Perfection

[steaver]

In Phil 3 Paul argues that before being a Christian - he was " a Hebrew of the Hebrews - as to the Law a Pharisee, ... as to the righteousness that comes through the Law - found blameless".

This is his description of how the lost Phraisee viewed himself.

But in 1Tim 1:13-15 Paul unmasked his former self as being "a blasphemer, persecutor and violent agressor" who "acted in unbelief" and yet was "the chief of sinners".

Thus the claim that the lost - depraved soul (Jew or not) does obey the Law of God - is shown to be false.



in Christ,

Bob

You expect anyone to believe that Paul never obeyed the Law prior to conversion?

Paul never honored his father and mother?

Paul never honored the Sabbath?

Paul as a Pharisee never obeyed any part of the Law?

Is this what you want us to believe?

 

[BobRyan]

Thus the claim that the lost - depraved soul (Jew or not) does obey the Law of God - is shown to be false.

In Romans 7 Paul states that "apart from the Law" Paul felt he was perfectly righteous - but when conviction came and he saw himself in the true light of the law's Just demands - "he died".

Thus in Romans 8 Paul is very adamant that the unsaved man - DOES not do the things of the LAW and in fact "is not even ABLE to do so".

5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God[/b].

In Romans 3 - Paul says "WE are no different than they" (Jews vs Gentiles) in that ALL are found to be in violation of God's Law (ALL have sinned and fallen short).

But it is even worse

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS [b]NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

[/B]
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''

Thus the argument that "unsaved Jew or gentile - really do keep God's Law" is shown to fail the test.

Steaver's response to those texts -

You expect anyone to believe that Paul never obeyed the Law prior to conversion?

Paul never honored his father and mother?

Paul never honored the Sabbath?

James 2 - he who is guilty in breaking one - "IS GUILTY" of breaking ALL.

Let us take a simple example

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy". In Rev 14:6-7 Worship to God is derived from the Sabbath memorial of creation "Worship Him who MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and springs of water". And again in Is 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath... shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship".

An unholy, unsaved, depraved person cannot keep the Sabbath Holy no matter what list of "things" they choose not to do on that day.

It is an action that CAN only be engaged in by one who is a born-again saint - sanctified and set apart by God as Holy.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Bob,

Just want to take a minute to address a few things you posted.

I think we are pretty much in agreement concerning the second death, and was wondering if you had ever considered this:

When we look at the "first resurrection", it makes one immediately think that this is the first and only resurrection.

If you stop to think about it, there will be another resurrection after this (and I personally, believing there will be a rapture, see multiple "First resurrections").

At the end of the Millennial Reign, those who have lived through the M.K. will still be in need of receiving theie eternal bodies.

In Hebrews, the Covenant of Law is called the first covenant, but we know there were others before it.

It is just called the "first" because it is this Covenant that the writer is contrasting with the New.

Just something to ponder.

And concerning the indwelling of God in the Old Testament, remember that He left Saul.

Which is why I believe God did indwell in the O.T., but that it was different from His ministry within the New Covenant, which Jesus tells us, "He will be with you forever."

Now, for the next installment of the study.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello to All,

Welcome to the next installment.

I encourage those who have not read through this thread to do so...there is a blessing for you in looking at something that I'm sure not many have ever considered.

Our last verse was this:


Hebrews 7:11 (King James Version)

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Perfection is this:


5050. teleiosis tel-i'-o-sis from 5448; (the act) completion, i.e. (of prophecy) verification, or (of expiation) absolution:--perfection, performance.

Our next verse is this:


Hebrews 7:19 (King James Version)


19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


Perfect is this:


5048. teleioo tel-i-o'-o from 5046; to complete, i.e. (literally) accomplish, or (figuratively) consummate (in character):--consecrate, finish, fulfil, make) perfect.


Neither the Levitical Priesthood nor the Law could bring completion.

It was an endless performance of ritual on a daily basis.

It did not take away sin, nor could the people approach God, but were, by their sin, kept apart from Him.


Hebrews 9:7-11 (King James Version)

7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Note the "holiest of all" in v.8.

This is God's true presence, which the second room of the Tabernacle
represented (the Holy of Holies).

The Levitical High Priest (which was a picture of Christ's priesthood) brought the sacrifice that represented Christ's sacrifice to the place that represented God's presence.

This is the type, the picture, the shadow.

But Christ, who is the true High Priest, brought the true sacrifice for sin into the true presence of God, the Holiest of All.


