PDA

View Full Version : The Timing of Justification and Imputation



Pages : [1] 2

Bob Higby
01-21-06, 03:10 PM
A (seemingly bitter) controversy has arisen recently among sovereign grace teachers on the timing of when God imputes the verdict of justification and Christ's righteousness to the believer. I would like to see a discussion of this subject as it is a major divisive issue at this time. As an introduction, I heartily recommend the following article by Dr. Richard Bacon:

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Justification2.htm

Brandan
01-21-06, 03:35 PM
Good stuff in that article Bob. Although, I disagree with Bacon's assertion:
our faith must always be seen as the means by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. God does not see our faith and because of our faith, makes us righteous. That is not it. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us and received by us by faith alone. If men do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ before their conversion, yet their sins have been imputed to Christ, then exactly what state are they in concerning God's imputed righteousness?

whs1
01-21-06, 05:46 PM
When is justification and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us believers? Is it before: the foundation of the world, or at the cross, or at the time of Regeneration?

I see no Scripture for the first 2 except this:


2 Timothy 2:9 ""God, Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,""

But this does not seem to be "justification" exactly.

So it has to be at the time of Regeneration that "justification and imputation" are given to the elect.

If I am wrong is there a Scripture?

Bill

Brandan
01-21-06, 05:55 PM
Bill, there are plenty of references that refer to justification before the time of faith. For example:

Rom 4:25, (KJV), Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Rom 4:5, (KJV), But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Eph 1:6, (KJV), To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Bob Higby
01-21-06, 05:57 PM
I agree with you Brandan that the statement from Bacon on faith as a 'means' is technically wrong--and really contradicts other teaching in the article.

whs1
01-21-06, 06:10 PM
Thank you Brandan.

Now, It is At Christ's crucifixion that Justification surely is done to the elect. But what ABOUT BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD?

Is not "Eternal Justification" that???

And, as far as the mind of God is concerned, did he not justify all the elect from ALL ETERNITY???

Bill

Brandan
01-21-06, 06:18 PM
Bill, yes, I believe that in eternal justification / justification from eternity. From before the foundation of the world, God saw all things. He saw His precious elect justified & even glorified.

Rom 8:30, (KJV), Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Notice that this passage is all in the past tense. We have had a few discussions on this topic before. If you're interested, here is a a couple good threads.

Eternal Justification (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1433)
God's Will to Justify His People IS the Justification of Them (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=2200)

jmgipson
01-21-06, 06:22 PM
When is justification and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us believers? Is it before: the foundation of the world, or at the cross, or at the time of Regeneration?

I see no Scripture for the first 2 except this:


2 Timothy 2:9 ""God, Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,""

But this does not seem to be "justification" exactly.

So it has to be at the time of Regeneration that "justification and imputation" are given to the elect.

If I am wrong is there a Scripture?

Bill

I was reading through the book Brandan had recommended "John Gill and Justification from Eternity" and the way I am understanding so far is since we are united to Christ from everlasting how can we not be justified and reconciled in God's mind. The imputation of this would be at the Cross I think is what in am starting to gather in my reading.

John

Brandan
01-21-06, 06:28 PM
Hi John! I'm glad you bought the book. It has a prime place in my library!

jmgipson
01-21-06, 06:32 PM
Hi John! I'm glad you bought the book. It has a prime place in my library!

Hey Brandon, I have just started on it and already I can't put it down.

Eileen
01-22-06, 01:24 PM
I wonder if the scriptures that cause confusion and need to be addressed and understood are those such as:
Romans 4:5 ďBut to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness and further:
Romans 5:1 ďTherefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus ChristĒ:

I donít believe for a moment that we are actually justified by our faith, just as I donít believe that we are saved by our faith, the scripture is clear that we are saved and justified by the blood of Christ only. The scriptures above and many others do say something about our faith being counted for righteousness however and it is those that I would like to understand and be able to defend as well.

John Metcalfe: ďFaith is counted for righteousness precisely because it is the evidence that righteousness has been accounted to the believer by the blood of Jesus Christ. When faith is counted for righteousness, what is not seen-not in evidence-is the substitutionary atonement wrought for that sinner, the righteousness of God put to the account of that sinner when atonement was made on his behalfĒ

Herman Hoeksema: ďFaith is imputed for righteousness because it lays hold on the only perfect righteousness that exists, namely, Christ Jesus. That the Christian, living from this faith, receives the assurance that God imputes righteousness to him is due to the fact that he lays hold of the only righteous one, Christ Jesus.

I think they are both saying that as soon as we believe i.e have faith, our faith is the testimony that says... ďI am righteous before GodĒÖblessed truth!

I was thinking also about knowing that we are justified before God is what Romans 5:1 is speaking about regarding our peace. We have peace with God because we know He has peace with us through the blood of Jesus.

Jer 29:11 ďFor I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you an expected end.Ē

God has thoughts of peace towards his own because He sees us as righteous in His son and that I believe is before faith!
Eileen~

Bob Higby
01-23-06, 12:51 AM
It certainly is before faith! Justification of the elect in the Christ-event is ever present to God--from eternity to eternity. The event of coming to faith justifies for the first time in the declarative (but not constitutive) sense--to the conscience of the person believing, to other believers, and to the saints and angels in heaven!

jmgipson
01-23-06, 06:24 AM
THOUGHTS UPON THE DATE OF JUSTIFICATION.

By Job Hupton
Gospel justification is an act of the gracious will of God, by which the elect are constituted completely and immutably just, or righteous, in Christ Jesus, by the imputation of his righteousness to. their persons. Union with the glorious Mediator is the basis upon which it rests ; as no man is justified who is not united to him, so no man is unjustified who is united to him. We have no authority whatever in the Holy Scriptures, to say either that a person who is not in him is righteous, or that one who is in him is unrighteous : it is in him that all the seed of Israel are justified ; because in him they have righteousness.

Justification is an article of the utmost importance, because an article in which both the honour of God, and the felicity of his people, are deeply interested, and firmly united ; we should, therefore, neither think of it with indifference, nor treat it with lightness ; but contemplate it with the greatest solemnity, and discuss it with the utmost care. No part of it is trivial ; all the circumstances attending it are of moment :-of such moment, that the omission of but one of them would have entirely changed the nature of the wondrous scheme-would have diminished both the glory arising from it to God who justifies, and the bliss which it affords to man who is justified.

The dates of very important human transactions are, in general, of considerable consequence, therefore particular regard is paid to them ; and when such transactions are made public, accurate specifications of their dates appear. Now, as no transactions, which are human and earthly, are equal in importance to those of the Most High ; as among all his wonderful works, no one makes a more noble figure upon the scale of importance, than this of justification ; and as the same infallible wisdom which formed the scheme of it, superintended its publication, we cannot give a moment's indulgence to the thought, that in the mirror of divinely inspired revelation, its date is attended with obscurity.

It is affirmed above, that union with Christ is the foundation of justification ; by this position we must abide until force-force of evidence, that it is erroneous,-compels us to retreat. Now to the law and to the testimony. "Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us righteousness."

The same glorious person who has fixed us in Christ, has made him our righteousness. Who will undertake to prove that he did not do both at the same instant ? But more will be said upon this subject in its proper place; my present business is, to inquire after the date of our union with the Saviour, and when that is ascertained, we shall soon perceive, whether time or eternity marks the date of our justification.

Some divines of high respectability, have represented the union of the elect with Christ, as commencing with their faith in him ; and others have considered faith as the efficient cause of this union, affirming that it unites them to him. Though I hope always to pay all due respect to men of learning, of talents, and of eminence in the church of Christ, yet I cannot persuade myself to place implicit confidence in them, and to embrace what they advance, without proving it by the scriptures of truth ; and having brought the above sentiments to this test, and maturely considered them, I confess, that, to me, they appear erroneous.

It is, I think, evident beyond all contradiction, that union with Christ has the precedence of faith in him ; and the subsequent arguments, each of which is founded upon scripture, will, it is hoped, support this sentiment.

No sinner can truly believe in God our Saviour, prior to his regeneration. Living faith is the effect of spiritual life, but no unregenerate person has spiritual life; therefore, no unregenerate person has living faith. The accuracy of this argument is evinced by the words of our Lord : " he that liveth and believeth in me, though he were dead yet shall he live." Here spiritual life is the antecedent, faith the consequent, and eternal life the promised portion of the man who lives and believes. Again, as faith and hope are kindred graces inseparably connected, and as the one cannot exist without the other, they must arise from the same principle ; and as men are begotten again by the Father of mercies to a lively hope, they must be also begotten again by him to a lively faith; there must be a divine operation in the soul, before there can be either power or inclination to believe; or else faith would be of ourselves, and the following scriptures would be untrue : "Thou hast wrought all our works in us." 1į It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do." -The faith of the operation of God." -The fruit of the Spirit is faith."

Antecedent to any gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, the divine almighty agent byį whom the work of faith is begun and carried on with power, there must be a communication of him, from the head of the church, in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell : all fulness of the Holy Ghost, as well as of grace and of glory. It would not be consonant to either scripture or reason, to say that the work of grace is begun in any man before the Spirit of grace is communicated to him. We learn from the divine pages, those infallible oracles, whose voice is decisive, and from whose authority there can be no appeal, that sinners dead in trespasses and sins, are represented under the striking emblems of bones dead and dry, and that the divine Spirit, figuratively called wind and breath, must really blow upon them, and enter into them, before they can live spiritually ; that to convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, the Spirit of truth must come; that the gracious Redeemer, for the very purpose of making his words known to the simple, pours out his Spirit upon them ; that the Comforter, in order to guide us into all truth, to testify of Christ, to take of his and shew it unto us, and to diffuse his divine delights through our sorrowful souls, must be with us, must be in us ; that the children of God, that they may know their adoption, and cry abba, Father, have the Spirit of the Son sent into their hearts; and that before the unbelieving, impenitent, and prayerless, can believe, repent, and pray, the Spirit of grace and supplication is poured out upon them. Is it possible to resist, with effect, the profusion of evidence which is poured in upon us, by prophets, by apostles, and by the Lord of both? No, we are compelled to believe, confess, and declare, that the divine Spirit must be imparted by Christ to his people, and that he must really dwell in them, prior to their regeneration. Reason too, ever in unison with the divine pages, declares that when and wherever a work of any kind is performed, the agent who performs it must be present.

The man who formed this sheet of paper upon which I now write was present, at the time when, and the place where it was made ; had be been absent, he could not have been the maker of it. Nor, in the nature of things, can the Holy Spirit be the author of 'any gracious operation in the soul of man, unless he be present there.
And as previous to the work of the Holy Ghost in the highly favoured vessels of infinite mercy, there must be a communication of him to them, so prior to any such communication there must be a union between them, and the illustrious person, by whom he is gratuitously imparted. Christ is styled the vine, and his people are called the branches ; he is denominated the head, and they are termed his body. This is figurative language, and the figures which are here introduced, being selected, from the almost infinite variety of the boundless store of nature,-selected by that wisdom which framed the universe ; invented the numberless species of creatures; formed every figure in the animal and vegetable worlds ; endued the various creatures with their respective qualities ; gave laws to universal nature, laws which no power inferior to omnipotence can change ; and appointed that astonishing series of causes and effects, which runs all through the endless race of beings which his hands have made;-I cannot imagine, that there is any error in the choice of them, or that they are inadequate to the divine design in employing them which design was nothing less, than to shew the reality, the nature, and the effects, of that amazing union, which there is betwixt himself and his people. The branch is one with the vine, and the body is one with the head, but not more truly so than Christ and his people are one. The branch, in consequence of its union with the vine, receives from its sap, life, vigour, foliage, and fruitfulness; and the body through union with the head derives from it life and influence : just so the people of God receive the Holy Spirit, divine life, vigour, influence, fruitfulness, and beauty, from Jesus Christ, the true vine and their ever-living and all glorious head. Without union there could be no communication of sap and life to the branch, nor of sense and influence to the body. In philosophy it would be deemed quite inaccurate to say, that the branch independent of, and before the commencement of its union with the vine, while it lay withered, dead, and dry, at a distance from the vine received from it a supply of sap, by which means it was raised to vegetable life, and endued with prolific power, and that the fruit which it brought forth united it to, and made it one with the vine. Why then should it be thought accurate in theology, to say, that antecedent to their union with Christ the elect receive the Holy Spirit from him, in consequence of which they live and bear fruit, and that by the fruit which they bring forth they are united to him ? We frequently hear that faith unites us to Christ, and that we become one with him by faith. Pray is not faith a fruit which is brought forth by persons who are born of God; a fruit of the divine Spirit produced in them, by his regenerating power and fructifying grace ? Is it then correct ; is it not rather absurd, unscriptural, untrue to say, that it unites us to him who says, " as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me; for without, or severed from me, ye can do nothing?" Our Lord, in these words, plainly shews, that our fruit is not the cause of our union with him, but the effect, and that our union with him is the cause of all the gracious communications which we receive from him; all the delightful communion which we have with him ; and all our spiritual fruitfulness toward God. We are first united to him by a free act of stupendous, matchless love; then we receive the Holy Spirit from him ; then we are regenerated, according to his eternal purpose, "who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will;" and then we bring forth the fruit of faith, and all other fruit connected with it. In this order the only wise God proceeds to make his chosen people fruitful; to humble the pride of man, and to display the riches of his own stupendous wisdom and love. In this divine procedure, all is order, all is harmony, all is beauty. Here the ineffable lustre of eternal wisdom and love meets our eyes, and commands our adoring admiration. Yet in this, as well as in other branches of his inimitable conduct, the Supreme stands corrected by his creatures, who, both in their ideas, and their language, entirely invert this order; and very gravely assure us, that we first believe, and then our faith becomes the efficient cause of our union with Jesus : thus the cause is changed into the effect, and the effect into the cause ; while the dark veil of human confusion conceals divine order and beauty from our view. Perfectly satisfied that union with the head of the church is a precious privilege which exists prior to faith, regeneration, and the impartation of the divine Spirit; we should still proceed in our enquiries after the precise date of it. With the divine records, those infallible guides in our hands, we may advance in our researches beyond the utmost boundaries of time, and enter into eternity; may pry, without presumption, into those mysterious deeps, which, during eternal ages, lay concealed in the infinite mind of the Almighty, but are now made known to the sons of men, in the holy volume of inspiration. Here we read the ancient thoughts of our heavenly Father thoughts of love and peace, of pardon and salvation. Here we view, recorded, with un-impeached integrity, and minute exactness, those amazing transactions of the Godhead, in which all human salvation is found ; and from which, as from an immense ocean of delight, flow all those ample streams of strong consolation, which gladden the heirs of promise, in this vale of temptation and distress. Here we are told, that we were chosen by the Father of mercies in Christ Jesus ; that we had grace given us in him ; that a promise of eternal life was given us by him who cannot lie ; and that all this was done before the foundation of the world. In the detail of these eternal transactions; we behold the date of our union with God, the Son, written in characters the most legible. Upon what ground shall we resist this evidence of the eternity of our union with the Saviour; or by what means shall we invalidate this divine proof of eternal interest in him ? Chosen in him, blessed in him, made partakers of grace in him, in eternity; and yet no union with him, no interest in him till the arrival of certain periods of time. It cannot be if we were chosen in him in eternity, we were then united to him, and made one with him ; and if we were eternally blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, we must have been eternally interested in him. A title to the riches of his fulness is founded upon interest in him ; interest in him is established upon union with him ; and union with him stands upon election in him. God, in his infinite wisdom, and absolute sovereignty, has joined these things together ; let no man endeavour to put them asunder. Again, as the love of God to his people centres in Jesus ; as he does not love them but as in him considered ; and as he loved them before the foundation of the world, they must have been in him before the foundation of the world. Moreover, as Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, in all his covenant relations to his church; and as he is now her head and representative, he must have been so before the commencement of time, and she must have been one with him from of old, from everlasting. As in the natural womb, the head and the members are not conceived apart, but in union with each other, so Christ and the church were conceived in the eternal mind, as head and body in perfect union. In that glorious act of sovereign grace, election; head and members were chosen for each other: were chosen as one.

But the elect fell in Adam. Granted : but did they fall out of Christ when they fell in him ? No, he who sanctified, choose, or set them apart for himself, preserved them in him to be called. So that although they suffered much by that awful event, they still stood firm in Christ, and their interest in the special love and favour of God, in him, continued immutable.

To conclude this part of the subject ; God, according to his sovereign good will and pleasure, and for his own everlasting praise, did, at once, fix his unchangeable love upon his people ; choose them in Christ ; firmly unite them to him ; and make them one with him. Divine eternal love was the impulsive cause, and is the everlasting bond of this blissful union : we may therefore say of Christ and his church, from everlasting to everlasting they are one.

And now we have found the date of our union with Christ, we are not far from that of our justification in him ; for union with him, and justification in him are kindred blessings in the closest connexion, and incapable of separation. They are effects of the same cause, are granted to the same persons, and are stamped with the same date. Let my opponent prove the contrary if he can. But to shew how a person can be in Christ, and be, notwithstanding, unjustified will, it is thought, be a task too difficult for him to perform. All who are united to him are the righteousness of God in him ; and if of God we are in him, he of God is made unto us righteousness.
Justification is a simple act of the divine eternal mind, or the absolute determination of God not to impute sin to his people, and to place the righteousness of Christ to their account. Deny the eternity of this determination, and where is the immutability of deity? Can it be said, with truth, that new resolutions are formed in the mind of God, and yet that he is unchangeable ? Surely not, for in that very moment in which he forms a new design, mutability attaches to his character, and his glory is tarnished. Let us then be careful, not to maintain a favourite notion at the expense of our Maker's glory. He is the Lord; he changes not. His thoughts, his counsels, his purposes and decrees, are, like the perfections of his nature, without the shadow of a change.

Eternal justification has been termed eternal nonsense. But why this odious epithet ? Is it thought absurd that a person should be justified before the commencement of his existence ? Why then not think it absurd, that a person should be elected prior to his existence ? There is no more absurdity in the former than there is in the latter : that as well as this, being a pure act of the divine will.
Sanctification, indeed, requires the real existence of the person to be sanctified; because that is a work performed in him by an act of Almighty power ; but justification, being an act of the divine will passed in a man's favour, and concerning his eternal state, it no more requires his existence when it is passed, than that act of the same sovereign will which appointed Cyrus to release the captive Jews required his existence, when he was ordained to that work : it is, therefore, audacious impudence to call it eternal nonsense.

