpful to achieve understanding.  You are inventing new meanings. Why not just invent new words and define them according to what you like?

But more importantly, the words in question clearly are used to mean exactly the opposite of what you are saying in many other passages of Scripture. What makes you believe that is what is meant in Romans 5?  I don't see it.

But you appeal to Scipture is also unpersuasive.  Are there indeed two different words with those exclusive and distinct meanings in the original Greek that say what you are saying?   I see the words in Romans 5 as being used interchangeably.  And not as you interpret it.  Ipthat passage is talking about something quite different and you are just reading your invented meaning into it.

[Robert]

Roman 5:2 Therefore, just as through one man (Adam)  sin (singular) entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Adam's sin was not done in ignorance. “Transgression” means a willful, deliberate violation of a law.  In other words, you can never transgress without the knowledge of the law.  The prerequisite for transgression is the knowledge of the law.

Adam’s sin was a transgression because he willfully disobeyed a known command.  The people from Adam to Moses were sinning, but they were not transgressing.  They died because they shared Adam's life after the fall and not because of transgression.

[Robert]

6 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I don't see it....

...your appeal to Scripture is also unpersuasive. 

Rom 7:7 I would not have come to know sin except through the Law.

Rom 3:20 Through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Rom 5:13 Sin is not imputed when there is no law

It's very clear to me.....

[Tom Wetmore]

In talking about Adam's sin you confirm my point that the words are used interchangeably and you are imposing a distinction without a real difference. That is an artificial  and strained  interpretation and use of the words in question.  You have confirmed my point that both transgressing and sinning can be with or without volition.  So it is unhelpful to try to argue a difference using those words to make you point of not holding ignorant sin/transgression against a person.

Saying that  Adam's "sin" was not in ignorance is to say that it was an act of volition.  

[Robert]

7 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

 You have confirmed my point that both transgressing and sinning can be with or without volition.  

This is your out of context appraisal,  but I haven't confirmed anything.

 Adam's sin was blatant transgression of a known law or command.

Those who do not have a knowledge of the law are not under the law and therefore they aren't transgressors.  Sinners? yes, but not transgressors. 

[Robert]

32 minutes ago, Robert said:

Those who do not have a knowledge of the law are not under the law and therefore they aren't transgressors.  Sinners? yes, but not transgressors. 

Take Ps 51:5 for example:

"Surely I was sinful at birth,  sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

David is saying that at birth he was sinful being born bent-to-self, i.e., knowing only the love of self.

David is not saying "I was born a transgressor at birth".  

Anyone who takes the position that God charges the sinner with the guilt of transgression, before he has a knowledge of the law, makes God out to be unfair and arbitrary. 

[Robert]

Sin

The actual meaning of this word is “missing the mark.”  In Judges 20:16 the Hebrew word sin (translated in the KJV as “not miss”) is used true to its meaning.  Used in a spiritual sense, sin is missing the divine mark or coming “short of the glory of God,” which is His selfless love or agape [Romans 3:23].

Since all men are born spiritually “bent” (shapen in iniquity), it is not difficult to see what Romans 3:10, 12 says:  there is none righteous and no one who does good.  Man’s sinful condition makes it impossible for him to do anything but sin, unless he has a Savior.  That is why the gospel is man’s only hope of salvation.  While man does have a free will to choose between accepting Christ’s righteousness offered in the gospel or rejecting it, he does not have a choice between doing sin or geniune righteousness.  Man is born a slave to sin and no matter how hard he wills or tries, he will fall short of the divine mark [Romans 7:15-24].  For further study read the following texts:  Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:2, 3; Isaiah 1:4-6; Jeremiah 17:9; Mark 7:21-23.

Transgression

This word means a deliberate violation of the law, or willful disobedience.  Transgression pre-supposes that one has the knowledge of the law.  In the spiritual realm, transgression is the violation of the moral law, or ten commandments of God [see 1 John 3:4]. A knowledge of God’s law makes sin to be “transgression.”  Note the following:

• Galatians 3:19.  The law was given to make sin into transgression.

• James 2:9.  The law convinces us we are transgressors.

• Romans 3:20.  Through the law we have the knowledge of sin.

• Romans 5:20.  The law did not solve the sin problem but made it “abound” all the more.

• Romans 7:7-13.  The law exposes our sinful condition and reveals our total bankruptcy with regards to righteousness.

Since sin is a deceiver, it would be impossible for sinful man to fully realize his condition unless God revealed it to him.  This He has done by giving the law.  The law was never given as a means of salvation or to deal with sin.  The law is incapable of producing righteousness in us because of man’s sinful state [Romans 8:3]; the only way that man can be saved is in Christ.  The Scriptures clearly state that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight” [Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; 3:21-22; 5:4].  It cannot make man holy and good because he is sold under sin [Romans 7:12, 14].  But God gave the law to sinful man to be “our schoolmaster [or escort] to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” [Galatians 3:24].

[Jack Sequeira]

See: http://www.jacksequeira.org/dyunit01.htm

[Samie]

On 03/02/2016 at 3:43 PM, Robert said:

Sinners not transgressors.....

Do you think Luke correctly labelled the woman in Luke 7:37 as mere "sinner" instead of "transgressor"? In comparing the woman to a debtor, Jesus seems to tell us that the woman knew she was sinning, since a debtor knows he owes someone something.

[Robert]

Just now, Samie said:

Do you think Luke correctly labelled the woman in Luke 7:37 as mere "sinner" instead of "transgressor"? In comparing the woman to a debtor, Jesus seems to tell us that the woman knew she was sinning, since a debtor knows he owes someone something.

Let me look this up.....

Some say (and I agree) that this is the same woman "caught in adultery".  That woman is Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha.

This woman was not under law because Jesus had previously forgiven her.  Remember that He said, "neither do I condemn you"?

Yes, she was a sinner, and yes after conversion she knew she was sinning when she failed, but under grace the law can't condemn you as a transgressor even though you know the law.  Why?  Because of our position "in Christ" through faith.

 

 

 

[Samie]

11 minutes ago, Robert said:

This woman was not under law because Jesus had previously forgiven her.  Remember that He said, "neither do I condemn you"?

If she was previously forgiven, why forgive her again (Luke 7:48)?

[Robert]

23 minutes ago, Samie said:

If she was previously forgiven, why forgive her again (Luke 7:48)?

Let's look at Luke 7:48

verse 47: "her many sins have been (past tense) forgiven" 

48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are (present tense) forgiven.”

I don't see any contradiction.

[Samie]

Do you believe all sins were forgiven on the cross?

NAS Colossians 2:13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

If so, then why the need to forgive her again, when she was previously forgiven?

 

[Robert]

59 minutes ago, Samie said:

... why the need to forgive her again, when she was previously forgiven?

a] "her many sins have been (past tense) forgiven" 

 b] “Your sins are (present tense) forgiven.”

This is a state of being....She has been forgiven and she is still forgiven.  

As long as you have Christ through faith you stand perfect "in Him" even though in your own life you are missing the mark.

[Samie]

So, were all sins - past, present, future - forgiven on the cross?

And if a person continues to miss the mark, how is his being "in Christ" affected? Will there be people in heaven who never stopped missing the mark while on earth?