What the law could not bring to completion, Christ did.


Hebrews 7:19 (King James Version)

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


The ritual of law did not allow the people to approach God, but through Christ, we have acces to God that the law could not give.

The veil that separated man from the presence of God was pictured by the veil that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.

Christ has entered into the true Holy of Holies, the Holiest of All...


Hebrews 6:19 (King James Version)


19Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

20Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.


Hebrews 10:20 (King James Version)


20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


We are tied to Jesus in Heaven even as an anchor is tied to a ship.

Christ has entered into God's presence, Heaven, and we are "anchored" by hope in Christ.


Hebrews 7:19 (King James Version)

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


Our hope in Christ is better than hope in the law.

Because He has brought completion to that which the law could only picture.

God bless.

 

[steaver]

James 2 - he who is guilty in breaking one - "IS GUILTY" of breaking ALL.

in Christ,

Bob

Ok, then you should have made yourself more clear. When you said, "Thus the claim that the lost - depraved soul (Jew or not) does obey the Law of God - is shown to be false", you mean "with perfection".

You made it sound like Paul had no choice but to steal, murder, covet, dishonor his parents and dishonor the Sabbath, etc, etc and this everyday consistently.

A corrected statement would read, "Thus the claim that the lost - depraved soul (Jew or not) does obey the Law of God with perfection- is shown to be false". This I can say AMEN to and I never said with perfection. It is obvious that even the lost obey God's laws in many ways, but obeying the law cannot save, even if it could have been done with perfection.

Thus, you believe that once a person is born of God then they are capable of keeping the law with perfection. Not they all do, but they are indeed capable. Is this correct?

I have to confess, as I examine myself daily I must say that I don't find myself capable of this perfection you believe in. Even though I know with absolute assurance by the Holy Spirit testimony within me that I have indeed been born of God.

So you truly believe you are capable of obeying God's law with perfection now that you have been born of God?

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Steaver,

I for one...cannot.

Nor is it possible for many to even presume they can.

For example, can they carry a sacrificial animal to the priesthood?

God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

I gave this example

Originally Posted by Bob
Let us take a simple example

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy". In Rev 14:6-7 Worship to God is derived from the Sabbath memorial of creation "Worship Him who MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and springs of water". And again in Is 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath... shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship".

An unholy, unsaved, depraved person cannot keep the Sabbath Holy no matter what list of "things" they choose not to do on that day.

It is an action that CAN only be engaged in by one who is a born-again saint - sanctified and set apart by God as Holy.

In Matt 5 and 6 where Jesus expands on the law showing that it has an even deeper more expansive scope in spirit than in letter - the point above is affirmed. A mere outward compliance with "I did not work today" is not the full meaning of "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy".

The same is true with the 5th commandment to honor parents. Love your fellow human (Lev 19:18) is central to that - as Christ said and true love for others is not available apart from the new birth - and the God who IS Love.


And then I gave another example of how God's Laws are broken

James 2 "He who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking all".

Thus I show in the specific case how it is broken by the lost who attempt to keep the law merely in outward form - and I also show it in general principle from James 2 regarding the linkage for ALL of God's Commandments.

Ok, then you should have made yourself more clear. When you said, "Thus the claim that the lost - depraved soul (Jew or not) does obey the Law of God - is shown to be false", you mean "with perfection".

I mean - with the the full scope intent that God states it and that Christ affirms it in Matt 5 and 6 PRE-Cross.

You made it sound like Paul had no choice but to steal, murder, covet, dishonor his parents and dishonor the Sabbath, etc

As Paul himself admits - He thought he was keeping those laws and was "blameless" Phil 3 as a lost person. But then later "The Law came and I DIED" Romans 7 as he saw the real meaning of the Law under the New Birth condition. "For the Law is SPIRITUAL" as Paul argues. It has a deeper more expansive meaning than the lost are capable of seeing.

Thus, you believe that once a person is born of God then they are capable of keeping the law with perfection.

I believe there is a huge difference between the "must-fail" experience of the lost and the "obedience" model of the saints just as Paul shows in Romans 8 stating that the lost do not keep God's Law and CANNOT keep them. While also showing in Romans 6 that the saints are fully expected to keep it and not to claim that they are enslaved to sinning.

I have to confess, as I examine myself daily I must say that I don't find myself capable of this perfection

Some quality time with the 6th chapter of Romans might be appropriate for your thoughts just then.