The apostle Paul speaks of justification and election as in the closest connexion. "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth." Here he represents the elect as justified ; does he speak of all the elect, or only a part of them ? Doubtless of the whole ; for had he spoken of a part only, he would certainly have specified the part intended. He does not say, who shall lay anything to the charge of a part of the elect, or those of the elect who believe ? It is God that justifieth them ; though that would have been a truth; but who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect; without either limitation or distinction ; intimating that all the elect are justified, and that they are justified as persons elected. Now if they are justified as God's elect, their justification must be eternal ; because they were his elect in eternity. It will be difficult to find a justified person who is not elected, and it will be no less difficult to find an elect person who is not justified in the sight, and in the account of God.

The same wise and holy apostle informs us, that 'į God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." Now when was he in Christ doing this ? Perhaps, some will reply, when Christ was suspended upon the cross; when he poured out his soul unto death; and when he made atonement for sin; then the Father was in him reconciling the world of his people to himself. What, not before ? Pray what was he doing when he set up his Son from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was ; when he laid help upon him, who is mighty to save ; when the council of peace was between him and that Mighty One; and when he made the everlasting covenant of grace with him? Was he not then reconciling his chosen to himself? Did he not then appoint his beloved Son to bear all the sins, which they should in time commit; and to be the Lord their righteousness ? Did he not then transfer the sins of his people, from them to him ; and impute his righteousness to them ?

If it be said that he then purposed to do these things, but did not actually do them ; it will be said in reply, that purposing and doing are the same with God, when a simple act of his will only is concerned, and an operation of his might is not employed. The non-imputation of sin and the imputation of righteousness, are not acts of his power, but merely of his will ; therefore, his purpose not to impute sin, is the non-imputation of it; and his determination to impute righteousness, is the imputation of it. If then God was in Christ in eternity, purposing, decreeing, or determining, never to impute the sins of his people to them, but to charge them upon Jesus, and always to impute his righteousness to them, it must follow that their sins were never imputed to them, but always stood to the account of the Mediator ; and that his righteousness was eternally imputed to them; unless repentance were found in the Almighty, and he relinquished his purpose, and nullified his decree : things utterly incompatible with a mind infinitely remote from the shadow of a change.

Again, we read, that-Jesus was made the surety of a better testament." By the better testament, the apostle means the covenant of grace. Of this Jesus is called the surety. But why the surety of it ? Because when it was made between him and his Father in eternity, he engaged his heart to draw nigh unto the Father, to offer himself to him as the surety of his people, to bear their transgressions, and fulfil all righteousness in their stead: which perfectly corresponded with the Father's will, and met his highest approbation. Being accepted by the Father as surety for all the elect, and bound by his own voluntary engagement to be responsible for all their iniquities, and to perform that obedience which the divine law required of them ; and thus, at once, to give the most ample satisfaction to divine justice, magnify the law, and make it honourable, and rear everlasting honours to every divine perfection, all their crimes became his, and his obedience became theirs. Nor are these views of the subject at all inconsistent with reason; for it is well known by almost every one, that if a person, possessing ability, offers to become surety for one who is insolvent, proposing to pay out of his own personal estate, the whole of his debt, and to give his creditor full satisfaction ; if the creditor accepts him for the debtor, and receives from him a legal bond, there is a real transference of the debt, from the debtor to the surety ; and to the debtor there is a transference, equally real, of the payment to be made by the surety; so that the surety absolutely stands debtor to the creditor, as really as if he had himself contracted the whole debt; and the debtor is fully discharged from the imputation of the debt, and from all obligation to payment, or to suffer for non-payment: he is completely exonerated, all his obligations devolve upon his surety, and to him only the creditor looks for satisfaction. We must, therefore, relinquish every just idea of the eternal suretyship engagement of Christ, and conclude that the apostle, when he called him the surety of the better testament, made use of words which were foreign to his ideas, if we deny eternal justification.

Moreover, it is written, " God hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither bath he seen perverseness in Israel." Though these words were uttered by a wicked man, yet God put them into his mouth ; therefore there is a sense in which they are strictly and literally true. That there is, and always was, iniquity in the people of God, cannot be denied; and that he, with the eyes of his omniscience, always beheld it, must be confessed. How then bath he not seen it in them ? Let us view them as eternally chosen in Christ, and standing in him from everlasting; let us consider their sins as imputed to him, and his righteousness as imputed to them, when he became their surety ; let us consider the divine Father as beholding them in their covenant head, and spotless representative before the worlds were made ; and then we shall not be at a loss for a true comment upon this surprising portion of the holy writ; but we shall clearly see how it is strictly true, that God bath not, at any time, seen with the eyes of his holiness and justice, iniquity in Jacob, nor perverseness in Israel. Eternal justification is the only key to this text; none beside can open it without depreciating its excellency, and eclipsing its glory, and rendering its verity doubtful.

Having stated my views of the subject to which you object, I would submit to your consideration the subsequent answers to your objections.

I have attached the full doc. which has so much more.

Brandan
01-23-06, 09:53 AM
What a great attachment John! Where did you get that? I knew that article existed on the Internet at Mt. Zion PBC!

jmgipson
01-23-06, 10:27 AM
http://www.mountzionpbc.org/index/Articles_books.htm

Mt. Zion is correct.

Saint Nicholas
01-23-06, 10:26 PM
John...what an excellent article, and a golden nugget of truth. I firmly agree with an ETERNAL Justification.

When I hear Papists & Protestants tell me that an eternal justification is just hypothetical, theoretical, and fictitional, I want to scream.

These men would concur, that the reality of justification, and the instrumental formal cause of justification, lies within the creature.
And this they say is the REAL reality.

Is not GOD the ULTIMATE REALITY? Is not His Word the Ultimate reality? Is not Christ the Word made flesh?

God's decree to Elect and Justify were made in Eternity. God depends on no one and nothing but Himself to fulfill His decrees. He is not at all dependent on any substance in creation, or in man, including man's cooperation in regenerative faith, to thus declare the person JUST.

Ro: 4:17-19 states ..."(As it is writen, I HAVE made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things WHICH BE NOT AS THOUGH THEY WERE.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, so shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body NOW DEAD, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb.

This chapter deals with Paul's polemic on Justification. Paul states that God made Abraham a father of many nations, BEFORE any children were even born. We must then beg the question? Did Abraham look to his or Sara's physical child bearing capabilties, as a substanitive reality? of course not! Her womb was dead. So what reality did Abraham believe in?

Verse 20......He staggered NOT at THE PROMISE OF GOD THROUGH UNBELIEF; BUT WAS STRONG IN FAITH, GIVING GLORY TO GOD.

To Abraham, God's promise was the ultimate
reality. And all of God's promises flow from His decree's. God's decree to justify IS A REAL AND ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION!!

There is no make believe with God. There is no fiction with God.

When God calls those things that be not as though they were, He was calling this writer Nicholas Laurienzo, Justified as a matter of fact, by way of His decree, before I even existed. And this holds true for all of God's Elect. God does not depend on our response to Him in Faith, to Justify, at all.

I will now share some of the Canons, from the council of TRENT concerning Romes estimation on Justification. If you read carefully, you will see that most, NOT ALL reformed theologians, are drifting back to Rome's view of Justification.

Can. 9 " If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way neccessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

Can. 11 " If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the Grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema."

Can. 12 " If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema."

Can. 15 " If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema."

Can. 18 " If anyone says that the commandment of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema."

Can. 20 " If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema,"

Can. 23 " If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace , and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be Anathema.

These are just a few, there are many more concerning justification. If you read the language of these canons carefully, you will notice that many protestant and reformed soteriologies concerning justification, are similar in some degree to that of Rome.

Rome demands like many protestants, that regenerative faith ( a prepared and disposed action of his will) must be a pre-requisite to the formal decree of justification.

The order of an eternal justification is this:
(election-justification) which is juridic..extrincic..alien..and for us. Then regeneration, which produces faith.Which is moral...intrinsic...and in us.


Rome's order is: Regeneration, Faith, Justification.

Thus Rome and many protestants, abandon the primacy of justification. They confound root and fruit, and create a synthesis of the two. They also confound Law and Grace.

Well I hope this is all clear. Your comments will be appreciated.

Yours in Christ Jesus
Nicholas Laurienzo

Mickey
01-24-06, 07:46 AM
Nicholas, I agree with all you posted, but does not the book of James, 1 John and Jesus' own words agree with the Canons you posted?

Saint Nicholas
01-25-06, 07:19 AM
Micheal, in answer to your previous question, My answer is NO.

There are no scriptures in the Bible (correctly understood), that would support Rome's soteriological understanding of JUSTIFICATION as set forth in the Canons of Trent.

Yours in Christ Jesus.......Nicholas

jmgipson
01-25-06, 07:47 AM
There is the great debate of Gal. 2:16 which reads:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV)

We are either justified by our own faith as some declare, or we are justified by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Righteousness of Christ). If the later then we know we were excepted in the beloved before the foundation of the world. It is a good thing I am not depending on justification by my faith. Heaven help me!!!!

John

lionovjudah
01-25-06, 08:04 AM
There is the great debate of Gal. 2:16 which reads:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV)

We are either justified by our own faith as some declare, or we are justified by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Righteousness of Christ). If the later then we know we were excepted in the beloved before the foundation of the world. It is a good thing I am not depending on justification by my faith. Heaven help me!!!!

John

John, Do a search on this forum, this has been discussed numerous times.

Brandan
01-25-06, 09:11 AM
There is the great debate of Gal. 2:16 which reads:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV)

We are either justified by our own faith as some declare, or we are justified by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Righteousness of Christ). If the later then we know we were excepted in the beloved before the foundation of the world. It is a good thing I am not depending on justification by my faith. Heaven help me!!!!

JohnI like how you exegeted this John. It wasn't Christ's "personal faith" in whatever that saved us, but it was His faithfulness to His promises. That is what an older debate is about.

jmgipson
01-25-06, 09:38 AM
Rome's order is: Regeneration, Faith, Justification.

Thus Rome and many protestants, abandon the primacy of justification. They confound root and fruit, and create a synthesis of the two. They also confound Law and Grace.

Well I hope this is all clear. Your comments will be appreciated.

Yours in Christ Jesus
Nicholas Laurienzo

Nicholas,
I think Rome's order is more like this: Faith, Justification, regeneration. They believe as Free-willers do that Faith precedes the new birth.

Brandan,
Thanks. What is the name of the thread discussing the faithfulness of Chirst?

harald
01-25-06, 09:47 AM
There is the great debate of Gal. 2:16 which reads:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV)

We are either justified by our own faith as some declare, or we are justified by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Righteousness of Christ). If the later then we know we were excepted in the beloved before the foundation of the world. It is a good thing I am not depending on justification by my faith. Heaven help me!!!! (John Gipson)

The debate of Gal. 2:16 also involves Rom. 3:22 which has the identical wording in the Greek - dia pisteŰs IÍsou Christou, "through faith of Jesus Christ".
A little on KJV's rendering. It adds two articles without warrant, "THE works of THE law" (thrice in this verse). Thus narrowing Paul's sense. Paul wrote "works of law". This must be understood not only to refer to works performed in relation to the Torah, but also of all and any other legal efforts on the part of men. One of the more subtle legal-effort-schemes is the common teaching that Christ-ward faith is the condition of justification (before God). Paul's formula "works of law" covers also this scheme, condemning it. KJV does not cover it by rendering "the works of the law", thereby its translators provided a cloak for their own conditionalism which was not exclusively Torah-based.
Then, "faith of Jesus Christ" is the correct rendering (the article with "faith" is not there in the Greek). Faith of Jesus Christ rather than faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The noun pistis does not shut out faithfulness, but here in context it means "faith". Faith is the root, faithfulness is the fruit or corollary. Paul points at the root, faith (of Jesus Christ). Faith of Jesus Christ does not mean faith FROM Jesus Christ. "of" here translates the genitive of Jesus. It is the genitive of possession, "Jesus Christ's faith". Any gospel with pretentions to being Paul's gospel which does not emphasize Jesus Christ's faith is not Paul's, but "another gospel". The "faith of Jesus Christ" is at the root and center of Paul's gospel. Leave out this faith or explain it amiss and what is left is another gospel.
Then, KJV unwarrantedly changed the word order in the middle, from "Christ Jesus" (all Greek texts) to "Jesus Christ". Go and learn what this means.

The "faith of Jesus Christ" equals "righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21, 22, 1:17). This may also be referred to as "the righteousness of Christ".
Paul does not teach justification before God before the foundation of the world. He teaches intimate fore-knowing (and election, and pre-determination etc.) in eternity, but not justification before God in eternity. If "God's elect" would have been justified before God in eternity then all talk about God justifying "the ungodly" is redundancy on the part of the inspiring Spirit. If they were justified in eternity then the Adam fall, as set forth by Paul in Rom. 5, means that justification was undone when they were "made (lit. constituted) sinners" and came under "condemnation". If God's elect were justified in eternity then why does Paul say "justified NOW (Gr. nun - now, presently, in the present) in his blood", Rom. 5:9 ?
No, rather it seems to me that "justification in eternity" is a doctrine contrived by carnal men who were unwilling to embrace what Paul taught on the timing of justification before God. So they came up with an imaginative figment which sounded "high" and spiritual and elevated etc. in the ears of professors like themselves. And they apparently got away with it, seen from their generally having the reputation of being orthodox men.

If justification before God in eternity is a truth then Paul's teaching on justification before God at Christ's death is a lie. Paul did not teach two justifications before God. Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.


Harald

Brandan
01-25-06, 09:58 AM
Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel. You sure are a broken record, aren't you Harald? LOL

jmgipson
01-25-06, 11:19 AM
Then, "faith of Jesus Christ" is the correct rendering (the article with "faith" is not there in the Greek). Faith of Jesus Christ rather than faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The noun pistis does not shut out faithfulness, but here in context it means "faith". Faith is the root, faithfulness is the fruit or corollary. Paul points at the root, faith (of Jesus Christ). Faith of Jesus Christ does not mean faith FROM Jesus Christ. "of" here translates the genitive of Jesus. It is the genitive of possession, "Jesus Christ's faith". Any gospel with pretentions to being Paul's gospel which does not emphasize Jesus Christ's faith is not Paul's, but "another gospel". The "faith of Jesus Christ" is at the root and center of Paul's gospel. Leave out this faith or explain it amiss and what is left is another gospel.
Then, KJV unwarrantedly changed the word order in the middle, from "Christ Jesus" (all Greek texts) to "Jesus Christ". Go and learn what this means.

The "faith of Jesus Christ" equals "righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21, 22, 1:17). This may also be referred to as "the righteousness of Christ".
Harald

What is the force of the genitive after pistis? Is it objective or is it subjective?

What is Paul talking about? Is he telling us about the work of Christ, or the response of man?

The righteousness of Christ is His faithfulness to obedience or Active and Passive obedience. It is His perfect obedience that justifies us.


"In Gal. 3: 22 the pistis Iesou Christou is the means by which the ancient Abrahamic promise overcame the obstacle posed by the interlude of the law and was made available to all who should believe, i.e., it is not man's faith but Christ's faithfulness. In support of this interpretation we can cite Rom. 15: 8: "Christ became a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the gentiles should glorify God for his mercy." This "firmness" of Christ, in this case his faithful servitude to the will of God, is the pistis Christou which is the ground of men's confidence and trust as they seek a standing before God.

Rom. 3: 22 and 26 only repeat this exposition of the economy of salvation. The chapter begins with an assertion of the pistis theou, the faithfulness of God without doubt, over against the unfaithfulness of his people. But then, in the center of that divine operation by which God works salvation for a guilty world, the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is said to be the means through which the justification or righteousness of God has been manifested to those who believe. This interpretation is to be preferred to the usual interpretation, for it makes much better sense to say that God's righteousness has been manifested by the character of Christ's work than to say it has been manifested by man's faith in Christ, for how can man's faith be said to have demonstrated God's righteousness? Rather, Christ's faithfulness, in death itself, makes possible an atoning sacrifice which redeems lost men, and thus God's way of righting wrong has been demonstrated in this age.

In Phil. 3: 9 Paul seeks a righteousness, not his own but of God, which is through the faithfulness (pistis) of Christ. That "firmness" of Christ was established in his sufferings and in his resurrection, and Paul's answering faith is in "knowing" Christ by sharing in his sufferings and in the power of his resurrection. Eph. iii. 11 also places the faithfulness of Christ at the heart of the eternal purpose of God for the reconciliation of men, and as the ground of men's boldness and access to God with confidence." (D.W.B. Robinson)

John

jmgipson
01-25-06, 11:36 AM
Also, the Hebrew of Habakkuk 2:4 has "the righteous will live by His faithfulness," while the LXX has "the righteous will live by my faithfulness."

Just a side.

John

ray kikkert
01-25-06, 11:36 AM
If justification before God in eternity is a truth then Paul's teaching on justification before God at Christ's death is a lie. Paul did not teach two justifications before God. Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.


Harald

That is "blinder theology".

Justification from eternity is indeed a truth we ought to adhere to. We rely fully on the faithfulness of Christ and that gift given to His elect alone.

If your not interested in the whole counsel of God, do not then expect us to give your exegesis the time of day.

Brandan
01-25-06, 11:39 AM
That is "blinder theology".

Justification from eternity is indeed a truth we ought to adhere to. We rely fully on the faithfulness of Christ and that gift given to His elect alone.

If your not interested in the whole counsel of God, do not then expect us to give your exegesis the time of day.
Thank you brother Kikkert for putting it so eloquently!

Mickey
01-25-06, 12:30 PM
If justification before God in eternity is a truth then Paul's teaching on justification before God at Christ's death is a lie. Paul did not teach two justifications before God. Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.

This is like saying, "those who believe in election nullify Paulís gospel and his teaching on justification."

and Amen to Ray's post!

jmgipson
01-25-06, 12:48 PM
If justification before God in eternity is a truth then Paul's teaching on justification before God at Christ's death is a lie. Paul did not teach two justifications before God. Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.

Job 1:1
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
KJV

In other words Job was justified before God's eyes. But wait, Christ hasn't died yet. What shall we do? We have two justifications by your words harold. Somehow God declared Job, and others just before Christ died. How did He do it. He did it in eternity. We were always on God's mind, known - predestined - united- justified - sanctified, all spiritual blessings were given to us in eternity. Now He brings about this plan in time.

John

Brandan
01-25-06, 12:52 PM
Thanks John! Exactly! Harald cannot comprehend the eternal vital union between Christ and His people apparrantly! Either Harald outright rejects the union, or he holds to a union of Christ and unrighteous people. It's either one or the other. You pick, since you deny justification from eternity.