It works better than trying to blame "me" for what the Bible teaches, as your "solution".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Just want to take a minute to address a few things you posted.

I think we are pretty much in agreement concerning the second death, and was wondering if you had ever considered this:

When we look at the "first resurrection", it makes one immediately think that this is the first and only resurrection.

If you stop to think about it, there will be another resurrection after this (and I personally, believing there will be a rapture, see multiple "First resurrections").

A bunch of "First resurrections" makes no sense. You would need to "insert" that into the Rev 20 text. In Rev 20 John sees two resurrections and they are separated by 1000 years.

John says that the saints are raised in the first resurrection.

Paul does not use the term "first resurrection" he simply points to the coming of Christ and says "the dead in Christ are raised first" 1Thess 4 and then we who are alive and remain are caught up together with them in th air - meet the Lord and are taken to heaven.

Thus the two Bible writers describe the exact same event.

At the end of the Millennial Reign, those who have lived through the M.K. will still be in need of receiving theie eternal bodies.

There is no text in all of scripture saying that the saints are raised after the 1000 years and sent to heaven, or sent to the New Jerusalem.

There is only ONE chapter in all of scripture that specifically talks about the resurrection as being after the 1000 years - (Rev 20) and there we only see the dead raised and cast into the lake of fire.

The reason that the M.K saints have no need of this - is because 1Thess 4, Rev 20:4-5, John 14:1-4 are all taking about the same 2nd coming event where the saints are taken to heaven.

Thus no "insert" is needed for the text.

In Hebrews, the Covenant of Law is called the first covenant, but we know there were others before it.

It is just called the "first" because it is this Covenant that the writer is contrasting with the New.

Just something to ponder.

In Hebrews the "First covenant" is used two different ways. In Heb 8 it is used to illustrate the lost condition and to contrast that with the saved condition (New Covenant) where the lost are born-again with a new heart upon which the law is written, where they are adopted and taught by God.

But in Heb 9 the Old Covenant is symbolized by the OT system of worship. The earthly sanctuary.

And concerning the indwelling of God in the Old Testament, remember that He left Saul.

True. The Bible tells us that Saul received a "New Heart".

David asks that the Holy Spirit not be TAKEN FROM - him due to his sin.

And Peter affirms that the "Spirit of Christ IN THEM" was testifying about the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow.

Which is why I believe God did indwell in the O.T.,

One Gospel.

One means of salvation.

One "new birth".

but that it was different from His ministry within the New Covenant, which Jesus tells us, "He will be with you forever."

The same "Forever promise" of the Holy Spirit "in you" was given in the OT.

However to argue that in the OT they had no new birth or that OSAS works in the NT but not in the OT - is to argue for TWO Gospels.

Paul flatly rejects that model in Gal 1:6-11.

And clearly even Matt 18 and Romans 11 show that OSAS was not functioning in the NT. So in fact - both ages have the SAME Gospel.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As Steaver has seen time after time on these threads -- The argument that the saints must violate God's Law just as the unsaved do - because after all nobody can obey the Word of God - is flatly rejected by Paul in Romans 6..

Romans 6
Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God


1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


14For sin shall not be master over you[/b], for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin[/b], you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
[/quote]

There is no need to circle back to the condition of the lost who faces the law and is condemned - because Paul is not arguing in Romans 6 that those who were not born-again, not-baptized, not new creations - should experience the freedom from slavery to sin that he points out so clearly in Romans 6.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

An unholy, unsaved, depraved person cannot keep the Sabbath Holy no matter what list of "things" they choose not to do on that day.

It is an action that CAN only be engaged in by one who is a born-again saint - sanctified and set apart by God as Holy.

In Matt 5 and 6 where Jesus expands on the law showing that it has an even deeper more expansive scope in spirit than in letter - the point above is affirmed. A mere outward compliance with "I did not work today" is not the full meaning of "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy".


in Christ,

Bob

How does one "keep the Sabbath holy" according to what you have found the scriptures teach?

Better yet, you believe in keeping the sabbath holy so what do you practice on the sabbath to keep it holy and be sure you are not in violation of Jesus' command?

 

[steaver]

I believe there is a huge difference between the "must-fail" experience of the lost and the "obedience" model of the saints just as Paul shows in Romans 8 stating that the lost do not keep God's Law and CANNOT keep them. While also showing in Romans 6 that the saints are fully expected to keep it and not to claim that they are enslaved to sinning.


in Christ,

Bob

I don't believe anyone here believes the born again are still a slave to sin. The focus is on the "perfection" your posts eludes to. I know I cannot be perfect even though I dilligently guard myself as best I can.

Saints are fully expected to keep the law of love which covers the entire letter of do's and don'ts. The scriptures teach that even if a saint transgresses the law at any point it does not change their eternal life standing in Christ before God.

You are correct that once a person is born of God they are free from the enslavement of sin. This does not mean they will never sin again nor does it mean commandment keeping has anything to do with justification.

Saints will be judged. Not as to death or eternal life, that is settled at rebirth alone, but a saint will be judged according to the deeds while done in the body, whether they be good or bad, judged under the law of liberty. The just shall walk by faith.

It's not that a saint "must sin", but rather that a saint is still incapable of perfection.

Where the SDA errors is in their teaching is they teach that any particular willful sin by a saint in Christ will nullify their eternal life standing before God if they should die at that moment having not repented thereof. They don't understand grace and go about to mix grace with law as a way of salvation. This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ but is what Paul called "another gospel".

 

[BobRyan]

As Steaver has seen time after time on these threads -- The argument that the saints must violate God's Law just as the unsaved do - because after all nobody can obey the Word of God - is flatly rejected by Paul in Romans 6..

Romans 6
Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God


1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.


10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead,
13 -and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.


14For sin shall not be master over you[/b], for you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin[/b], you
became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

There is no need to circle back to the condition of the lost who faces the law and is condemned - because Paul is not arguing in Romans 6 that those who were not born-again, not-baptized, not new creations - should experience the freedom from slavery to sin that he points out so clearly in Romans 6.

...

Originally Posted by BobRyan


I believe there is a huge difference between the "must-fail" experience of the lost and the "obedience" model of the saints just as Paul shows in Romans 8 stating that the lost do not keep God's Law and CANNOT keep them. While also showing in Romans 6 that the saints are fully expected to keep it and not to claim that they are enslaved to sinning.


[/QUOTE]

I don't believe anyone here believes the born again are still a slave to sin.

I also would "like" to think that that were true as well.

The focus is on the "perfection" your posts eludes to. I know I cannot be perfect even though I dilligently guard myself as best I can.

No sense in imagining that Paul's Romans 6 and 1Cor 10 statements are "alluding" to something or that I am the author of Romans 6 and 1Cor 10.

Saints are fully expected to keep the law of love which covers the entire letter of do's and don'ts.

That is Christ's pre-cross statement in Matt 22 and it is what the Jews also agreed to as we see in that chapter.

The Lev 19:18 command to "Love your neighbor" as yourself and the Deut 6:5 command to "Love God with all your heart" is the foundation of all of God's Law.

Thus when Paul says "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 he is being perfectly consistent because the Law of Love is their foundation.

The scriptures teach that even if a saint transgresses the law at any point it does not change their eternal life standing in Christ before God.

You are correct that once a person is born of God they are free from the enslavement of sin. This does not mean they will never sin again

The argument is not "will never sin again" the argument is about the claims made previously that there is not one single commandment that the saints can actually keep.

nor does it mean commandment keeping has anything to do with justification.

Justification past (as we find it in Romans 5:1-2) is about the lost sinner coming to Christ and being born again, with the New Covenant promise of the Law written on the heart - the New Creation, and adopted into the family of God (see Heb 8).

It is the ONE Gospel in all ages.

Justification future as we see it in Romans 2:11-16 has to do with the impartiality of God. Thus Paul can say about Gospel Justification that is future "It is not the Hearers of the Law that are Just before God but rather the DOERS of the Law WILL BE Justified... on that day when according to my GOSPEL God WILL judge" Rom 2.

Saints will be judged. Not as to death or eternal life, that is settled at rebirth alone, but a saint will be judged according to the deeds while done in the body, whether they be good or bad

Paul states clearly that the "reward" for bad deeds is the second death. Rom 6:23 "The wages of sin is death". If you are looking for a judgment where the "reward for bad deeds is heaven" you will not find it in all of scripture - not even in 2Cor 5:10.

Where the SDA errors is in their teaching is they teach that any particular willful sin by a saint in Christ will nullify their eternal life

As much as "making stuff up" serves to prove a point in your usual line of argument - it is not as compelling a device as you may have at first imagined when dealing with Bible students not already biased to ignore some of the inconvenient details of scripture.

Perhaps you would like to try again.