Here are your choices again Harald:

1. There is no eternal union with Christ and His people.
2. There is a union, but Christ is joined with unrighteous people.

Of course, you could recant what you have stated and agree to our position which is...

3. Christ was joined to His people in eternity, and they are seen as Righteous by God through that union because of Christ's perfect righteousness.

lionovjudah
01-25-06, 01:53 PM
I believe the trouble comes from looking at the word "eternity" in our linear sense of "time"

I do not believe Eternity is past tense. The Cross of Christ is the pinnacle for everything. Not creation, not the 2nd advent, but the Cross. This is where it all funnels to. So my understanding of eternal justification lies in the view that the Cross happenned historically at a specific linear time and date. This is when the blood was shed for the remission of sins. But in the eternal mind of God, this happenned as the final consumation of all events. There is no other way to explain how future sins are forgiven. Without blood there is no remission, hence His death has no beginning or end in the mind of God.

The confusion comes when looking at eternity in a linear sense. this is a mistake. We are not justified before the foundations of the world, we are justified because the cross of Christ is viewed by God as an eternal sacrafice.

This is Romes error when it comes to future sins. They fail to realize that His death is the one and final sacrafice, why? Because it is eternal, no beginning or no end

If this makes no sense to anyone else, thats ok, it makes sense to me!!!!

Brandan
01-25-06, 01:56 PM
Joe, you've nailed it. Eternity is not an extension of time, and most people including supposed predestinarians see it as such! Thank you for your observation.

jmgipson
01-25-06, 03:48 PM
I believe the trouble comes from looking at the word "eternity" in our linear sense of "time"

I do not believe Eternity is past tense. The Cross of Christ is the pinnacle for everything. Not creation, not the 2nd advent, but the Cross. This is where it all funnels to. So my understanding of eternal justification lies in the view that the Cross happenned historically at a specific linear time and date. This is when the blood was shed for the remission of sins. But in the eternal mind of God, this happenned as the final consumation of all events. There is no other way to explain how future sins are forgiven. Without blood there is no remission, hence His death has no beginning or end in the mind of God.

The confusion comes when looking at eternity in a linear sense. this is a mistake. We are not justified before the foundations of the world, we are justified because the cross of Christ is viewed by God as an eternal sacrafice.

This is Romes error when it comes to future sins. They fail to realize that His death is the one and final sacrafice, why? Because it is eternal, no beginning or no end

If this makes no sense to anyone else, thats ok, it makes sense to me!!!!

Good description Joe. Everytiime I start pondering eternity I get brain freeze.

ray kikkert
01-25-06, 04:17 PM
Good description Joe. Everytiime I start pondering eternity I get brain freeze.

Better to have brain freeze and consider in awe the depth and wonder of what Christ has done , the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world...... than to have a brain fart and think that we are justified by our faithfulness:)

"Unto you therefore which believe He is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, A stone of stumbling , and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a perculiar people; that ye shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" 1 Peter 2 : 7-10

harald
01-25-06, 04:24 PM
I like how you exegeted this John. It wasn't Christ's "personal faith" in whatever that saved us, but it was His faithfulness to His promises. That is what an older debate is about. (Brandan)

Well, I know not the gospel you espouse, Brandan. It was precisely Christ's own human faith which justified God's chosen ones. "(through) faith of Jesus Christ" equals "(through) the obedience of the One" (Rom. 5:19). Your reasoning, viz. "Jesus Christ's faithfulness to His promises (made in eternity in the capacity of eternal God, I assume)", does not harmonize with "the obedience of the One". Because the "obedience", the meek and compliant attentive hearkening (Gr. hup-akoÍ), of Jesus Christ, was not to or towards Himself or His own promises. It was his hearkening to God in Heaven. It was "the hearing of faith", "the obedience of faith". And how does Isaiah's "by his knowledge" harmonize with your definition of pisteŰs IÍsou Christou as "His faithfulness to His promises"? But rather "by his knowledge" harmonizes beautifully with "through faith of Jesus Christ". Isaiah prophecied that Messias was to justify many "by his knowledge". Paul simply echoes this great truth by his words "through faith of Jesus Christ". But what more, in Phil. 3:8 Paul wrote "the knowledge of Christ Jesus", beautifully matching the words of Isaiah 53, "by his knowledge", and further in v. 3:9 of Philippians Paul defines "the knowledge of Christ Jesus" by the words "faith of Christ". Paul further defines this in Rom. 4:13 as a "faith-righteousness". All of Romans 4 serves to testify to the central role of "faith", there defined as believing God (not as allegiance to oneself), in the business of justification before God of God's elect. Namely the central role of Jesus Christ's God-ward faith, not the sinner's. Your gospel will obviously have nothing of this. If you are a stranger to Jesus Christ's faith how can you have any proper insight into His theanthropic Person? If you know not what kind of faith Jesus Christ had then how can you possibly understand the true nature of Christ-ward faith?



Also, the Hebrew of Habakkuk 2:4 has "the righteous will live by His faithfulness," while the LXX has "the righteous will live by my faithfulness."

Just a side (John)

Paul in Rom. 1:17 confirms that "faith" is the sense of pistis when it comes to 17b, "ho dikaios ek pisteŰs" in the Pauline gospel. In 17a "from within faith to faith", not "from within faithfulness". Twice the formula "ek pisteŰs" in this verse, linked by kathoos - "in keeping with how.. (written)". Therefore "from within faith" and "from within faith". Thus lit. "the righteous from within faith", which is Christ. Jesus Christ was the righteous from within faith, therefore he was adjudicated to life, death could not hold Him, and, accordingly, on the third day God the Father raised Him from among dead ones.


Job 1:1
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
KJV

In other words Job was justified before God's eyes. But wait, Christ hasn't died yet. What shall we do? We have two justifications by your words harold. Somehow God declared Job, and others just before Christ died. How did He do it. He did it in eternity. We were always on God's mind, known - predestined - united- justified - sanctified, all spiritual blessings were given to us in eternity. Now He brings about this plan in time.

John

It does not say Job was justified before God. Job lived during "the forbearance of God", Rom. 3:25. This was a time period during which God was forbearing with the sinful acts (hamartÍma, Rom. 3:25) of elect gentiles and Jews. Mark that Paul uses the noun "passing by" in Rom. 3:25. Job lived in a time when God in His forbearance was passing by the sinful acts having occured previously during said forbearance of God. God waited until 29 AD. Then He dealt, in Christ, with all sinful acts having previously taken place during His forbearance. Job was not perfectly righteous in the sight of holy God in his own lifetime. The blood of Christ had not been shed. Christ had not brought in "everlasting righteousness".
The uprightness of Job related to his character righteousness. He was a regenerate man, thus possessed of character righteousness. But this was of course not a justifying righteousness.

On another note. How can you say "God's elect" were justified in eternity? Justified from what? There was no sin charged to their account in eternity, since there was no law, cp. Rom. 5:13. Paul says explicity that sin is not imputed when there is no law. Sin was charged to their account in time, and then they stood in need of justification before God.


Harald cannot comprehend the eternal vital union between Christ and His people apparrantly! (Brandan)

Brandan, unless I mistake I have believed eternal vital union longer than you.

On another note. It is interesting that you are aiming at going to a conference where at least two men are preaching who quite vehemently oppose justification in eternity, T David Simpson and Ken Wimer. Try go to these with your three options and correct them, and see what response you get.



Harald

jmgipson
01-25-06, 04:25 PM
Better to have brain freeze and consider in awe the depth and wonder of what Christ has done , the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world...... than to have a brain fart and think that we are justified by our faithfulness:)

"Unto you therefore which believe He is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, A stone of stumbling , and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a perculiar people; that ye shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" 1 Peter 2 : 7-10

I agree Ray!!

lionovjudah
01-25-06, 06:57 PM
Harald:

A question. What is your opinion when scripture states "Faith in Christ" or "Faith in God"

What is this faith spoken of myriads of times in the writ?

I know ones theology should never decide the translation. Paul in Romans 3, according to the KJV says "in" in vverse 22 then of in verse 26

In tyhe LITV Mark 11;22 makes no sense. it says Faith OF God. This is a theological impossibility

jmgipson
01-25-06, 07:55 PM
It does not say Job was justified before God. Job lived during "the forbearance of God", Rom. 3:25. This was a time period during which God was forbearing with the sinful acts (hamartÍma, Rom. 3:25) of elect gentiles and Jews. Mark that Paul uses the noun "passing by" in Rom. 3:25. Job lived in a time when God in His forbearance was passing by the sinful acts having occured previously during said forbearance of God. God waited until 29 AD. Then He dealt, in Christ, with all sinful acts having previously taken place during His forbearance. Job was not perfectly righteous in the sight of holy God in his own lifetime. The blood of Christ had not been shed. Christ had not brought in "everlasting righteousness".
The uprightness of Job related to his character righteousness. He was a regenerate man, thus possessed of character righteousness. But this was of course not a justifying righteousness.

So are you saying then that Job, David, Abraham were not justified until the cross? So when David said in Romans 4:6-7 ..blessed is the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness... God couldn't actually impute this righteousness yet because Christ had not shed blood? You speak riddles to me harold. It does say Job was upright or righteous and just before Almighty God. All these men were justified in God's eyes because of the surety of His precious Son and what He would accomplish. All these men knew it and David knew how blessed he was that God had imputed righteousness to him.

Eph. 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love:"

Brandan
01-25-06, 07:59 PM
Harald makes God subject to eternal law philosophy. The idea that God's view of things is dependent upon temporal activities as if He is merely an observor is ludicrous! The saints presently aren't glorified in heaven yet, but from God's perspective that has already been accomplished as well!


Rom 8:30, (KJV), Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

ray kikkert
01-25-06, 08:32 PM
So are you saying then that Job, David, Abraham were not justified until the cross? So when David said in Romans 4:6-7 ..blessed is the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness... God couldn't actually impute this righteousness yet because Christ had not shed blood? You speak riddles to me harold. It does say Job was upright or righteous and just before Almighty God. All these men were justified in God's eyes because of the surety of His precious Son and what He would accomplish. All these men knew it and David knew how blessed he was that God had imputed righteousness to him.

Eph. 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love:"

yes.... the LAMB SLAIN FROM BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD, the foundation, hope and promise for all the saints like Job, David et al. The words of Job and David are a great comfort to the saints Harold.

harald
01-26-06, 02:32 AM
Joe,

I did a KJV based search of the Greek and found only three instances in the NT which are genuine cases of "faith in Christ", Christ-ward faith. What I mean where the Greek has PISTIS in the same clause with EIS and CHRISTOS. They are those here below. Then there are other cases of "faith in Christ". But they differ in that the preposition is EN. In the latter case the penmen do not talk about Christ-ward faith or trust, but about faith which is in Christ as the sphere. PISTIS plus EN plus CHRISTOS is not the same as Christ-ward faith/trust. PISTIS plus EIS plus CHRISTOS means Christ-ward faith/trust. And I found, as stated, only 3 instances of Christ-ward faith. In context none deal with JBG. The penmen did not confuse the two prepositions EIS and EN. EIS means "into" or "toward" basically. EN basically means "in" in the sense of "inside", "within", "in the sphere of".

Acts 24:24, 20:21 (KJV has "toward"), Col. 2:5

My opinion of these three scriptures which all contain PISTIS, EIS, CHRISTOS, is that all no doubt set forth Christ-ward faith.

As for "faith in God" I did a quick search and found no verse with PISTIS plus EIS plus THEOS, which would mean God-ward faith. The closest I found is Heb. 6:1 which has PISTIS plus EPI plus THEOS, lit. "faith upon God". This can be understood of as God-ward faith. Then there is Mark 11, reading "PISTIN THEOU", lit. "faith of God". As LITV rightly renders. Jesus was not, in context, commanding God-ward faith. He literally says "be ye having faith of God!" . The imperative verb is in the present tense, not aorist, thus He commanded them to continuously have such faith. In context "faith of God" can only mean that kind of supernatural faith which was associated with miracles. Look at the context and this should be verified to you.

So, as you see it is not true to say Christ-ward and God-ward faith are found myriads of times.

As for Romans 3 you confuse the verses. KJV says "of" in v. 22 and "in" in v. 26. But Paul penned a genitive in each case, "faith of Jesus Christ" and "faith of Jesus" respectively. So, Jesus Christ-ward and Jesus-ward faith, respectively, was not what he talked about. This would have presupposed EIS with Jesus in the accusative case. In v. 26 KJV translators no doubt rendered according to theological bias. Some prior English versions rightly rendered "faith OF Jesus". So what Paul was talking about was Jesus' faith, not Jesus-ward faith, nor yet faith FROM Jesus, which would have presupposed APO or PARA or EK. At the end of Eph. 6 Paul wrote "faith from ...Jesus Christ", using APO. The grammatical construct of both v. 22 and 26 testifies to the fact that Paul was talking about none other thing but Jesus' own faith, that glorious faith He was possessed of as a man. In v. 26 Paul is emphatic about it by simply writing "Jesus", thus driving home the point that he was in the business of emphasizing Him as Jesus of Nazareth in His pre-ascension capacity. "Faith of Jesus" means that faith He had as Jesus of Nazareth, i.e. prior to the resurrection and ascension. This is so simple a thing, but theologians and "doctors" and religionists have complicated things, being darkened in their reasonings, thus they have turned Paul's glorious gospel into another.

Harald

harald
01-26-06, 02:51 AM
So are you saying then that Job, David, Abraham were not justified until the cross? So when David said in Romans 4:6-7 ..blessed is the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness... God couldn't actually impute this righteousness yet because Christ had not shed blood? You speak riddles to me harold. It does say Job was upright or righteous and just before Almighty God. All these men were justified in God's eyes because of the surety of His precious Son and what He would accomplish. All these men knew it and David knew how blessed he was that God had imputed righteousness to him.
(John Gipson)

Yes, I am saying that Job, David, Abraham et.al. were not justified before God until the stake.

John, could you explain how God imputed righteousness to Job? What righteousness did He impute to him? It could not be Christ's justifying righteousness, because when Job lived Christ had not yet incarnated, nor yet had He gone to Calvary. How could God impute something that did not yet actually exist? If you say He nonetheless did impute then you will have to show to me that God is a God who engages in imputing things which have no existence. Every time Paul wrote the verb logizomai he spoke of something that existed. Imputation, in Paul's thought, is based on reality. That which existed was imputed. Not some non-existing thing.

If you say justifying righteousness was imputed to David in eternity you will have to prove that also sin had been charged to his account, logically prior to the justification. But you cannot find any scripture which says there was a law before the foundation of the world in light of which sin was legally charged to the account before the world was.

Harald

harald
01-26-06, 03:05 AM
Harald makes God subject to eternal law philosophy. (Brandan)

I know nothing of this said philosophy. I could not even articulate a sentence. It is rather you who are engaging in philosophy, not submitting to Paul's sound words and teaching as respects justification before God.



yes.... the LAMB SLAIN FROM BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD, the foundation, hope and promise for all the saints like Job, David et al.
(Ray)


You are making things up, Ray. There is no such thing as "Lamb slain from BEFORE the foundations of the world". Revelation contains a similar wording, but with the difference that it says "from (APO) the foundation of the world" (KJV), not "from BEFORE", which would presuppose PRO. So, this Revelation verse cannot be used to support "justification in eternity". All this wresting you folks come up with when you refuse to submit to the God-breathed and inviolable words of the living God, instead willfully presuming to correct God's words and teachings through bringing your own fanciful philosophies and reasonings and figments and traditions of vain men.


Harald

ugly_gaunt_cow
01-26-06, 06:15 AM
There is no such thing as "Lamb slain from BEFORE the foundations of the world". Revelation contains a similar wording, but with the difference that it says "from (APO) the foundation of the world" (KJV), not "from BEFORE", which would presuppose PRO. So, this Revelation verse cannot be used to support "justification in eternity". All this wresting you folks come up with when you refuse to submit to the God-breathed and inviolable words of the living God, instead willfully presuming to correct God's words and teachings through bringing your own fanciful philosophies and reasonings and figments and traditions of vain men.


Harald

So, at what point did the chosen becomes God's elect?

harald
01-26-06, 07:32 AM
So, at what point did the chosen becomes God's elect? (Scott)

Scott, are you kidding me? I looked at your profile and you are a Supralapsarian Calvinist. So why do you ask a question like this?

But since you ask. God's chosen ones were chosen/elected by God the Father, before the foundation of the world, "in Christ" as the sphere of this election. This is, to be specific, stated concerning "the body of the Christ", by Paul in Ephesians chapter 1. But I believe also the other two households were (with ref. to time) chosen before the foundation of the world, although no NT scripture explicitly states this. Logically speaking the body of the Christ was chosen before Israel, and before the righteous nations. The body was chosen first, and revealed last in redemptive history. It will also first of all households enter into its hope, corroborated by the Greek of 1Cor. 15:23.

Harald

Brandan
01-26-06, 07:39 AM
God's chosen ones were chosen/elected by God the Father, before the foundation of the world, "in Christ" as the sphere of this election.Harald, I highlighted your words "in Christ." If God's elect were "IN CHRIST" before the foundation of the world, and Christ is Righteous, how could the elect not be righteous IN HIM? How can anyone be IN CHRIST, and yet be unrighteous?

lionovjudah
01-26-06, 08:30 AM
Harald, I highlighted your words "in Christ." If God's elect were "IN CHRIST" before the foundation of the world, and Christ is Righteous, how could the elect not be righteous IN HIM? How can anyone be IN CHRIST, and yet be unrighteous?

1) Does in Christ mean Justified?

2) Does chosen=justified

3) does union =justified


These are questions that must be answered. Are these words synonomous?

Harald: one does not have to seperate Christs sheep as you do. The writ clearly and easily calls all of the sheep chosen. OT saints are as equally chosen as NT saints. This just complicates matters with a seperation that is not needed nor is it scripturally accurate.


Has anyone given a clear definition of what is meant by justification? Can we at least decide and concur together how we are defining this word? I know it is very pregnant, with distinctions.

pardon?
remission of sins?
adoption?
declared righteouss?
aquited?
eternal life?

Brandan
01-26-06, 08:57 AM
When I use justification from eternity, I mean that God counts the elect as Righteous in Christ. It is entirely outside of the experience of God's people.

jmgipson
01-26-06, 09:22 AM
Definition of Justification as I understand it:

Justification is a legal, or forensic, term, and is used in Scripture to denote the acceptance (and anything pertaining to it) of any one as righteous in the sight of God.