Grace would certainly extend to you the offer of at least another chance to get it right.

:jesus:
in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
An unholy, unsaved, depraved person cannot keep the Sabbath Holy no matter what list of "things" they choose not to do on that day.

It is an action that CAN only be engaged in by one who is a born-again saint - sanctified and set apart by God as Holy.

In Matt 5 and 6 where Jesus expands on the law showing that it has an even deeper more expansive scope in spirit than in letter - the point above is affirmed. A mere outward compliance with "I did not work today" is not the full meaning of "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy".

How does one "keep the Sabbath holy" according to what you have found the scriptures teach?

Christ said that the law is divided into two foundational principles - Love for God and Love for your fellow man.

The first 4 commandments are clearly related to the "Love for God" side of that equation.

That would include Christ our Creator's seventh-day memorial of His creative acts in Gen 1-2:3.

Thus Holy Day of the Lord thy God (Is 58) means to Love God with all your heart. Not an action that the lost CAN engage in.

To "KEEP the Sabbath Holy" as pointed out above means that first you must BE Holy - saved, born-again, sanctified and set apart unto God.

In Is 66 God says "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship" - and in Rev 14:7 "WORSHIP Him who MADE the Heavens, the Earth the seas and the springs of water". Thus to keep the Sabbath Holy is to engage in worship to God specifically as our Creator - and to gather for worship in honor of His Word.

In Isaiah 58 God tells us to turn aside from speaking our own word and dowing our own pleasure on the "Holy Day of the Lord" -- the Sabbath.

When you look at the entire scope of what it means to keep the Sabbath Holy - it is apparent that Paul is 100% correct in Romans 8 when he notes that the lost DO Not do this neither indeed CAN they.

Which is why I question the point that some make here stating that they too CANNOT obey God's Word.

In 1Cor 10 we find that the issue of obedience and resisting sin is stated as a matter of the "faithfulness of God" in providing a way of escape for those who will CHOOSE to take it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by BobRyan



Paul states clearly that the "reward" for bad deeds is the second death. Rom 6:23 "The wages of sin is death". If you are looking for a judgment where the "reward for bad deeds is heaven" you will not find it in all of scripture - not even in 2Cor 5:10.


:jesus:
in Christ,

Bob

One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.

2Cr 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

1Cr 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Are bad/unfruitful works sin?

Does a believer know he should do good works?

Jam 4:17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

Let each horse decide for themselves.

 

[steaver]

Steaver;
Where the SDA errors is in their teaching is they teach that any particular willful sin by a saint in Christ will nullify their eternal life standing before God if they should die at that moment having not repented thereof. They don't understand grace and go about to mix grace with law as a way of salvation. This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ but is what Paul called "another gospel".

As much as "making stuff up" serves to prove a point in your usual line of argument - it is not as compelling a device as you may have at first imagined when dealing with Bible students not already biased to ignore some of the inconvenient details of scripture.

Perhaps you would like to try again.

Grace would certainly extend to you the offer of at least another chance to get it right.

:jesus:
in Christ,

Bob

The following is a quote from an SDA believer in EGW.....

BobRyan;
Paul states clearly that the "reward" for bad deeds is the second death. Rom 6:23 "The wages of sin is death". If you are looking for a judgment where the "reward for bad deeds is heaven" you will not find it in all of scripture - not even in 2Cor 5:10.

Perhaps you would like to retract, revise or elaborate your statement to prove my comment false.

You words here are clear, bad deed equals second death, "reward for bad deeds is heaven" you will not find it in all of scripture.

I'll ask you a question so you may clarify your answer;

According to your pov, Can a born of God believer commit a bad deed (sin) , die without repentence of that deed, and still receive heaven?

 

[steaver]

Christ said that the law is divided into two foundational principles - Love for God and Love for your fellow man.

The first 4 commandments are clearly related to the "Love for God" side of that equation.

That would include Christ our Creator's seventh-day memorial of His creative acts in Gen 1-2:3.

Thus Holy Day of the Lord thy God (Is 58) means to Love God with all your heart. Not an action that the lost CAN engage in.

To "KEEP the Sabbath Holy" as pointed out above means that first you must BE Holy - saved, born-again, sanctified and set apart unto God.

In Is 66 God says "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship" - and in Rev 14:7 "WORSHIP Him who MADE the Heavens, the Earth the seas and the springs of water". Thus to keep the Sabbath Holy is to engage in worship to God specifically as our Creator - and to gather for worship in honor of His Word.