Eph 1:4-6
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. KJV

He chose us in eternity, He made us holy and without blame before Him (the righteousness of Christ), and we are now accepted by the Father in the beloved, all in eternity. All things will be complete in time at the judgement seat.

John

John

lionovjudah
01-26-06, 09:27 AM
1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered 3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

This is from the greek word dikaioo.




1) righteous, observing divine laws
a) in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God
1) of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined
2) innocent, faultless, guiltless
3) used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life
a) only Christ truly
4) approved of or acceptable of God b) in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them

dikaios for above.


Can we agree on this? I mean this is the literal translation of the word in the greek.



hebrew : tsadaq

1) to be just, be righteous
a) (Qal)
1) to have a just cause, be in the right
2) to be justified
3) to be just (of God)
4) to be just, be righteous (in conduct and character)
b) (Niphal) to be put or made right, be justified
c) (Piel) justify, make to appear righteous, make someone righteous
d) (Hiphil)
1) to do or bring justice (in administering law)
2) to declare righteous, justify
3) to justify, vindicate the cause of, save

4) to make righteous, turn to righteousness e) (Hithpael) to justify oneself

In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

melted
01-26-06, 09:35 AM
1) There is justification to an audience of the human subjective mind.
2) There is justification to an audience of God's subjective mind.

#1 is for the benefit of the human and is fully subjective to the human mind. Human subjectivity does not determine objective truth. There is objective truth outside of human subjectivity.

#2 is commonly termed "objective justification" - it is subjective to God's mind. Truth subjective to God is the very definition of objective truth. Something is true only because God knows it to be true.

I think that most of us can agree that justification to the audience of the human mind is by faith. Faith delivers the subjective message of objective truth.

The discussion now is over when the audience of God's mind subjectively (and therefore objectively) sees His elect as righteous. To propose that God "learns" of a truth in time is absurd. God's omniscience is self-sufficient. He knows things to be true because it is His will that they be true. His knowledge is removed from time in every way - it is eternal. To propose that the audience of God's mind sees the elect as righteous only at the act of Christ's death in time is to subject God to His own creation - time.

The Lord Jesus Christ and His work were "foreknown before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20). It is obvious that God is the one foreknowing this redemption and accounting His elect blameless in eternity, apart from the trappings of time. To deny "justification in eternity" is to deny that the elect are justified AT ALL in the eternal mind of God. God is the eternal "I AM". If it is true in His mind, then it has always been true; and further, is true only because it is true in His mind.

I do not believe that one must (or even CAN) divorce justification from the cross in order to believe in justification in eternity.

Brandan
01-26-06, 09:37 AM
Well that was the best post in this entire thread Kyle! Thank you.

jmgipson
01-26-06, 09:48 AM
WOW!!! With all this so far if I didn't believe in Eternal Justification, I would now!!!! Good definition Kyle.

JOHN

ray kikkert
01-26-06, 10:03 AM
yes.... the LAMB SLAIN FROM BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD, the foundation, hope and promise for all the saints like Job, David et al.
(Ray)


You are making things up, Ray. There is no such thing as "Lamb slain from BEFORE the foundations of the world". Revelation contains a similar wording, but with the difference that it says "from (APO) the foundation of the world" (KJV), not "from BEFORE", which would presuppose PRO. So, this Revelation verse cannot be used to support "justification in eternity". All this wresting you folks come up with when you refuse to submit to the God-breathed and inviolable words of the living God, instead willfully presuming to correct God's words and teachings through bringing your own fanciful philosophies and reasonings and figments and traditions of vain men.


Harald

I see, now I am making things up. Ironic you could not , nor dealt with the exegesis as to just what "foundation" of something means. "PRO" is presupposed here. Your "blinder theology" exposed as bankrupt.

The whole counsel of God testifies to the elect's "Justification from or in eternity" from God's eternal counsel, whom the Lord seen fit to accomplish in His Son , our Saviour Jesus Christ.

But it is enough. I think you know your exegesis is unreliable. He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.



Isaiah 28:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=28&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Isaiah 28:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=28&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Isaiah 28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=28&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 25:34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&verse=34&version=9&context=verse)
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Matthew 25:33-35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&verse=33&end_verse=35&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Matthew 25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
John 17:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=17&verse=24&version=9&context=verse)
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
John 17:23-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=17&verse=23&end_verse=25&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=17&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Hebrews 9:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=9&verse=26&version=9&context=verse)
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Hebrews 9:25-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=9&verse=25&end_verse=27&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Hebrews 9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=9&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
1 Peter 1:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=67&chapter=1&verse=20&version=9&context=verse)
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1 Peter 1:19-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=67&chapter=1&verse=19&end_verse=21&version=9&context=context) (in Context) 1 Peter 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=67&chapter=1&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter) ........ now with regards to the "haroldneutics" of Revelation chapter 13:8, here is Gill's expostion, one who by the way took the whole counsel of God in his commentary:

Revelation 13:8 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Revelation/13.html#8)

Ver. 8. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,.... The inhabitants of the Roman empire, the idolatrous part of it, the men of the world, earthly minded men; who are as they came into the world, and are of the earth, earthly, and seek only after earthly honours, pleasures, and profits; these are the admirers and adorers of the beast:

whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; by which book is meant God's predestination of men to eternal life, or his decree of election; why this is called the "book of life", See Gill on "Re 3:5"; and their "names written [therein] from the foundation of the world",
Re 17:8 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Revelation/17.html#8), for such a construction the words will bear, denotes that election is eternal, and is not an act of time, nor dependent upon anything done in time; and that it is of particular persons, and not of bodies of men, of nations and churches, and still less of propositions, or of persons so and so qualified, or under such conditions and circumstances; and that it is perfectly well known to God, and is sure and certain in its effects, and is unchangeable and irrevocable; for what is written in it, is written, and will always stand, not upon the foot of works, but of the sovereign grace of God; and this is called the Lamb's book; that is, Christ, who is compared to a Lamb for its harmlessness, meekness, and patience, and was typified by the lambs in the legal sacrifices; and this book is called his, because he was present at the making of it, and was concerned in putting down the names in it, Joh 13:18 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/John/13.html#18), and he himself stands first in it as the elect of God, and the head of all the elect, who, as members, were chosen in him: the act of election was made in him, and stands sure in him; and he is the author and giver of that life, which men are chosen unto both here and hereafter: and he may be said to be "slain from the foundation of the world"; in the decree and purpose of God, by which he was set forth, or foreappointed to be the propitiation for sin, and was foreordained, before the foundation of the world, to redeem his people by his blood, and in the promise of God immediately after the fall of man, that the seed of the woman should have his heel bruised, and he himself should bruise the serpent's head, which made it as sure as if it was then done; and in the sacrifices, which were immediately upon this offered up, and were types of the death and sacrifice of Christ; and in the faith of the saints, which brings distant things near, and considers them as if present; and also in his members, in Abel, and others, in whom he suffered, as he still does in his people; to which may be added, that such is the efficacy of the bloodshed and death of Christ, that it reached to all the saints from the beginning of the world, for the justification of their persons, the atonement of their sins, and cleansing from them; for the remission of sins, that are past, and for the redemption of transgressions under the first testament; for Old Testament saints from the beginning are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, as New Testament ones are. Something like this the Jews say {e} of the Messiah upon Ge 49:11 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Genesis/49.html#11),

"he washed amle yrbtad amwym, "from the day that the world was created"; who is he? this is the King Messiah.--It is written [B]Ge 1:2 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Genesis/1.html#2); "and the Spirit of God", &c. This is the Spirit of the King Messiah; and from the day that the world was created; he washed his garments in wine;''

which the Jewish writers {f} understand of blood, which for its redness is like to wine; though they interpret it of the blood of the slain, with which the garments of the Messiah will be stained. Now such whose names are not written in this book of the Lamb, who have no interest in electing grace, nor in redemption by Christ, the slain Lamb of God, nor any right unto eternal life, who are reprobate persons, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, who are foreordained to condemnation, and are given up to believe a lie, that they might be damned, these are the followers and worshippers of antichrist.

{e} Zohar in Gen. fol. 128. 2, 3. {f} Targum Jon. & Jerus. & Aben Ezra in Gen. xlix. 11.


....... so Harold, please put off your "blinder theology"

ray kikkert
01-26-06, 10:08 AM
Well that was the best post in this entire thread Kyle! Thank you.

Indeed, well said Kyle. Thank you.:)

jmgipson
01-26-06, 10:19 AM
Matthew 25:34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&verse=34&version=9&context=verse)
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

John 14:2
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
KJV

Ray,
I completely forgot about Matt. 25:34. What is interesting is most pretrib. men think John 14:2 means Jesus was going to go up with a hammer and saw and prepare a place for them. What this is speaking of is in context Jesus going to the cross. This fits in with Kyles definition - we see in God the Fathers mind (speaking as a man) that Kingdom was prepared for us (Christs death and righteousness) in eternity (Objective). And in John 14:2 Jesus is preparing this place in time (Subjective). I think I explained this OK. If not I hope you got my jest.

John

ray kikkert
01-26-06, 10:48 AM
I think I explained this OK. If not I hope you got my jest.

John

I did.

In fact the last time this was discussed , Bob Higby also had a very understandable definition of justification from/in eternity. I cannot find it at present because I forget what thread it was under. Maybe it will come up underneath this thread here.

It usually lists threads that are in common with the present thread discussion.

lionovjudah
01-26-06, 03:49 PM
The timing of justification is a tremendous subject. When were the elect declared righteouss.

I have read the EJ side, and there are some aspects of justification that I believe are true.

But one scripture still has me convinced it happenned at the cross

Romans 5;10

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

One cannot be justified and still need reconciliation. It is an impossibility. And according to Paul, this reconciliation happenned at the cross.

I will add more later. My son is going for his brown belt in karate tonight!!!!!

One more thing. Paul also states we were enemies, we are new creatures, and this happenned at the death of Christ.

The major problem I have with some peoples explinations of EJ, is that if we are justified before being born, how are we born sinners at enmity with God? How are we guilty? Now I know the elect, even from a supra view, are not born in grace.

I think of it like this. If I called my bank and asked them for the title of my car, they would tell me not until the laon/dent is paid. Which happenned at the cross..


Ciao for now

JK

Mickey
01-26-06, 04:15 PM
One more thing. Paul also states we were enemies, we are new creatures, and this happenned at the death of Christ.

We are not new creatures at the cross, we are new creatures after conversion. Our being born from above pertains to our experience of salvation. We are born dead in sin and then born from above.


The major problem I have with some peoples explinations of EJ, is that if we are justified before being born, how are we born sinners at enmity with God? How are we guilty? Now I know the elect, even from a supra view, are not born in grace.

We are guilty because we sin and we were at enmity with God before conversion not the other way around. In other words, we hated God before our conversion and were indeed guilty, BUT, God still loved us and saw us as justified in Christ. The term Justification--as has been explained over and over in this thread--is a legal or forensic term given to the elect declaring them 'not guilty' even though we have indeed committed the crime. This declaration still applies to the elect before conversion but we don't 'experience' or 'know' of this justification until we are converted and God reveals this to us through faith. Hence our view of Justification by faith: God shows us that we have always been justified in His eyes because of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

lionovjudah
01-26-06, 04:47 PM
We are not new creatures at the cross, we are new creatures after conversion. Our being born from above pertains to our experience of salvation. We are born dead in sin and then born from above.


Mike: not according to Paul in 2nd Corinthians 5

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation;

And this reconciliation happenned at teh cross. This "in Christ"cannot mean chosen in Christ means justified can it? If this was the case we would be a new creature before being born

jmgipson
01-26-06, 04:59 PM
Paul said he was saved before the world began (II Tim 1:9 (http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bibletopics/Salvation/WhenWereYouSaved.htm#1#1)), when Jesus came into the world (I Tim 1:15 (http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bibletopics/Salvation/WhenWereYouSaved.htm#2#2)), when the Spirit regenerated him (Titus 3:5 (http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bibletopics/Salvation/WhenWereYouSaved.htm#3#3)), when he took heed to himself and the doctrine (I Tim 4:16 (http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bibletopics/Salvation/WhenWereYouSaved.htm#4#4)), and would be saved sometime in the future (Rom 13:11 (http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bibletopics/Salvation/WhenWereYouSaved.htm#5#5)).

We can't limit salvation to just one idea or one event at one time. Paul saw his own salvation occurring in five phases.


Paul clearly taught five phases of salvation.

The ETERNAL PHASE is God's plan and choice from eternity to ordain sin into the world and to save His elect from it. Since He is eternal and sovereign, God planned in eternity all that He does in time. He planned sin, so that He could display His glorious grace in saving His elect from it and displaying His power and wrath on the rest.

The LEGAL PHASE is God's work to satisfy His holy nature and perfect justice for the salvation of His elect. Because every sin must be punished, He sent a Substitute to die for their sins. His perfect holiness and justice cannot overlook sins and acquit wicked men. He must punish their sins in Another, even Jesus Christ. And this He did at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

The VITAL PHASE is God's application of these benefits to us personally and individually. Though He planned to save us from eternity and legally did so with Christ's death on the cross, we still have a depraved and wicked nature at enmity with Him. So He regenerates us into a new life by His Spirit and gives us a new heart that loves Him and righteousness. This is being born again, and it is done entirely by the power of God sometime during our lives.

The PRACTICAL PHASE is our response to His salvation. He sends His Spirit into our hearts, and we cry "Abba, Father." With new hearts from regeneration, we seek the truth and love it when we hear it. We hear the gospel, and we believe it. We want to be baptized to show Him our love. We want to know more of what we can do to please Him, and we gratefully cherish all His promises, which give us comfort and peace now.

The FINAL PHASE is that great day in the future when we shall be declared the sons of God to the whole universe and enter heaven for eternity. Our bodies will be raised from graves and glorified into new spiritual bodies, and we will be thoroughly purged from all sin to be perfectly holy in His presence forever. This great conclusion to the plan of salvation is yet in the future.

Salvation includes everything : Foreknowledge, election, predestination, justification, redemption, adoption, forgiveness, reconcilliation, regeneration, calling, sanctification, conversion, glorification.

John

Mickey
01-26-06, 05:27 PM
Mike: not according to Paul in 2nd Corinthians 5

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation;

And this reconciliation happenned at teh cross. This "in Christ"cannot mean chosen in Christ means justified can it? If this was the case we would be a new creature before being born

In this scripture Paul is referring to our conversion or our experience of salvation. To be a 'new creature' means we were something before. If this is referring to before we were born then it makes no sense at all. We were not 'in Christ' according to Paulís usage of the term here before conversion. This goes back to what we have discussing; in our experience we are God haters and at enmity with Him all the while His favor is with us as He sees us Justified 'in Christ'. At conversion (regeneration) a change of mind takes place in us; not God.

Bob Higby
01-26-06, 08:33 PM
I am personally not convinced of the subjective interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:17, 18. Paul's broad statements regarding the newness of the elect individual are too all-encompassing for it to be primarily experiential. We certainly come to know that we are in Christ when the Holy Spirit regenerates us. However, the "all things are new" and "everything old is passed" can only refer to what has been given to us objectively in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

lionovjudah
01-26-06, 08:55 PM
I am personally not convinced of the subjective interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:17, 18. Paul's broad statements regarding the newness of the elect individual are too all-encompassing for it to be primarily experiential. We certainly come to know that we are in Christ when the Holy Spirit regenerates us. However, the "all things are new" and "everything old is passed" can only refer to what has been given to us objectively in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Bob, can you explain this more in laymans terms. Let me atttempt to explain how I see this.

verse 17: "Therefore, if any man is in Christ as a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

At some point in time the old passed away, when was this? What is this old thing?

The old thing has to be our sinfull nature and relationship to God. The imputation of Adams sin to all. Resulting in Gods just verdict against man. Because of this we are enemies of God. ANd need reconciliation. A justified person would not need to be reconciled.

Rom 5:10, "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

This is the time the old passed away, at the cross of Crist. God reconciled His sheep at this moment.

Also look at 1 Peter 3;18
18: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

The word here is unjust. Therefore prior to His death, we are not justified.

adikos = unjust
1) descriptive of one who violates or has violated justice
a) unjust
b) unrighteous, sinful
c) of one who deals fraudulently with others, deceitful

So where do all the benefits take place? The Word says at the cross

Mickey
01-26-06, 09:08 PM
I am personally not convinced of the subjective interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:17, 18. Paul's broad statements regarding the newness of the elect individual are too all-encompassing for it to be primarily experiential. We certainly come to know that we are in Christ when the Holy Spirit regenerates us. However, the "all things are new" and "everything old is passed" can only refer to what has been given to us objectively in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

hmmm...so could Paul be speaking of the Old Covenant and the New?

GraceAmbassador
01-26-06, 09:39 PM
hmmm...so could Paul be speaking of the Old Covenant and the New?

Mike:

I am sure you know that the verse starts with "therefore". Everytime a verse starts with the word "therefore" what do we do? We find out why "therefore" is there for... as the old saying goes...

The context indicates that the "old things" are (is) the flesh by which we have known men before (Paul speaks of Christians). He says that we don't even know Jesus by flesh anymore.

This text is not a proof text against or in favor of "eternal justification" in my view, and has nothing to do with the subject as to whether we became Christ-like in nature, as a new creation, or creature at the Cross.

I maintain that Eternal Justification has to be determined by the aspect of God's timelessness, the way that He executes His plans, and the fact that it is impossible to surmise any type of "timing" apart from God's attributes of omniscience, onmipresence and omnipotence; If one can prove that God elected us before He decided to justify us, even so we cannot prove that our justification is not eternal in His eyes. If one agrees that at the point that God decided to elect us He saw us as justified in Christ (if we believe that Christ was always with God) then, there is no other conclusion possible rather than assent to the fact that He justified us as He elected us, to wit, before the foundation of the world, or, in human terms, eternally, or from eternity.

Let me edit this with this "by the way" comment:

By the way, YES; in the Old Covenant we were known "in the flesh" (see verse 16). That meant known in the things we did in the flesh to please God: circimcision, sacrifices, oblations, etc. Now we are not known on this aspect any longer because we in Christ have been made new creation. His sacrifice was sufficient and once for all to accomplish that.

Note other contrasts in chapter 5, such as the one on verse 7: "we walk by faith and not by sight".

That's my humble take.

Milt

Mickey
01-26-06, 09:54 PM
This text is not a proof text against or in favor of "eternal justification" in my view, and has nothing to do with the subject as to whether we became Christ-like in nature, as a new creation, or creature at the Cross.


I looked at Gills commentary a little while ago and he understands this verse as speaking of the former ways of the Mosaic Law and the new way in Christ. I hadn't thought about the meaning of this verse since the BC (free willy) days.


I maintain that Eternal Justification has to be determined by the aspect of God's timelessness, the way that He executes His plans, and the fact that it is impossible to surmise any type of "timing" apart from God's attributes of omniscience, onmipresence and omnipotence; If one can prove that God elected us before He decided to justify us, even so we cannot prove that our justification is not eternal in His eyes. If one agrees that at the point that God decided to elect us He saw us as justified in Christ (if we believe that Christ was always with God) then, there is no other conclusion possible rather than assent to the fact that He justified us as He elected us, to wit, before the foundation of the world, or, in human terms, eternally, or from eternity.

I agree 100%.

Saint Nicholas
01-26-06, 10:07 PM
Nicholas,
I think Rome's order is more like this: Faith, Justification, regeneration. They believe as Free-willers do that Faith precedes the new birth.

Brandan,
Thanks. What is the name of the thread discussing the faithfulness of Chirst?


John........do your Homework on Romanism. You will see I am correct.


I spell it out for you again.

1. Water Baptism ( Regeneration of the soul. The infusion of enabling Grace. The will thus set free to cooperate with Justifying grace.)

2. Sanctifying Grace. ( The ability to obey the laws of God and the Church through the sacraments and thus attaining to sinless perfection and an increase in justification, through meritorius good works.

3.Venial Sin. ( a sin to a lesser degree that does not let one fall from justifying grace, but so thus would retard the process.

4.Mortal Sin ( A sin of grave proportion and consequences. A fall out of Grace, and thus hellbound.

5.The Sacrament of penence. ( the soul is renewed again and back in justifying grace.

6. Purgatory. ( A place of purification and expiation of sin, till the man is made inherently sinless. SINLESS PERFECTION)

7 The Beatific Vision. ( Heaven. That man stands sinless before God)

So again, according to Rome ........Regeneration..Faith....Justification

I will attempt in future posts Lord Willing, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that all those who deny an Eternal Justification, by God's Sovereign Verdict and Decree, and who attempt to place the verdict of justification AFTER Regenerative Faith is so cooporated with by man, is teaching a Hybrid Romanism. (Heresy)

In Christ.......Nicholas

Mickey
01-26-06, 10:13 PM
Nicholas, we have some Catholics that drop in every now and then. Your experience and knowledge of Catholicism will be a great contribution to this website! If you want you can start some threads targeting specific issues in the Catholic cult.

Bob Higby
01-26-06, 10:15 PM
Explaining this in 'laymens' terms may be difficult, Lion, but I will try!

The 'old thing' in New Testament terms is always BOTH the hopeless enslavement to sin of the present (unregenerate) age AND the law-covenant of Judaism! The two are related; one is how God ministered wrath to Jews before the coming of Christ (2 Cor. 3) and the other is how God always ministers wrath to the world in general.

The connection between Christ's objective work in his atonement and the subjective work of the Holy Spirit is always viewed as an organic unity by the authors of the New Testament. There is no hermeneutic of doctrinal compartments unrelated to each other! So in viewing certain passages, it is difficult to answer the question: "Is it Christ's finished work in history or the Holy Spirit's work in the believer that is referred to?" The two are ever-present to God and his purposes; one begets the other. While we are 'in the flesh' before glory, perfection is only in Christ! Yet we begin to experience the renewing power of God in the present! So a passage such as 2 Cor. 5:17 relates to both aspects, yet affirms that the full reality of the New order (ending both the Old Covenant and the earthly dominion of sin) is only in Christ.

Mickey
01-26-06, 10:19 PM
So when Paul speaks of us being new creatures he is speaking of us being creatures living in a new order?

jmgipson
01-26-06, 10:42 PM
John........do your Homework on Romanism. You will see I am correct.


I spell it out for you again.

1. Water Baptism ( Regeneration of the soul. The infusion of enabling Grace. The will thus set free to cooperate with Justifying grace.)

2. Sanctifying Grace. ( The ability to obey the laws of God and the Church through the sacraments and thus attaining to sinless perfection and an increase in justification, through meritorius good works.

3.Venial Sin. ( a sin to a lesser degree that does not let one fall from justifying grace, but so thus would retard the process.

4.Mortal Sin ( A sin of grave proportion and consequences. A fall out of Grace, and thus hellbound.

5.The Sacrament of penence. ( the soul is renewed again and back in justifying grace.

6. Purgatory. ( A place of purification and expiation of sin, till the man is made inherently sinless. SINLESS PERFECTION)

7 The Beatific Vision. ( Heaven. That man stands sinless before God)

So again, according to Rome ........Regeneration..Faith....Justification

I will attempt in future posts Lord Willing, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that all those who deny an Eternal Justification, by God's Sovereign Verdict and Decree, and who attempt to place the verdict of justification AFTER Regenerative Faith is so cooporated with by man, is teaching a Hybrid Romanism. (Heresy)

In Christ.......Nicholas

When you spell it out like this I can understand it now. Not having a Catholic background all I seen was synergism vs. monorgism. The way you had the order of salvation is the way Calvinism states it:

Regeration - Faith - Justification

Arminian Free-willers belive it thus:

Faith - Regeneration - Justification

Which using the terms with this same meaning would class Rome with it.

My mistake. I didn't understand your terms.

John

Saint Nicholas
01-26-06, 11:01 PM
I believe the trouble comes from looking at the word "eternity" in our linear sense of "time"

I do not believe Eternity is past tense. The Cross of Christ is the pinnacle for everything. Not creation, not the 2nd advent, but the Cross. This is where it all funnels to. So my understanding of eternal justification lies in the view that the Cross happenned historically at a specific linear time and date. This is when the blood was shed for the remission of sins. But in the eternal mind of God, this happenned as the final consumation of all events. There is no other way to explain how future sins are forgiven. Without blood there is no remission, hence His death has no beginning or end in the mind of God.

The confusion comes when looking at eternity in a linear sense. this is a mistake. We are not justified before the foundations of the world, we are justified because the cross of Christ is viewed by God as an eternal sacrafice.

This is Romes error when it comes to future sins. They fail to realize that His death is the one and final sacrafice, why? Because it is eternal, no beginning or no end

If this makes no sense to anyone else, thats ok, it makes sense to me!!!!


What year is it in Heaven?
Before the creation of Angels and men when there was God Alone, Was He perfectly complete in Himself?
Is God a complete and Perfect reality in and of Himself?
Were we, the Elect chosen in HIM before the foundation of the world?
Was Christ in union with the Father, from all eternity?
Were we, the elect in union with the Son from all eternity?
On what legal basis Can the Father thus enjoin in full union with those in His Son?............Here is a hint....Justification!

I love to be outside on the dark, black, and cloudy day. Why? so I can tell people who pass on by, that it's a great beautiful sun shiny day. Ha! they all laugh at me and say.your crazy! the sun ain't shining!
Well you could you see their stupidity? Just because they didn't see the sun on that dark, black, and cloudy day, DID NOT MAKE THE SUN A NON-REALITY. Likewise, because the elect don't see nor beleive in their Justification prior to regeneration......DOES NOT MAKE JUSTIFICATION A NON-REALITY.

He who hath ears..let him hear

Nicholas

lionovjudah
01-26-06, 11:06 PM
What year is it in Heaven?
Before the creation of Angels and men when there was God Alone, Was He perfectly complete in Himself?
Is God a complete and Perfect reality in and of Himself?
Were we, the Elect chosen in HIM before the foundation of the world?
Was Christ in union with the Father, from all eternity?
Were we, the elect in union with the Son from all eternity?
On what legal basis Can the Father thus enjoin in full union with those in His Son?............Here is a hint....Justification!

I love to be outside on the dark, black, and cloudy day. Why? so I can tell people who pass on by, that it's a great beautiful sun shiny day. Ha! they all laugh at me and say.your crazy! the sun ain't shining!
Well you could you see their stupidity? Just because they didn't see the sun on that dark, black, and cloudy day, DID NOT MAKE THE SUN A NON-REALITY. Likewise, because the elect don't see nor beleive in their Justification prior to regeneration......DOES NOT MAKE JUSTIFICATION A NON-REALITY.

He who hath ears..let him hear

Nicholas


St Nick: You lost me on this one. Perhaps some lingering affects of years of rc incense? :D

lionovjudah
01-26-06, 11:18 PM
I will attempt in future posts Lord Willing, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that all those who deny an Eternal Justification, by God's Sovereign Verdict and Decree, and who attempt to place the verdict of justification AFTER Regenerative Faith is so cooporated with by man, is teaching a Hybrid Romanism. (Heresy)

In Christ.......Nicholas

Both miss the point. There is no declared righteoussness in eternity past, not is justification at or after regeneration. IT happened at the cross.

When does the writ say God and sinners were reconciled?

Justification at or after regeneration s also wrong. This belief confesses that God still holds our sins against us, after the debt has been paid. This is terribly wrong!!!!!!!

The elect are eternally justified at the point of His death on the cross!!!!

Like the example I used above with your car loan. Justification here would be like paying the note, but still having the bank refuse to give you title.

harald
01-27-06, 02:49 AM
Harald, I highlighted your words "in Christ." If God's elect were "IN CHRIST" before the foundation of the world, and Christ is Righteous, how could the elect not be righteous IN HIM? How can anyone be IN CHRIST, and yet be unrighteous? (Brandan)

Where does the Scripture say God's elect were un-righteous in eternity (in Christ) ? Neither have I said they were unrighteous (whether intrinsically, or in God's estimation) in eternity in Christ. What I am saying is that the Scripture does not say that Justification before God took place before the foundation of the world. JBG before the foundation of the world presupposes the elect, in eternity, stood in need of being cleared of guilt and sin (a part of JBG), presupposing they were unrighteous in eternity.

Paul teaches in Rom. 9 that God's election (whether to salvation or to damnation), in eternity, took place prior to the objects of election had practised anything beneficial (agathos) or intrinsically wrong (kakos). So, when God elected (before the foundation of the world) He did not elect out of consideration of whether the objects of election were good or bad. If He had elected out of consideration of personal character and/or conduct, and had considered His elect "justified" at the moment of electing then this logically presupposes prior "un-justified" state in their case, in which case they were bad, prior (logically reckoned) to being "justified" (in eternity), from which follows that God was, as it were, reasoning as follows: "These are bad, and I will to elect them, but I cannot elect them because they are bad, so I must justify them, else I cannot elect them, because I cannot elect bad ones". See, "justification in eternity" nullifies un-conditional election. The doctrine of unconditional election teaches that God elected apart from taking into consideration character and/or conduct when electing. The election was conditioned on or dependent on (Gr. preposition being EK) the one summoning, Who happens to be the One who un-conditionally elected in eternity.

Harald

harald
01-27-06, 05:17 AM
1) Does in Christ mean Justified?

2) Does chosen=justified

3) does union =justified (Joe K)

1. "in Christ" does not mean "justified" in my statement to Brandan re. election in eternity "in Christ".

2. "chosen" means "having been chosen", and it does not per se mean "justified"

3. union does not per se mean "justified". There was union involved prior to God justifying His elect at Calvary in Christ. This union was part of the basis of justification


Harald: one does not have to seperate Christs sheep as you do. The writ clearly and easily calls all of the sheep chosen. OT saints are as equally chosen as NT saints. This just complicates matters with a seperation that is not needed nor is it scripturally accurate.

I am not separating Christ's sheep. I am making scripturally legitimate distinctions. I am not denying that OT saints are as equally chosen as NT saints. You say the distinction (which you call "separation") is not scripturally accurate. I say it is. There are three elect households, with three distinct hopes, and three distinct household laws. In 1Cor. 15:23 Paul distinguishes between two households when it comes to their entering their respective hopes. The body of the Christ enters (involving reception of resurrection body) its hope first of all, at the rapture. Israel is not to be raptured, nor is Israel the body at that. Israel enters its hope at Christ's second coming, which is years after the rapture of the body. To not make distinction between the three households is not scriptural. Because the Scriptures make distinction between them. There is no one single "the household of God" set forth in the Greek Testament. The body of the Christ is a different household than Israel. The body as a household has its own household administration law or code (oikonomia), and it is not Israel's household administration law/code, the Mosaic Law. The body's oikonomia is called, in Eph. 3:2, the oikonomia of the grace of God. And is to be found in the Pauline epistles, not in the 5 books of Moses, the Torah. If Israel and the body were one and the same "the household of God" then they would have one household law. But the body and Israel are not the same, and consequently one has one household law and the other has another.


Has anyone given a clear definition of what is meant by justification? Can we at least decide and concur together how we are defining this word? I know it is very pregnant, with distinctions.

pardon?
remission of sins?
adoption?
declared righteouss?
aquited?
eternal life?

The word "justification" is a proper rendering of that Greek word which is found in e.g. Rom. 4:25, dikaiŰsis. This noun means the making or rendering or constituting or accounting of someone as righteous. The -sis suffix indicates an act or action, viewed as being in progress. So, it can be defined as "the act of constituting (someone) righteous". Then it is another thing to decide what "justification" involves in Paul's teaching. Among other things it involves

- discharging ("remission") of sins (has to do with "pardon"), involving the blood of Jesus Christ
- acquittal
-accounting (considering) as spotlessly righteous because of the fact that they were so (i.e. righteous) in Christ, by virtue of union with Him partaking of His God-ward faith (cp. "justifying the one of faith of Jesus", Rom. 3:26b) having been imputed to Him as righteousness well-pleasing to God.

So, the elect of God were justified before God through the blood of Jesus Christ in conjunction with the faith-righteousness of Jesus Christ, on the tree of Calvary. Rom. 3:25-26. Not in eternity as one false gospel teaches. Not at the point of Christ-ward faith as another false gospel teaches. Neither through a Law-keeping-righteousness of Christ at Calvary as some may heretically teach.

Technically speaking, at that point when God accounted His elect righteous Justification (before God) was done, finished, accomplished. An automatical and immediate conseqence was that once they had been accounted righteous in His sight He adjudicated them to live, adjudicated them to life, eternal life. And, accordingly, Jesus was raised ON ACCOUNT OF (owing to) the justification of His own. Rom. 4:25, Gr. text.

As for "adoption", then. "adoption" translates the noun "huiothesia". Which literally means "placement as (mature) son(s)", or, "sonship-adoption". As for "adoption" it is sometimes preceeded by the article and sometimes without. Nonetheless, myself is at the present inclined to link "adoption" with glorification ("the redemption of the body") rather than with JBG. I think Paul's language warrants such a conclusion. But I would nonetheless not be dogmatical about this.


Harald

harald
01-27-06, 05:53 AM
I see, now I am making things up. Ironic you could not , nor dealt with the exegesis as to just what "foundation" of something means. "PRO" is presupposed here. Your "blinder theology" exposed as bankrupt. (Ray K)

As to what "foundation" means. In the NT "foundation" in the said verse translates "katabolÍ", from "kataballŰ" , "to cast down". So if going by the root meaning katabolÍ means "a casting down" or "a casting (down) into shape". Here, Rev. 13:8, it is katabolÍs kosmou, lit. "casting into shape of cosmos" or "(the) cosmic order". Kosmos lit. means "orderly arrangement".
Then, if it had read "before the foundation" etc. it would have presupposed the preposition PRO in the Greek. PRO means "before". But now the preposition is APO, KJV here renders "from". APO means "away from". Here therefore "away from (the) foundation of cosmos", i.e. from the point of the casting into shape of cosmos onwards (in time).


The whole counsel of God testifies to the elect's "Justification from or in eternity" from God's eternal counsel, whom the Lord seen fit to accomplish in His Son , our Saviour Jesus Christ.

God's elect were justified before God (Rom. 3:20, Gr. enŰpion autou) in about 29 AD. This justification was immutably decreed in eternity. This is testified to by Paul in his epistles.





Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

In context it does not teach justification in eternity.


Matthew 25:34
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

In context does not support JIE. Mark the preposition APO is used, "from". Not "before" (PRO).


John 17:24
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

No dik- root words involved. Thus hard for you to prove justification is taught here.


Hebrews 9:26
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Not ever close to touching on this justification in eternity thing.



1 Peter 1:20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

No dik- root words involved. Then, "foreordained" is a mistranslation of the Greek verb Peter wrote, proegnŰsmenou, "of one having been intimately known beforehand", from proginooskoo which means to know intimately beforehand. Here the verb is used with reference to Jesus Christ.


Seldom have I seen looser use of God's word than yours, Ray. Presumptuous eisegesis and ignoring of context when trying to prove that which cannot be proved.

Harald

harald
01-27-06, 06:02 AM
John Gipson,

I take it post #62, your post, is basically a quote from someone else. Unless I mistake from a website by the name "Let God be true", which has an article with the identical wordings as your post above. Perhaps you should give credit where it is due.

Harald

Brandan
01-27-06, 06:05 AM
John, if Harald's accusation is true, please cite your source and continue to do so in the future. Plagiarism is not acceptable on this website. If Harald's accusation is not true, then please ignore this message! :) Harald, if you're not correct in your accusation, you will owe John an apology.

From the posting policies section:
http://www.predestinarian.net/faq.php?faq=rules_faq#faq_rules_representation

We require that all participants honestly represent themselves by answering all required fields in the user profile form. From time to time, we make changes to these fields as we like to know where all participants stand concerning subject matter that we believe is of utmost importance.

Failure to honestly represent oneself in our discussions (ie. plagiarism) or individual profile will result in a suspension depending upon the discretion of any or all of our facilitators.I have to go as I have a meeting to attend!

jmgipson
01-27-06, 06:41 AM
John Gipson,

I take it post #62, your post, is basically a quote from someone else. Unless I mistake from a website by the name "Let God be true", which has an article with the identical wordings as your post above. Perhaps you should give credit where it is due.

Harald

It may be, I don't now. The documents I have has no author. It is the same one on 5solas.org Post #7 Jesus Saves? I will always put down where I got the doc. if I have it.

jmgipson
01-27-06, 06:53 AM
I probably should have put author unknow under it. I stand rebuked.

Sorry Predestinarian network!!!

John

Brandan
01-27-06, 07:06 AM
No problem John. Take care!

lionovjudah
01-27-06, 08:15 AM
I found this troubling. I never knew the WC speaks of justification at regeneration, or at the point of faith. IS this what they mean about the Holy Spirit applying Christ to them? wow

Like I mentioned before, this says that God is still charging the elects debt, after it has been paid, until they are regenerated. This totaaly mocks the work of Christ in my estimation.