In Isaiah 58 God tells us to turn aside from speaking our own word and dowing our own pleasure on the "Holy Day of the Lord" -- the Sabbath.

When you look at the entire scope of what it means to keep the Sabbath Holy - it is apparent that Paul is 100% correct in Romans 8 when he notes that the lost DO Not do this neither indeed CAN they.

Which is why I question the point that some make here stating that they too CANNOT obey God's Word.

In 1Cor 10 we find that the issue of obedience and resisting sin is stated as a matter of the "faithfulness of God" in providing a way of escape for those who will CHOOSE to take it.

in Christ,

Bob

So you are saying that the Sabbath is a rest in Christ. Christ is our Sabbath and loving God is loving Christ and "is to engage in worship to God specifically as our Creator - and to gather for worship in honor of His Word".

I believe I have misunderstood the SDA's Sabbath keeping. I always thought that to the SDA it meant gathering and worshipping on a specific day of the week. If I understand what you have said here, we both see the Sabbath the same and agree it is a rest in Christ each and every day of the week, for we are commanded to worship God always, not just a specific day.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Bob,

Hi Bob,

Thought I would touch on this thought, because I know at first glance it seems silly, but, just think about it.

A bunch of "First resurrections" makes no sense. You would need to "insert" that into the Rev 20 text. In Rev 20 John sees two resurrections and they are separated by 1000 years.

John says that the saints are raised in the first resurrection.

Paul does not use the term "first resurrection" he simply points to the coming of Christ and says "the dead in Christ are raised first" 1Thess 4 and then we who are alive and remain are caught up together with them in th air - meet the Lord and are taken to heaven.

Thus the two Bible writers describe the exact same event.

As far as inserting, that is the point: Revelation 20 is clear that it is the martyrs who are raised again, and we know this because they did not receive the mark of the beast.

You would have to "insert" the raising of the dead in Christ from

1 Thessalonians 4:

16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Notice that the dead in Christ here are raised first, why then is Revelation 20 silent about first, all those who have died in Christ, and secondly, the rising of those who are alive.

Notice that this is, which most would consider resuurestion of the dead, states that the ones (in Christ) who are alive and remain will be resurrected immediately after the dead in Christ...

Unless you "insert" there is a 1000 years between the two, or that the text just doesn't mention that these "dead in Christ are the tribulation martyrs, or, you must "insert that the resurrection of the dead in Revelation 20 just doesn't mention that all of the dead in Christ up to the point of the end of the tribulation are raised.

I don't see any of these as in the text.

But that the resurrection of the dead in 1 Thessalonians 4 is not the same as the resurrection of the dead in Revelation 20, where it is tribulation martyrs specifically that are raised.

Now, we see there is the first resurrection in Revelation 20, but what about the resurrection at the end of the Millennial kingdom?

I believe all who go into the New Heaven and the New Earth will receive glorified bodies...the just and the wicked, for both are resurrected, and both will endure eternity, the first in the New Heaven and Earth, the second in the lake of fire.

One possibility that I see is that those of the "first resurrection are merely raised from the dead into the same physical bodies, rather than being glorified (as our Lord), which would be the resurrection that follows the first, even as the dead, who are resurrected in bodies suited to eternal torment, undergo the "second death."

At the time the dead (wicked) are resurrected, so also are the tribulation saints and those who have died in the Millennial Kingdom.

Concerning the "quality" of the first resurrection, first is this:

4413. protos pro'-tos contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.

Which could be taken to mean first in order of importance, and not just time.

It is the same word used in Hebrews:


Hebrews 8:7 (King James Version)

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.


Hebrews 8:13 (King James Version)

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Hebrews 9
1Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.


Hebrews 9:15 (King James Version)

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Hebrews 9:18 (King James Version)

18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.


Hebrews 10:9 (King James Version)

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.


Just as I see the possibility of the first resurrection referring to a type of resurrection, rather than the chronological placement, even so Hebrews uses "first" to contrast between two different Covenants.

There is no text in all of scripture saying that the saints are raised after the 1000 years and sent to heaven, or sent to the New Jerusalem.

That saints will be raised after the Millennial reign is a given, at least I believe so.

I do not believe that any will enter the New Heaven and New Earth in physical bodies, for this reason:

The old will be destroyed.

Even as the earth was destroyed in Noah's day...

2 Peter 3

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:


Even so this present world will be destroyed.


7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


We see the tribulation martyrs are raised again, and rule and reign with Christ throughout the Millennial Kingdom:


Revelation 20

4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Who are they, at the end of the tribulation, who "sit upon the thrones?"

This either refers to the Father and Son, or, the only other possibilty would be it is the dead in Christ who are already raised.

Matthew 19:28 (King James Version)

28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

We have already seen in Revelation, that there are thrones in place, and those who sit on them.


Revelation 4

4And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

And just so you know, "seats" is the same word here as throne.

There are 24 seats/thrones, and the Lord promised 12 to the Jews in Matthew 19:28, and many (I included) believe that Gentiles occupy the second 12.




Have to do this in two posts.

God bless

 

[Darrell C]

Continuation of previous post

There is only ONE chapter in all of scripture that specifically talks about the resurrection as being after the 1000 years - (Rev 20) and there we only see the dead raised and cast into the lake of fire.

So what about the saints that are physically alive?

They are either glorified, or they continue to live on in physical bodies.

The reason that the M.K saints have no need of this - is because 1Thess 4, Rev 20:4-5, John 14:1-4 are all taking about the same 2nd coming event where the saints are taken to heaven.

Thus no "insert" is needed for the text.

This is impossible.

The saints of Revalation 20:4 are they that die during the tribulation, and are made to live again at this time.

I believe they are glorified at this time, and are then included with the saints of Ch. 4.

Then comes the Millennial reign.

At the end of this, the dead stand before the Great White Throne, and are cast into the lake of fire.

At this time, I believe that both the dead (are blotted from the book of life) and those who are alive (in Christ) receive their glorified bodies (suited for eternity).

In Hebrews the "First covenant" is used two different ways. In Heb 8 it is used to illustrate the lost condition and to contrast that with the saved condition (New Covenant) where the lost are born-again with a new heart upon which the law is written, where they are adopted and taught by God.

But in Heb 9 the Old Covenant is symbolized by the OT system of worship. The earthly sanctuary.

True. The Bible tells us that Saul received a "New Heart".

David asks that the Holy Spirit not be TAKEN FROM - him due to his sin.

And Peter affirms that the "Spirit of Christ IN THEM" was testifying about the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow.

Notice that they of the Old Covenant looked forward to the completion that would come in Christ.

We, on this side of the Cross receive (v. 9) what they searched for (v.10), the grace that would come unto us v. 10).

Though they had the Spirit of Christ, they looked forward to the time when "the following glory" would appear (v. 11).

The first principles of the oracles of God testified in advance of the sufferings of Christ.

This is the significance of perfection in the book of Hebrews.


1 Peter 1

9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

This is their "limited" understanding of the gospel.

They did not have "completion" nor did they understand how God would accomplish His plan of salvation.

Completion did not come until after Christ died on the Cross and was resurrected.

One Gospel.

One means of salvation.

One "new birth".

AMEN!

But I think we differ on when the new birth became possible.

Hebrews 11, in my estimation, makes it clear that the saints of old were not made perfect, nor could they be, without us.

The same "Forever promise" of the Holy Spirit "in you" was given in the OT.

I would like to see the scriptural references.

However to argue that in the OT they had no new birth or that OSAS works in the NT but not in the OT - is to argue for TWO Gospels.

Let's not get into that just yet, this thread is primarily to look at "perfection", and then, we will go into what that has to do with salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Bob,

You will probably need to start with post # 137 in order to follow this reply.

137 is the "first" post.

God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Darrell -

I am trying to get this section by section - so it may take a while.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
A bunch of "First resurrections" makes no sense. You would need to "insert" that into the Rev 20 text. In Rev 20 John sees two resurrections and they are separated by 1000 years.

John says that the saints are raised in the first resurrection.

Paul does not use the term "first resurrection" he simply points to the coming of Christ and says "the dead in Christ are raised first" 1Thess 4 and then we who are alive and remain are caught up together with them in th air - meet the Lord and are taken to heaven.

Thus the two Bible writers describe the exact same event.

Hi Bob,

Thought I would touch on this thought, because I know at first glance it seems silly, but, just think about it.

As far as inserting, that is the point: Revelation 20 is clear that it is the martyrs who are raised again,

In 1Thess 4 Paul simply says "The Dead in Christ rise first". He does not divide them into "martyrs vs non-martyrs".

John states in Rev 20 that these are the "blessed and holy" ones who are raised in the first resurrection and "over THESE the second death has no power".