Perhaps I am reading this wrong.

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 9
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

Mickey
01-27-06, 09:14 AM
Like I mentioned before, this says that God is still charging the elects debt, after it has been paid, until they are regenerated. This totaaly mocks the work of Christ in my estimation.


Indeed Joe...but think of the OT saints...did God charge their debt until the resurection of Christ?

jmgipson
01-27-06, 09:27 AM
And this reconciliation happenned at teh cross. This "in Christ"cannot mean chosen in Christ means justified can it? If this was the case we would be a new creature before being born

Joe,
I am reading George Ella's book on John Gill and in the chapter "spanning Eternity" he writes something that really hits home with me:

"Gill's veiw of Scripture teaching is that the grace which saves us is eternal to us, as is also our election in Christ. Those who are in Christ have everlasting life by that virtue alone and it is also plain Scriptural teaching that when God loves, He loves with an everlasting love and therefore draws His own to Him. (Jeremiah 31:3). Now there can be no eternal saving grace, no eternal election in Christ, no experience of God's eternal love wherer a souls is not justified. these aspects belong together as intergal parts."

John

jmgipson
01-27-06, 09:35 AM
Forgot this:

Goat Yard Confession of faith article 3:

III. We believe that, before the world began, God did elect a certain number of men unto everlasting salvation, whom he did predestinate to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, of his own free grace, and according to the good pleasure of his will: and that, in pursuance of this gracious design, he did contrive and make a covenant of grace and peace with his Son Jesus Christ, on the behalf of those persons, wherein a Saviour was appointed, and all spiritual blessings provided for them; as also that their persons, with all their grace and glory, were put into the hands of Christ, and made his care and charge.

John

lionovjudah
01-27-06, 09:58 AM
Indeed Joe...but think of the OT saints...did God charge their debt until the resurection of Christ?

No Mike. Because Scripture says they looked forward to the Sacrafice of Christ. And His death was efficacious to them because of the promise. The OT saints were trusting in the promised work to be accomplished by the messiah.

Plus as I mentioned earlier in my understanding of eternal justification is it is not linear at all. Chtrists Atonement is the hub of all Atonement. This timelessness is shown in many verses.

to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." Revelation 13:8

Look at what moses and elijah have to say here:

And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." Luke 9:30, 31

"But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor....he [a child] is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
(Gal 3:25; 4:3-5)


These scriptures show the death of Christ is the beginning, center, and end of all redemptive history. And again, "Without the shedding of Blood, there is NO remission." So the eternal element of His death is accomplished at the cross.

harald
01-27-06, 10:04 AM
John Gipson,

I believe you. Here is the URL to the article I had in mind. I believe it is composed by one Jonathan Crosby, who seems to be the main man behind the website. I post the URL for the reason that I brought this up, but I do not endorse the site or the author due to some unscriptural things he holds (e.g. water baptism, KJV onlyism, and I also believe he holds Conditional Time Salvation). I do acknowledge he teaches some things aright.

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/salvation/when-were-you-saved.htm


Harald

harald
01-27-06, 10:36 AM
Joe,

I do not believe you are reading the WC wrongly. I have known all along that WC is a solafideite confession, and that the penners were solafideites (JBG at point of Christ-ward faith). They believed precisely as Luther, and as a matter of fact I believe they basically got their notion from him. He is the main promoter of solafideism in the last centuries. I posted a load of quotes from his Galatians commentary in another thread some weeks ago which clearly show he was a zealot for the notion of JBG at the point of Christ-ward faith. Someone did not like it that I thus posted and said something to the import that I sound like a broken record, if I recall aright, but no one was able to come to Luther's defense. The evidence is there, and it is irrefutable. Luther, as far as I am aware, is the first Bible translator in modern times to have wrested "faith of Jesus Christ" into "faith IN Jesus Christ". It can be seen all over his German Bible where this formula occurs, and where the formula is "faith of Jesus" and "faith of Christ" in the correctly rendered versions. The first, as far as I know, to follow him in this new translation-novelty, this wresting, was Miles Coverdale. Tyndale greatly looked up to Luther I've understood, but in e.g. Rom. 3:22 I think Tyndale corectly renders "faith OF Jesus Christ". I have Tyndale's version so I can check if need be. It may be intersting to know that both the Syriac Peshitta (reportedly 2nd century) and the Vulgate render correctly, "faith of Jesus Christ", in Rom. 3:22. I recall also that Wycliffe has the correct rendereing, and he reportedly translated the Vulgate. Beza's Latin NT from the 1550's got it right in every instance. Geneva Bible got it right most of the time if not always. Castalio's Latin NT from the 1550's got it right in most places if I recall aright. The papist Douay Rheims version of the 1580's got it right. Bishops Bible got it right. The Spanish version of de Reina of 1569 got it right. Valera's revision of it of 1602 got it right. KJV got it right but not in 3:26b. Diodati's Italian version got it right in some places. The Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637 got it right every time I think.
The only Bible translator of those old times who I can think of who consistently wrested "faith of Jesus Christ" into "faith IN" (Germ. Glauben an) was Luther. As a matter of fact every time it occurs in Paul, viz. Rom. 3:22a, 26b, Gal. 2:16 (2x), Gal. 3:22, Phil. 3:9, also Eph. 3:12 ("faith of him"), Luther wrested it. Evidencing his unregeneracy. He never knew the Scriptural and Pauline truth concerning JBG, he was in darkness and ignorance of God's gospel. So it was also with the WC penners, and so it has been with countless would-be Christians after them, both Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) and Arminians.


Harald

lionovjudah
01-27-06, 10:51 AM
Harald:

Why dont you just have brandan put this repeated haranguing you do against Luther, and now Calvin somehere on this site engraved in stone. Give it a name, and just reference that name instead of you haveing to repeat it daily in some way or another. Would this not save you time and energy and anxiety? Call it "Harald's Broken Record" So when you feel the need to regurgitate the above post, you can just nicely say "Reference Harald's Broken Record":D :D

Now dont get upset or rebuke me, I am just lightening up the mood!!!!!


Enjoy the Finlandia HArald!!!! Try it with a twist...

jmgipson
01-27-06, 11:23 AM
Harold,
I went to the website and now I know why it was not signed by the writer:


Why are your documents not signed?

First, we have no ambition for notoriety, popularity, or recognition by anyone on this earth. If we do all we are supposed to do in serving the Lord Jesus Christ, our attitude at the end will be, ďWe are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to doĒ (Luke 17:10 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=42017010','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))). We hope we have John the Baptistís attitude, ďHe must increase, but I must decreaseĒ (John 3:30 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=43003030','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))).

Second, we try to back up our assertions with the Scriptures, and the blessed God should need no endorsement or recommendation. If the Bible says it, then that settles it. The regenerate elect of God tremble before His word, and a precept of Scripture is more than sufficient for them (Is 66:2 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=23066002','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')); Ps 119:128 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=19119128','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))).

Third, what difference does it make? Only a person seeking an ad hominem argument would even ask the question. Who cares about who said or wrote something? If it is true on its own merit, believe it. If it is false on its own merit, reject it. Elihu was a young fool in comparison to the four old wise men in the book of Job, but only he had inspired understanding of the situation at hand (Job 32:1-14 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=18032001&vt=18032014','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))).

Fourth, remember the higher a personís education or intelligence, the lower the probability for truth or wisdom from that person (Matt 11:25-27 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=40011025&vt=40011027','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')); I Cor 1:19-20 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=46001019&vt=46001020','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')); 2:14-16 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=46002014&vt=46002016','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')); 3:19-20 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=46003019&vt=46003020','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))). The scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, educated scholars all, were nothing compared to the Bereans (Acts 17:11 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=44017011','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))). The apostles of Jesus Christ, ignorant fishermen that they were, annihilated the wisdom of the Jews and Greeks of their day. The Word of a God is a hammer and fire that can break in pieces all the dreams and thoughts of men (Jer 23:28-29 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=24023028&vt=24023029','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))).

Fifth, we want any believer to be able to use the material in any way they choose, as long as they maintain the same overall intent. Anyone is free to copy any document, plagiarize it, alter it, or make it better, without giving us any credit or linking to our website! Truth is the gift of God, and it is free to any who will buy it (Pr 23:23 (javascript:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=20023023','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')))! Give God the glory; you need not even thank us.

I still put names to writings if I know them.

GraceAmbassador
01-27-06, 01:02 PM
Harold,
I went to the website and now I know why it was not signed by the writer:


Why are your documents not signed?

First, we have no ambition for notoriety, popularity, or recognition by anyone on this earth. If we do all we are supposed to do in serving the Lord Jesus Christ, our attitude at the end will be, ďWe are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to doĒ (Luke 17:10 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=42017010','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))). We hope we have John the Baptistís attitude, ďHe must increase, but I must decreaseĒ (John 3:30 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=43003030','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))).

Second, we try to back up our assertions with the Scriptures, and the blessed God should need no endorsement or recommendation. If the Bible says it, then that settles it. The regenerate elect of God tremble before His word, and a precept of Scripture is more than sufficient for them (Is 66:2 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=23066002','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')); Ps 119:128 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=19119128','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))).

Third, what difference does it make? Only a person seeking an ad hominem argument would even ask the question. Who cares about who said or wrote something? If it is true on its own merit, believe it. If it is false on its own merit, reject it. Elihu was a young fool in comparison to the four old wise men in the book of Job, but only he had inspired understanding of the situation at hand (Job 32:1-14 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=18032001&vt=18032014','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))).

Fourth, remember the higher a personís education or intelligence, the lower the probability for truth or wisdom from that person (Matt 11:25-27 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=40011025&vt=40011027','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')); I Cor 1:19-20 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=46001019&vt=46001020','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')); 2:14-16 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=46002014&vt=46002016','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')); 3:19-20 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=46003019&vt=46003020','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))). The scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, educated scholars all, were nothing compared to the Bereans (Acts 17:11 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=44017011','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))). The apostles of Jesus Christ, ignorant fishermen that they were, annihilated the wisdom of the Jews and Greeks of their day. The Word of a God is a hammer and fire that can break in pieces all the dreams and thoughts of men (Jer 23:28-29 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=24023028&vt=24023029','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars=yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes'))).

Fifth, we want any believer to be able to use the material in any way they choose, as long as they maintain the same overall intent. Anyone is free to copy any document, plagiarize it, alter it, or make it better, without giving us any credit or linking to our website! Truth is the gift of God, and it is free to any who will buy it (Pr 23:23 (http://javascript<b></b>:newWindow('/verse.asp?vf=20023023','Verse',400,200,'scrollbars =yes, titlebar=no, resizable=yes')))! Give God the glory; you need not even thank us.

I still put names to writings if I know them.

Well, Brandan and all moderators:

It seems as if the guys who wrote the article have the same mindset that we have here at 5solas. As such, there is no condemnation for or problems about Jmgipson posting a nameless quote.

As for me this issue is over and explained to full satisfaction.

No problem at all!

Milt

Saint Nicholas
01-27-06, 01:11 PM
Nicholas, we have some Catholics that drop in every now and then. Your experience and knowledge of Catholicism will be a great contribution to this website! If you want you can start some threads targeting specific issues in the Catholic cult.

Thank you, Michael.
I want to make myself absolutely clear. I will never intend to abuse my privileges, in the use of this forum, by turning it into an Anti-Catholic forum. There are plenty of other websites for that cause. However, I would only use Catholic teachings when absolutely necessary, to show how Protestant, Evangelicals, and non-catholic churches, are going back home to Rome (MAMA) in ecumenical unity. But not only in outward unity, but also in theology.
Why do you think J.I. Packer apostatized himself, by signing ECT 1 and ECT 2. ?

Yours in Christ.......Nicholas

Saint Nicholas
01-27-06, 01:16 PM
1) There is justification to an audience of the human subjective mind.
2) There is justification to an audience of God's subjective mind.

#1 is for the benefit of the human and is fully subjective to the human mind. Human subjectivity does not determine objective truth. There is objective truth outside of human subjectivity.

#2 is commonly termed "objective justification" - it is subjective to God's mind. Truth subjective to God is the very definition of objective truth. Something is true only because God knows it to be true.

I think that most of us can agree that justification to the audience of the human mind is by faith. Faith delivers the subjective message of objective truth.

The discussion now is over when the audience of God's mind subjectively (and therefore objectively) sees His elect as righteous. To propose that God "learns" of a truth in time is absurd. God's omniscience is self-sufficient. He knows things to be true because it is His will that they be true. His knowledge is removed from time in every way - it is eternal. To propose that the audience of God's mind sees the elect as righteous only at the act of Christ's death in time is to subject God to His own creation - time.

The Lord Jesus Christ and His work were "foreknown before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20). It is obvious that God is the one foreknowing this redemption and accounting His elect blameless in eternity, apart from the trappings of time. To deny "justification in eternity" is to deny that the elect are justified AT ALL in the eternal mind of God. God is the eternal "I AM". If it is true in His mind, then it has always been true; and further, is true only because it is true in His mind.

I do not believe that one must (or even CAN) divorce justification from the cross in order to believe in justification in eternity.


bravo !!

Saint Nicholas
01-27-06, 01:26 PM
St Nick: You lost me on this one. Perhaps some lingering affects of years of rc incense? :D


HA! HA!....not only incense, but I was a midnite TOKER back then. Thank Our Lord for the Amazing Grace, He had thus bestowed on me a miserable sinner.

What was your question pertaining to the post? :p

lionovjudah
01-27-06, 01:43 PM
HA! HA!....not only incense, but I was a midnite TOKER back then. Thank Our Lord for the Amazing Grace, He had thus bestowed on me a miserable sinner.

What was your question pertaining to the post? :p

I dont have a question because the metaphors gave me brain freeze!!!! Let us just move on, it will be much safer for my senility!!!!!!!!!

Bob Higby
01-27-06, 02:51 PM
Mike: So when Paul speaks of us being new creatures he is speaking of us being creatures living in a new order?

Exactly, I love your way of putting it! The new order is inagurated by Christ and already perfect in him; we are a part of it because we are in him. We also already experience it in our own souls, albeit imperfectly.

On the matter of time vs. eternity in justification, I still can't see the distinction between the two when it comes to the mind and purposes of God. Even though the moment that our justification is legally constituted (the atonement) is eternally purposed by God, that justification spans all eternal ages being always present in God's purposes

lionovjudah
01-28-06, 07:00 AM
Acts 13:39 LITV

And everyone believing in this One is justified from all things which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses.

YLT: Act 13:39 and from all things from which ye were not able in the law of Moses to be declared righteous, in this one every one who is believing is declared righteous;


At first glance this appears to order the events of believing then justification.

now I know this is hard to ask, but without theological prejudice, can someone please construct the greek of this for me.

harald
01-28-06, 12:49 PM
Joe,

Here is a literal English rendering of v. 39, following the Greek word order of the Textus Receptus. With some technical data in parentheses. In places where a hyphen binds words together it means these words correspond to one word in the Greek.

39 And away-from all-things which absolutely-not [OUK, objective (and stronger) negation] you-were-able [even once, aorist tense] in the law of-Moses to-be-justified [once for all, aorist tense] in this-one every one [lit. "the"] believing [present participle, not aorist] is-being-justified [present tense, not aorist - the once-for-all tense]

First a word of remark. The verb "to be able" (here edunÍthÍte) is a "passive deponent". To be brief, it is considered as Active, but morphologically it is a Passive. I rendered according to "deponency", thus "you were able (even once)". Rendering according to strict morphology (Pass. voice) it would be "you were enabled/made able (even once)".
Then. "every one believing" (or "every believing individual" or "every believer") is descriptive, not prescriptive. It answers the question "what kind of characters are they that are benefiting from God's action of justifying ?". Moreover, inasmuch as the verb "to believe" is in the present participle form it does not talk about a once-for-all believing. Rather it could be rendered "every one continuously believing". So, if anyone presumes to use this verse to prove that justification before God follows from initial Christ-ward belief let them know that they have to render continuous belief according to this verb's form here. A one time (initial) believing won't do, the form being present participle. Besides, the "in" of "IN this one" is the preposition EN (in, within, inside, in the sphere of), not EIS (toward, into).
More. Inasmuch as the last verb "to justify" is in the present tense it also strongly suggests the action of the verb is ongoing, not once-for-all (as with aorist). I rendered "is being justified", which, if bringing out the force of the present tense with emphasis, can be rendered "is continually being justified". But, inasmuch as the latter would look like as if meaning "is being justified again and again" it is more proper to render "is being accounted righteous (on a constant basis)".


Here is the same verse with minimum adjustment of word order for the sake of understandable English, and with punctuation, and some other "cosmetic" changes.

39 And from all things which you were absolutely not even once able/enabled in the law of Moses to be justified, in this one every believing individual is being accounted righteous.

Comment: Now this is literal, and it is simple. In no way is Paul here setting forth an initial once-for-all Christ-ward trust/belief as preceeding JBG. What he was saying to those that heard him was that every believer is being (indicative mood, present tense = just at this moment of speaking) accounted righteous "in this one", viz. in Christ as the sphere of the being accounted righteous by God the Father. The "is being accounted righteous" was the same as to say that God the Father was (at that time, and of course everlastingly onwards) in the business of constantly esteeming and accounting and considering "every believing individual" as perfectly righteous in His sight.

As for LITV's rendering it unwarrantedly changes the word order into "believing in". YLT is literal, with the exception that it changes the participle present "believing" into an indicative "is believing", and adds a "who" with no counterpart in the Greek, and renders the last "to justify" ambigously as "is declared righteous". I mean ambiguously in the sense that "is declared righteous" looks like as if the Greek either has a perfect indicative passive (has been declared righteous) or a timeless aorist indicative passive (is/gets once for all declared righteous, or, justified), which latter form is best translated by the English simple present. But inasmuch as the Greek has the present passive indicative the English continuous present ("is being ...") does more justice to the Greek form.

So, to me it is very clear what Paul was signifying to his audience in Acts 13:39:

"in Christ every believer here is being accounted righteous by God. God the Father is in the business of accounting and esteeming you as perfectly righteous in His incarnate Son, your Saviour Jesus Christ".

If some hearers understood Paul's words in the Greek as meaning that their believing had led to, or occasioned, their being accounted righteous before God then they were unregenerate. I do not think anyone who heard Paul and who were familiar with the Koine Greek could have thus misunderstood his words. They are too clear as they stand written in the original tongue.
But today we have unstable and unlearned "Reformed" scholars like Jay P Green Sr., translator of LITV (otherwise a fairly literal and worthwhile version), wresting the Greek so as to make it support solafideism. Woe on the such.

Harald

whs1
01-28-06, 08:04 PM
I saw someone quote the Westminster Confession...well here is the way it should read...



4. "God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are justified" "from all eternity by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone [excluding inherent grace and charity shed abroad in the heart by the holy ghost] and alone bounty of god; which is grace, which only doth justify us."




This is what God has to say about the Westminster lie there.

The Eastminster Confession of Faith
which can be found here...


Page 1 - Go To - http://mysite.verizon.net/resor7ps/protestant1.htm (http://mysite.verizon.net/resor7ps/protestant1.htm)

To God be all the glory from now to all eternity!


Bill:D

Mark Lewis
01-29-06, 03:12 AM
Brandon, I noticed your response to this person. In Catholic theology, regeneration occurs at baptism. This then allows for the possibilty of faith, which if present and sustained, would result in justification. But either way you slice it, there's is a synergistic viewpoint. Mark.

Brandan
01-29-06, 07:02 AM
Brandon, I noticed your response to this person. In Catholic theology, regeneration occurs at baptism. This then allows for the possibilty of faith, which if present and sustained, would result in justification. But either way you slice it, there's is a synergistic viewpoint. Mark.
I think you have me confused with John :)

jmgipson
01-29-06, 11:18 AM
Brandon, I noticed your response to this person. In Catholic theology, regeneration occurs at baptism. This then allows for the possibilty of faith, which if present and sustained, would result in justification. But either way you slice it, there's is a synergistic viewpoint. Mark.

Mark,
That was me that had a misunderstanding of terms with St. Nicholas. He gave me a run down of how the terms are explained in Romes view which made sense. I now understand how the Romish terms are defined.

John

Bob Higby
01-30-06, 02:29 AM
But today we have unstable and unlearned "Reformed" scholars like Jay P Green Sr., translator of LITV (otherwise a fairly literal and worthwhile version), wresting the Greek so as to make it support solafideism. Woe on the such.

Solafideism is not what we are debating here! We have gone over that one again and again--but let's not diverge into it while on this subject. The view of sola fide that I support has been clearly distinguished from the typical Reformed or Lutheran approach; though there are similarities.

On the Acts 13:39 issue, yes-- the Greek clearly indicates that justification is not time-bound by the act of believing: those who presently believe are those WHO were already perfectly justified (before faith) and continue to be justified now and forever.

lionovjudah
01-30-06, 06:08 AM
On the Acts 13:39 issue, yes-- the Greek clearly indicates that justification is not time-bound by the act of believing: those who presently believe are those WHO were already perfectly justified (before faith) and continue to be justified now and forever.

Thanks Bob.

What about the verse "All those ordained .....believed" In the same chapter I believe. The principle must be different here then.

jmgipson
01-30-06, 06:53 AM
I was reading the tread My views concerning the different aspects of Justification this morning and there is alot of good writings on this subject if anyone is interested.

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1775

John

Brandan
02-01-06, 02:15 PM
For years, many sovereign grace churches have boldly and openly taught of a salvation in Christ that is completely dependent upon His obedience in life and at the cross. A complete dependence upon Christ is what unites men together as brethren, as the only form of unity is doctrinal unity. And the central doctrine which unites all believers is the doctrine of Christ which of course must include His substitionary life and death for His people. This is simple and straight forward. Yet sadly, this good news (gospel) for Godís people has been corrupted over the years and men have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:25).

Because of the vast web of deceit that has been spun by religious zealots and works mongerers, even Godís people have not always held a very clear understanding of the once for all at-one-ment. There has been a cloud of fuzz that has hovered over menís minds for many centuries, and I for one am glad to see many men and women including myself break through this fog and by Godís Grace throw down the baggage that has plagued us for so many years. One of the things that many have come to understand with more clarity is the timing of imputation and when it is based upon. In Albany, it was such a joy to see men and women buzzing with their recent discovery of righteousness being imputed based on the moment of the finished legal obedience of Christ (the cross). Most, if not all (including myself) at one point in their lives had been taught and erroneously believed that the timing of Godís constituting of righteousness occurs at the time the Holy Spirit gives faith to an individual. This belief, in my opinion, and in the minds of many other men logically leads to a form of conditionalism that is not based upon Christ and His work, but the work of the Holy Spirit. Much like the Roman Catholic dogma of infused righteousness, one could easily be led to believe that the constituting of righteousness is not based upon the obedience of Christ, but the presence of some other quality (eg. faith) within an individual.

This basic understanding of the cross being the entire focal point of history and the purpose of God from eternity by which the elect are constituted as righteous is something that has been absent from preaching for much too long. It is time that all of us who claim to love the Gospel of an accomplished salvation openly submit to and rejoice in this plain truth. If we do not understand the issue, then we must be willing to examine our doctrine and even be willing to change for the sake of the truth. If men and women are to be experientially united in Christ, then we must be clear on our understanding of justification for there is not a more important doctrine in the entire Bible! An indifferent attitude toward, or an unwillingness to discuss justification and the different perspectives of it is something that is not tolerable, and we must be strive with each other patiently in honest and open discussion if we are to maintain any form of fellowship with each other.

With this being stated, I must write about a situation that is very personal and has the potential to either destroy relationships between like-minded believers or I hope bring about a reconciliation and rejoicing in the truth! What we are facing is a situation just as explosive as the ďmade sinĒ controversy that to this day is causing church splits and strife across the globe. In my opinion, the topic of Christ being made sin by imputation cannot be entirely divorced from the current dispute over the timing of imputation of righteousness because these topics both deal with the very core of Christianity ó the substitionary death of Christ. So what we are dealing with for all intents and purposes is the nature of Christís substitution, what it has accomplished, and what benefits it continues to bring to Godís people.

This situation involves Scott Price and the Gospel of Grace church congregation in Cincinnati, OH. Scott is a man who has been helpful to me in learning much of the truth but has taken a position that I believe is contrary to that which is taught in Scripture. He and his church in Cincinnati, OH have not yet learned like many have recently that imputation of righteousness as far as God is concerned took place in Christís substitutionary death. They believe, like many, that imputation of righteousness does not occur until at or just before a person has faith. What their position actually is, Iím not fully aware of as I have not seen an actual detailed explanation of it. Iím hoping that this article would motivate them to actually publish their position and answer any questions that we might have about it.

As far as God was concerned, from eternity (as God is eternal and not temporally bound), He has looked upon Christ as the once and for all substitution for His people. He does not look to any other moment in time except the cross where He has no need to wait until an individual possesses faith before He transfers righteousness to their account. In fact, the very reason a person has faith is because righteousness has already been put to their account in the eternal mind of God. An elect personís entire life is a result of the cross which involves their entire pre-conversion state. From the moment in time that one of Godís elect is born, the events of their life are directed and purposed by God for that personís benefit. All that God has purposed for that person is because of Godís love for that individual, and that love must be conditioned upon something, which of course is the righteousness of Christ! A question Scott and others like him must ask themselves is what is Godís love conditioned upon? Is it just a willy-nilly love that results in an imputed righteousness, or is it actually based upon righteousness itself? And if Godís love is conditioned upon imputed righteousness, then how in the world is it possible for imputed righteousness to occur at the time of faith or any other moment in time?

Before we continue, we must all ask ourselves what imputation is and where exactly imputation takes place so that we can understand when it takes place. Is the act of imputation something that is physical, or is it something that has occurred in the mind of God? I think we can all safely conclude that imputation is not something that occurs outside the mind of God. Let it not be understood that I do not think the consequences of imputation are not real, such as Christ suffering the wrath of God at His appointed time. However, sin and righteousness are not physical properties, but they are all legal principles that are defined by God and judged by God. Something is deemed as righteous or sinful because God defines it as such ó period. Therefore imputation then must be understood as something that occurs in the mind of God because it is something that He has defined. He being the Almighty has the authority and power to deem something as righteous or unrighteous simply because HE is God and can do whatever He pleases. Therefore we must not see the death of Christ as something that had to take place because Godís justice was at stake; but we must view it in light of the fact that His death was necessary to propitiate sin and transfer righteousness to the accounts of the elect because that is exactly what God decreed would be satisfactory to Him. In Godís view of Christ hanging in agony on the cross, God forensically accounted Christ as sinful and He forensically accounted the elect as righteous. There was a judicial exchange in Godís mind of the righteous for the unrighteous and from His perspective all of salvation was accomplished. We must conclude that this is as much true for old testament saints as it is for those in the new testament because Godís view of this was from eternity. This is exactly what I mean when I use the terminology of a vital union. God was not merely an observer of this judicial exchange, but He purposed it and determined it all from eternity and as everything else has always been accomplished from His perspective.

So it is in my opinion not the disagreement on the timing of imputation that has the potential to destroy unity in the Gospel, as imputation is an eternal and immanent act of God. But the real potential for disfellowship lies in the disagreement on the actual moment in time that imputation is based upon! Hopefully we can all agree that imputation is something that occurs in the mind of God and it is something that is transcendent of time as God Himself is timeless. If we can agree on that, then we must strive to come to an understanding of exactly what moment in time that all of imputation is based upon. There can be no such thing as multiple imputations as has been suggested by those who oppose justification from eternity because imputation is something that is timeless and occurs exclusively in the mind of God. Those like Scott who believe that imputation occurs in time (where?) at the time of faith are wrong because they see imputation as a timely event. Based on my observations in Albany, I also think that men like Ken Wimer, Steve Baloga, and David Simpson are also incorrect because they too fail to understand imputation as an immanent act of God. The issue should never be about the timing of imputation because imputation is not something that takes place in time as God is not a timely being. Of course we must never divorce imputation from Christís life and death, because without it imputation is impossible as it was decreed to be dependent upon Calvary.

I personally believe much misunderstanding has taken place because of a failure to understand imputation as an immanent act. Misunderstanding also exists because of an erroneous understanding of eternity and time. For example, I heard David Simpson preach that justification is not something that happens in eternity and then happens at the cross and then later happens at the time of faith. I wholeheartedly agree with him! However, his proclamation in my opinion shows that there is a misunderstanding of exactly what eternity is. Eternity is not an extension of time as so many would have us believe. But eternity is transcendent of time, and while I cannot describe it fully with my limited faculties, I believe the Bible teaches it to be something that surrounds time and is from what all time proceeds. Time is defined as a succession of events, but eternity does not consist of such! All the events of time in the mind of God were decreed in a single moment (see we canít even escape using timely language to describe eternity!) Yes, there was a logical order in the decrees, but they can all be summed up as a single decree. God said let there be light, and there was light! Could we not also conclude that God also said ďlet my people be righteousĒ, and they were righteous? God perfectly decreed and saw all the events of time, and this includes Christís sacrificial death. These things were not determined because God had to do so in order to abide by some eternal bar of justice which is often taught, but because this was His pleasure. He was pleased to create men and cause them to sin for the purpose of redeeming them in Christ. Adamís fall, and thus his elect posterity was perfectly purposed by God because He had also determined to be glorified in their salvation. And He had everything that He decreed as soon as He thought it as His word is all powerful. He is God! And He needs not wait as an observer for His will to be accomplished! To suggest that He was waiting for something to happen in time (any condition) before He could view His elect as righteous is ludicrous because as far as He was concerned, it had already happened. Yes, the death of Christ, and the condition necessary for imputation of Righteousness was accomplished from His perspective. We may witness the events of time as participants and observers, but God is not merely an observer. He has done it all from beginning to end, and while we may have yet to experience His wonderful creation, we can rest knowing that it is completed in His infinite mind. Let us not take away from this at all!

There can be no reconciliation amongst brethren if we are unwilling to discuss these important topics. I am personally calling upon Scott Price to boldly place his opinion and a defense of his position in a paper. He should welcome all criticism from those who are opposed to him, and he should be willing to change, as should us all, if we are shown that we are holding to an erroneous position. No manís beliefs should be beyond the intense scrutiny of another. I beg those involved in the current controversy to please consider coming to the table together without hostility in hopes of searching the Scriptures and learning together. I of course believe everything Iíve written in this paper is correct, or I wouldnít have written it. But I do not believe I am beyond reinvestigating the Scripture in order to learn more of the truth, or even changing my opinion if shown to be wrong. I welcome the scrutiny and challenges of others as I know that in answering, I will either be further convinced of the truth, or by Godís Grace, I will be shown to be wrong and be forced to change my position. I also think this is the attitude of Scott Price, Bill Parker, Ken Wimer, and David Simpson. They have shown themselves in my opinion to be honorable men and zealous for the truth. I therefore fully expect them to work this issue out. This is an appeal to patience, humility, and honesty. Let us not be like others who are puffed up and show ourselves to be blustering fools if we are shown to be incorrect in our position. Also, please let us put aside for a moment the issue of whether or not we accept each other as brothers in Christ. Let us approach the table together in hopes of learning from the Lord. The ball is in everyoneís court. How will you respond?

Brandan
02-01-06, 04:40 PM
He does not look to any other moment in time except the cross where He has no need to wait until an individual possesses faith before He transfers righteousness to their account.Correction! He looks at the entire life of obedience of Christ which is culminated at the cross!

Saint Nicholas
02-01-06, 07:24 PM
Dear Brandon............I am overly joyed, that you and many of the brethren on this site, SEE that the Primacy of Justification is the central issue, that the church either stands or falls.

I have been contending for the past 20 years or so, that most professed Christians and theological seminaries, (not all), have abandoned the true doctrine of Justification, in favor of the Heretical Roman Church's View.

Many protestant seminiaries, have been thoroughly penetrated by clever Jesuits posing as protestent theologians, to spread their venomous doctrine of gratia infusa.

Any understanding of Justification that would insist that man must first believe, via regeneration (Augustine) or without regeneration (Arminius),as a condition TO BE JUSTIFIED, Is teaching a GRACE-WORKS gospel. This is not a JUSTIFICATION ACCORDING TO ROMANS.

It's either GRACE or WORKS. Not a synthesis.

Ro. 11:5-6..." Even so at this present time also there is a remnant according to the e lection of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work ".

Love you in Christ,
Nicholas

GraceAmbassador
02-01-06, 09:24 PM
Dear Brandon............I am overly joyed, that you and many of the brethren on this site, SEE that the Primacy of Justification is the central issue, that the church either stands or falls.

Many protestant seminiaries, have been thoroughly penetrated by clever Jesuits posing as protestent theologians, to spread their venomous doctrine of gratia infusa.



Love you in Christ,
Nicholas



Of of them is your "buddy" TreyFrog... according to some reliable sources.


Any understanding of Justification that would insist that man must first believe, via regeneration (Augustine) or without regeneration (Arminius),as a condition TO BE JUSTIFIED, Is teaching a GRACE-WORKS gospel. This is not a JUSTIFICATION ACCORDING TO ROMANS.

Yes! Justification is the CENTRAL issue of our Christian faith! Christianity would be nothing but an insignificant Jewish sect would it not be by the doctrine of Justification by God with no sinergy with "believing" or "positive acceptance" as if God needs our sympathy first to save us! Keep reminding us of Justification as the central issue, Saint!

Milt

Saint Nicholas
02-01-06, 10:06 PM
Of of them is your "buddy" TreyFrog... according to some reliable sources.



Yes! Justification is the CENTRAL issue of our Christian faith! Christianity would be nothing but an insignificant Jewish sect would it not be by the doctrine of Justification by God with no sinergy with "believing" or "positive acceptance" as if God needs our sympathy first to save us! Keep reminding us of Justification as the central issue, Saint!

Milt


Milt........Who in the heck is TreyFrog ? :confused:


In Christ,
Nicholas

Brandan
02-01-06, 10:25 PM
Milt........Who in the heck is TreyFrog ? :confused:


In Christ,
NicholasMilt, I think you have Nicholas confused with TartanArmy. :)

GraceAmbassador
02-01-06, 11:08 PM
Milt, I think you have Nicholas confused with TartanArmy. :)

Yup! I did! Signs of old age!

Sorry!

Milt

ray kikkert
02-02-06, 09:35 AM
Milt........Who in the heck is TreyFrog ? :confused:


In Christ,
Nicholas

Nicholas, thank you for that reply of yours above.

This "trey frog" is "dave ponter" . His replies are on this forum if you want to see what breaking of wind he has belched forth. He prides himself in prostituting John Calvin's commentaries and institutes to satisfy his own doctrinal lusts and makes Calvin out to be advocating heretical arminian doctrine.

I consider him my enemy and hope he repents of his twisting of Scripture.

Brandan
02-02-06, 09:45 AM
Nicholas, thank you for that reply of yours above.

This "trey frog" is "dave ponter" . His replies are on this forum if you want to see what breaking of wind he has belched forth. He prides himself in prostituting John Calvin's commentaries and institutes to satisfy his own doctrinal lusts and makes Calvin out to be advocating heretical arminian doctrine.

I consider him my enemy and hope he repents of his twisting of Scripture.Actually Trey Frog isn't Ponter. Trey is some other twisted individual! I have talked personally with him, and believe he lives in Arkansas. Ponter is an Aussie!

ray kikkert
02-02-06, 10:32 AM
Actually Trey Frog isn't Ponter. Trey is some other twisted individual! I have talked personally with him, and believe he lives in Arkansas. Ponter is an Aussie!

That is right, sorry about that, Mr. Ponter was some "flynn" name on this forum.

"trey frog" is Trey Austin
Pastor, Coeburn (VA) Presbyterian Church (PCA) and a mutual acquaintance of ours on the CO-URC forum. Back then he was in seminary training, now a minister in the PCA.

Have you had any recent interaction with Mr. Austin?

GraceAmbassador
02-02-06, 10:42 AM
Ray:

The secure information I have is that about two years ago TreyFrog was defrocked from his youth pastorship. Brian (Ref. Presby or John6:37) knows the details. Apparently he was defrocked for some trust issue, such as his love for the Roman Catholics, however this could very well be gossip. The only thing is sure is that he was defrocked.

Milt

lionovjudah
02-02-06, 12:15 PM
We cannot sever imputation from justification, or union with Christ. Scriptures says Christ died for the ungodly. Righteouss for the unrighteouss. Is justification the fruit of union and imputation?

What think ye? How do these relate to each other. Is there an order or are the simutaneous!!!