Even in your own suggestion of "many first resurrections" you have thus included all of the saints of 1Thess 4 into one or more of them - calling it all "the first resurrection".

Therefore when I argue that the Rev 20 statement is one single resurrection that includes martyrs - and also others -- I am not adding any MORE people into the "first resurrection" than you do with your "many first resurrections" -- AND I am keeping to simpler one-for-one model so that first - really means first and we do not get into first-followed-by-first-followed-by-another-first etc.

You would have to "insert" the raising of the dead in Christ from

1 Thessalonians 4:

16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The topic of the resurrection is mentioned in 1Cor 15, 2Cor 5, 1Thess 4, John 5, Rev 20 and in the book of Acts - and also in other parts of the NT.

Exegesis demands that we take the 360 degree view applying all of scripture that speaks to the subject. Letting each text stand in its own place.

Notice that the dead in Christ here are raised first, why then is Revelation 20 silent about first

Rev 20 is dealing with the resurrection of ALL the dead. It tells us that the righteous dead are raised at the beginning of the 1000 years "over these the 2nd death has no power" - and it tells us that "the REST of the DEAD" are raised at the end of the 1000 years.

1Thess 4 is dealing not ONLY with the case of the righteous - both the living and the dead at the time of Christ's 2nd coming. There we are told that the dead IN CHRIST (Martyrs or not) are raised FIRST and THEN the living saints are caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

John 14:1-4 tells us that when that happens - Christ takes all the saints to heaven.

Notice that this is, which most would consider resuurestion of the dead, states that the ones (in Christ) who are alive and remain will be resurrected immediately after the dead in Christ...

There is never any mention of the living being "resurrected".

Perhaps you meant to say "raptured" up in the air to meet the Lord?

In 1Thess 4 Paul is dealing with all the righteous - both the living and the dead- they are all taken to heaven at once - at the appearing of Christ. But the dead are first raised -- on that very day - and then all of them are taken up - raptured up into the air to meet Christ - and to be taken to that home that He says He has prepared for us in heaven.

It is very clear that resurrecting ALL the saints in 1Thess 4 - most certainly includes those who were martyred.

But that the resurrection of the dead in 1 Thessalonians 4 is not the same as the resurrection of the dead in Revelation 20, where it is tribulation martyrs specifically that are raised.

As I stated - 1Thess 4 would include martyrs by any defintion. And Rev 20 does not say "only martyrs". It simply provides language that highlights the fact that martyrs are raised - which shows that this takes place after the Rev 13 events regarding the mark of the beast.

The main point of Rev 20 is that there are only TWO resurrections and that they are separated by 1000 years.

The main point of 1Thess 4 is that ALL the saints are taken up to be with Christ in heaven - both the living and the "dead in Christ" at the moment of the 2nd coming.

Now, we see there is the first resurrection in Revelation 20, but what about the resurrection at the end of the Millennial kingdom?

Rev 20 also speaks to that resurrection as the one where people are judged and cast into the lake of fire.

It says that those in the first resurrection are blessed and holy and "over them the 2nd death has no power" - but no such promise is made to those raised in the 2nd resurrection.

There are only two - and only of them is protected from the 2nd death.


[quote
I believe all who go into the New Heaven and the New Earth will receive glorified bodies...the just and the wicked, for both are resurrected,
[/quote]

There is nothing stated in Rev 20 or Rev 21 about the wicked being raised with glorified bodies or the wicked being in the new earth or the wicked being in the New Heaven.

and both will endure eternity, the first in the New Heaven and Earth, the second in the lake of fire.

Matt 10:28 Christ says that God destroys "both body AND soul" in fiery hell. that is the condition of the wicked.

Concerning the "quality" of the first resurrection, first is this:

4413. protos pro'-tos contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.

Which could be taken to mean first in order of importance, and not just time.

In Rev 20 we are given a timeline - two resurrections - with a 1000 year period of time between them. The start of the millennium is the first resurrection where those are raised over whom the 2nd death has no power. It is a pure chronology

The end of the millennium is the 2nd resurrection - those over whom the 2nd death does have power. They are judged and cast into the lake of fire according to Rev 20.

That saints will be raised after the Millennial reign is a given, at least I believe so.

There is no mention in Rev 20 of anyone being raised after the 1000 years and then going to heaven, or going to the New Earth, or escaping the 2nd death.

in Christ,

Bob