Brandan
02-03-06, 04:28 PM
John Gill wrote in his body of doctrinal divinity, ďNow, as before observed, as Godís will to elect, is the election of his people, so his will to justify them, is the justification of them; as it is an immanent act in God, it is an act of his grace towards them, is wholly without them, entirely resides in the divine mind, and lies in his estimating, accounting, and constituting them righteous, through the righteousness of his Son; and, as such, did not first commence in time, but from eternity.Ē

Now, I have been trying to think of a clearer statement on the doctrine of justification from eternity because of all the confusion that seems to surround it. Here Gill clearly states that Godís will to justify His people which is connected to His election of them exists entirely in His mind. He doesnít use the word imputation, but he uses words to describe what imputation is. Imputation of righteousness means that God ďestimates, accounts, and constitutesĒ a group of people as Righteousness. Where? His Divine Mind. And when does God think something? We cannot say that God thinks of anything in time as He is timeless, so therefore we must believe that all things are thought by God from eternity, and this includes the charging of sins to Christ and the constituting the elect as righteouss. I now think Gill would have helped his cause more if he had used the word of ďimputationĒ in place of ďjustificationĒ.

I now perceive that much confusion abounds over this doctrine because of Gillís semantics. I do not disagree with Gillís terminology, but I am willing to change my jargon for the sake of those who have difficulty with it. Those that arenít of the fullerist persuasion and teach against justification from eternity have opposed it because they see it as something that competes with the cross of Christ. If this doctrine competes with the cross of Christ, then I would most certainly agree with them. But I do not see that! And after thinking about this all week, Iíve concluded that justification from eternity could be considered as poor terminology by many and easily misunderstood. I think I understand where the opposers are coming from although I am still unwilling to admit that Gill was perfectly clear.

The act of justification, that is the act of Christ dying for His people did not take place in eternity. Therefore, we cannot say the necessary work for justification took place IN eternity. It took place in time. Please do not misunderstand me on this very important point. Surely we can all agree on this! There are not multiple imputations just as there are not multiple justifications. There is only ONE JUSTIFICATION! There was no more work that needed to be done for salvation by Christ or the Holy Spirit after the cross because it was completed in Christ. All of the work was finished. Done. Complete. FINITO! I donít think Scott Price or any of the parties involved with this important discussion would disagree with me on this. We should all be able to say that it was in VIEW OF Christís finished work that Godís people were accounted as righteous (past tense), and this was a timely event.

But what are we to think of imputation? Where or when does that take place? Was there a physical court that surrounded the cross of Christ where God accounted the elect as righteous in time? No! Of course not! And donít try to tell me that such an absurdity occurred such as the preterists claim when they spew forth their ungodly babble with the idea that God entered into a physical heavenly holy of hollies in 70AD. Imputation is completed. And it hasnít taken place in time at all. All of Godís accounting and constituting is from eternity, as He Himself is eternal. He accounts things as such, and His accounting of them does not change, as eternity is changeless - indeed God Himself is immutable. He is the Lord, and He changeth not. God does change things, but He Himself does not change. This world is constantly changing from one moment to the next, yet we can rest knowing that He does not change or is moved. So if the work of justification is done in time, perhaps a more appropriate term for justification from eternity should be imputation from eternity. There is no other imputation than that which is from eternity. Imputation does not take place in time. The effects of it do, as His accounting changes things, but His accounting itself does not.

Those involved with this discussion, please understand that I am opposed with all of my being the concept of multiple imputations. There are not multiple accountings or constitutions. There is only one constitution of anything, and that is from eternity. And Godís accounting is in no means ďfictional!Ē Who would dare call Godís thoughts ďlegal fiction?Ē No sir, as far as Iím concerned, if God thinks itís real, then itís real! If God viewed His Son as sinful while He was on the cross, then Christ was truly treated as such. He did not become sinful in His person, but He knew that God would account Him as such. Christ knew it and He suffered. Why? Because that is exactly what God decreed would be satisfactory to Him. And Godís imputation of righteousness is real as well. It need not be imparted or infused to make it real, because Godís accounting is perfect! I know Iím digressing a bit here, but if we are going to make something that God accounts as ďunrealĒ, we are spitting in the face of God! Who are we to say to God what is real and what is not? If He says something is righteous from His perspective, then thatís all we need to hear. That is why the elect rejoice in the cross of Christ because as far as God is concerned, HE REALLY SAW HIS ELECT AS RIGHTEOUS! And my friends, that is all that really matters to me. Did God see me as Righteous in Christ at the cross? When God looked upon Christ on the cross, was He thinking how unrighteous His sheep were? Please, donít think that was so! He was most definitely looking upon Christ in pleasure as that is what He had determined would make His sheep righteous in His sight, and that He would be glorified in doing so.

So as much as I respect John Gill, and his doctrine of Justification from Eternity, and understand completely what he meant by that term, I now propose changing the name of it. Imputation from Eternity with the physical work of making an individual ďrightĒ before the sight of God occurring in time is what I will attempt to convey to individuals from now on. The work of justification occurred in time and imputation of righteousness is the eternal and immanent act of God. Let us strive to come to a better understanding of these concepts, as I believe they are very important.

Mickey
02-03-06, 06:11 PM
Justification is a simple act of the divine eternal mind, or the absolute determination of God not to impute sin to his people, and to place the righteousness of Christ to their account. Deny the eternity of this determination, and where is the immutability of deity? Can it be said, with truth, that new resolutions are formed in the mind of God, and yet that he is unchangeable ? Surely not, for in that very moment in which he forms a new design, mutability attaches to his character, and his glory is tarnished. Let us then be careful, not to maintain a favourite notion at the expense of our Maker's glory. He is the Lord; he changes not. His thoughts, his counsels, his purposes and decrees, are, like the perfections of his nature, without the shadow of a change.

-Job Hupton


Amen!

jmgipson
02-03-06, 06:27 PM
If there could be an intervention of God's power between his decree in justifying His elect and their justification itself, this would be sufficient evidence that God's mere decree to create, gives no actual being to anything, nor does His will and purpose to justify give existence or being to justification.

Unknown author

Amen to Job quote Michael.

ray kikkert
02-03-06, 08:06 PM
If there could be an intervention of God's power between his decree in justifying His elect and their justification itself, this would be sufficient evidence that God's mere decree to create, gives no actual being to anything, nor does His will and purpose to justify give existence or being to justification.

Unknown author

Amen to Job quote Michael.

For us , we maintain that God's sovereign will and purpose must always be the starting point in our exegesis. Our Lord reveals these matters to us in His Word. On the matter of justification it can be rightly said that the Lord in eternity saw us as justified and purposed that this justification would be enacted by His Son, our Saviour, at the cross. These are not 2 justifications but the very same.

I maintain the same for the doctrine of righteousness and the imputation of righteousness.

That firm foundation that God's sovereign purposes are paramount. What a blessing to be busy with learning, and getting understanding of the Lord, to learn more about Him daily. Our Father in heaven, whose Name is hallowed forever, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Thank you for your comments from which I can glean from.

lionovjudah
02-04-06, 07:46 AM
if anyone has time. Read this discourse by Owen.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/just.toc.html

Brandan
02-06-06, 03:57 PM
God is not getting any older. Yes, that's right, He is not old, nor is He young. Indeed, He is timeless. 10,000 years ago, God was as old as He is today. And that is, He is without AGE. If God is to be seen as immutable, then we must comprehend Him to be without time, for time is defined in terms of change itself. God Himself is the beginning and end of time, and it is from HIM (eternity) that all of time proceeds. The Lord we worship is so big that all of creation cannot contain Him (Acts 17:27f). To be blunt, God is simply everywhere and everytime. His mind spans from eternity to eternity, and thus governs all things as well as sees all things at the same time.

Ps 139:7-13, (KJV), Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? (8) If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. (9) If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; (10) Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. (11) If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. (12) Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. (13) For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

Here, the psalmist describes in brilliant detail all the temporal and spatial aspects of what God has created. There is not a place that we can go to escape God's presence which also includes heaven and hell. It is simply not possible to escape from God no matter where we might go or when it might be. If one could build a time machine and jump backwards or forwards in time, God would be there. After time passes, do not think that God has taken His hand off of it.

Heaven is God's throne, and the earth is His footstool (Isa 66:1). His footstool! Can you imagine? God has not taken his hand off of His creation and simply "allowed" time to continue on as so many deists would have us believe. He is constantly interacting with His creation, and as the psalmist quoted above, that darkness and light cannot in any sense be a hindrance to him as neither can time or eternity. He is after all, God.

So what is eternity? Well the bible clearly state that God Himself is eternity and it is where God's inhabitance is found.

Isa 57:15, (KJV), For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Ps 90:2, (KJV), Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.



Everything God thought or purposed is from eternity. From eternity, He created the earth. He did not create time and then move his inhabitance into time in order to create timely things. He has done it all from eternity. His work is from eternity, yet it is completed in time. Thus we can conclude that all things are from eternity, including the justification of men.
The Eternity of God, or his being from everlasting to everlasting, is without succession, or any distinctions of time succeeding one another, as moments, minutes, hours, days, months, and years: the reasons are, because he existed before such were in being; Before the day was, I am he, Isaiah 43:13, before there was a day, before the first day of the cration, before there were any days, consisting of so many hours, and these of so many mintues; and if his eternity past, may it be so called, was without successive duration or without succeeding moments, and other distinctions of time, why not his duration through time, and to all eternity, in the same manner? Should it be said, that days and years are ascribed to God; it is true, they are; but it is in accommodation and condescension to our weak minds, which are not capable of conceiving of duration but as successive: and besides, those days and years ascribed to God are expressly said not to be ours, Job 10:5, He is indeed, called, The Ancient of Days, Daniel 7:13, nat ancient in days, or through them, as aged persons are said to be in years, and well stricken in them; not so God: the meaning is, that he is more ancient than days; he was before all days, and his duration is not to be measured by them. And it may be observed, that the differences and distinctions of time are together ascribed to God, and not as succeeding one another; he is the same yesterday, to day, and for ever; these are all at once, and together with him; he is he which is, and was, and is to come, Hebrews 13:8; Revelation 1:4, these meet together in his name, Jehovah; and so in his nature; he co-exists, with all the points of time, in time; but is unmoved and unaffected with any, as a rock in the rolling waves of the sea, or a tower in a torrent of gliding water; or as the gnomon or stile of a sundial, which has all the hours of the day surrounding it, and the sun, by it casts a shade upon them, points at and distinguishes them, but the stile stands firm and unmoved, and not affected thereby: hence it is that one day with the Lord as a thousand years; and a thousand years as one day, 2 Peter 3:8. But if his duration was successive, or proceeded by succeeding moments, days, and years; one day would be but one day with him, and not a thousand; and a thousand days would answer to a thousand days, and not be as one only. Besides, if his duration was measured by a succession of moments, &c. then he would not be immense, immutable, and perfect, as he is: not immense, or unmeasurable, if to be measured by minutes, hours, days, months, and years; whereas, as he is not to be measured by space, so not by time: nor immutable; since he would be one minute what he was not before, even older, which cannot be said of God; for as a Jewish write well observes, it cannot be said of him, that he is older now than he was in the days of David, or when the world was created; for he is always, both before the world was made, and after it will cease to be; times make no change in him. Nor perfect; for if his duration was successive, there would be every moment something past and gone, lost and irrecoverable; and something to come not yet arrived to and obtained; and in other respects he must be imperfect: the knowledge of God proves him without successive duration. God knows all things, past, present, and to come, that is, which are so to us; not that they are so to him; these he knows at once, and all together, not one thing after another, as they successively come into being; all things are open and manifest to him at once and together, not only what are past and present, but he calls things that are not yet, as though they were; he sees and knows all in one view, in his all-comprehending mind; and as his knowledge is not successive, so not his duration. Moreover, in successive duration, there is an order of former and latter; there must be a beginning from whence every flux of time, every distinction proceeds; every moment and minute has a beginning, from whence it is reckoned, so every hour, day, month, and year: but as it is said of Christ, with respect to his divine nature, so it is true of God, essentially considered, that he has neither beginning of days, nor end of life, Hebrews 7:3. In short, God is Eternity itself, and inhabits eternity; so he did before time, and without succession; so he does throughout time; and so he will to all eternity. (John Gill, The Eternity of God, pp. 97-98)What has been written above is not thought by all those who claim to be Christians. Indeed, the most prevalent notion is the idea that eternity is just another stage of time that existed before the earth existed or is simply a pre-existing extension of time. It is thought that God is timely, just infinitely so. This type of thinking has been propagated by most modern theologians including those who claim to believe sovereign grace. Indeed, even supralapsarian Westminster chairman William Twisse thought of eternity as a previous extension of time! This erroneous thinking is to be found in most protestant thought including fullerists, This understanding for me is unacceptable as it not only the basis for erroneous thinking, but it completely and utterly destroys the concept of God, for what is God without His attributes?

Imagine for a moment that time is a big ruler which we find ourselves standing upon and we are walking on it from left to right. On it, we can barely see what is going to happen on the next centimeter we step across. But God is holding this ruler, and he not only sees what is coming with the next centimeter, but he put everything on the ruler at once, and sees it all at once. He sees a centimeter on this ruler where Christ is seen as the satisfaction for His people. At the same time, he sees the beginning centimeter as well as the centimeter where His people come to know of what happened in the past. That is how God views time, and that is how He views His people in Christ.

Let my people be justified in Christ! God said it! And He said it from eternity where imputation itself takes place. Christ accomplished this justification in time, and God’s elect experience it at the time of faith. It is where they experience the application of it, and it is experienced through the gift of faith alone and not of works lest anyone should boast (Eph. 2:8-9)!

Objections Answered:



While I was at the conference, I had an opportunity to meet with Steve Baloga in person and have a good long discussion with him. He has openly written against Justification from Eternity on the web, and has written to me privately by e-mail. Because of his public attack on the doctrine of Justification from Eternity, then I will also answer him publicly. This answer is not intended to be disrespectful or controversial. But I am only interested in presenting what I believe is the truth for the benefit of the elect. In an e-mail to me in October of 2004, Steve wrote:
I would be disingenuous if I did not exhort you to reconsider your view of eternal justification. Gill had not one legitimate verse of Scripture to support his humanly contrived view. This is akin to mysticism and not objective revelation. Not only were the elect not justified in eternity (meaning before time), the clear revelation of Scripture is that the elect were in fact under the sentence of condemnation after the fall of Adam (Rom 5:12, ff). God did not issue a veiled threat, but the elect were under a real or actual sentence of condemnation until Christ came and removed them from under this sentence. To say the elect were justified from eternity is to say God sentenced them to condemnation while yet justified. This is to impugn the all wise God with confusion. But the confusion lies with us, not God. Regrettably, there are supposed sovereign grace preachers who continue to propagate this blasphemy. I say blasphemy because ANY teaching that competes with justification completely and solely finished at the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is just that -- blasphemy. I hold this heresy to be in the same category as the Reformed heresy of justification by "faith". Both are attempts to pervert the gospel and call attention away from the very heart of the gospel -- justification at the cross of Jesus Christ by sin imputed to His account and His righteousness imputed to the elects' accounts resulting in full justification (Rom 4:25). That is the only justification there is in Scripture. It is the very heart and center of true gospel preaching. It is the very glory of Jesus Christ. Before justification could be declared by God, a real Body had to establish a righteousness under the law and real blood had to be shed. The righteous attribute of God the Son is not and never shall be the righteousness of the saints. It is the righteousness of God that had to be earned in time by Christ that was in turn imputed in time to the saints (Rom 3:21 - note the adverb in the original is in its prolonged form meaning "just now", i.e., after the cross; the righteousness of God "just now" manifested being (formerly) witnessed to by the law and the prophets). This was God's wise design and I cannot go along with those who walk contrary to the this most vital of all gospel truth.

Now in the style of the internet discussion forums, I will break Steve’s argument up line by line and deal with it as I believe it is deserving of a reply.

Steve wrote, “Not only were the elect not justified in eternity (meaning before time), the clear revelation of Scripture is that the elect were in fact under the sentence of condemnation after the fall of Adam (Rom 5:12, ff). God did not issue a veiled threat, but the elect were under a real or actual sentence of condemnation until Christ came and removed them from under this sentence.”

Immediately, Steve strikes out on his understanding of Gill’s doctrine. Gill did not believe or teach that the work of justification took place in eternity, but he believed and taught that it took place from eternity. Gill never taught that Christ’s obedience was wrought out in eternity, but that it was wrought out in time. Gill taught that imputation was an immanent act of God and that it resided solely within the mind of God.
Further, Steve’s quotation of Rom. 5:12 is a typical verse that is quoted against this doctrine.

Rom 5:12, (KJV), Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This condemnation that fell upon Adam and his elect posterity was not a condemnation to hell. But it was a spiritual condemnation. God’s elect are fashioned in iniquity, and have no knowledge of God when they are born. Indeed, they are totally depraved and have no desire of the things of God. They are born spiritually dead. But that does not mean that God views them as those that are on their way to hell. Steve’s thinking is typical of low grace theologians where they see the cross as God’s intervention and something which God must necessarily perform because sin exists. It is true that the cross came about in order to redeem men from sin, but the sinfulness and spiritual death of man was purposed so that Christ would save His people from it. There was never any danger of God’s people falling into hell, even before the cross because the very possibility did not even exist. God Himself did not view His people as headed for hell because He indeed purposed that they would not! The hatred of God has never rested upon His elect whether it is before the cross or after. And besides, after all in this review which has been taught concerning eternity, we should now believe that God views all at once, and we must comprehend things from God’s view of the end instead of the beginning. God sees all of His saints as justified and even glorified (Rom. 8:30) because He sees everything at once and He has already accomplished it.

Steve wrote, “To say the elect were justified from eternity is to say God sentenced them to condemnation while yet justified.”

But God’s people were not sentenced to an everlasting condemnation. They were condemned to be born in spiritual death in order that God’s purpose of raising them in Christ would stand. Like I said above, God never saw them as on their way to hell, for that was not His purpose for them! The cross was not a reaction to the fall, but it was the very reason that the fall took place. The denial of justification from eternity stems from infralapsarian thinking which in my opinion stems from a misunderstanding of what eternity actually is as well as a misunderstanding of who God is. The distinctions between supralapsarian and infralapsarian thinking are much more important than what most theologians would have you to believe. And while some men may hold to supralapsarian tendencies, they still might hold to a infralapsarian thought process as demonstrated here by Baloga. Even John Gill had his inconsistencies, and I have met men who seem to understand justification from eternity, yet hold to an infralapsarian view of the scriptures, thus convoluting and polluting this important doctrine.

Steve wrote: “Regrettably, there are supposed sovereign grace preachers who continue to propagate this blasphemy. I say blasphemy because ANY teaching that competes with justification completely and solely finished at the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is just that -- blasphemy.”

Again, this statement is based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine. In my impromptu follow-up conversation with Steve in Albany I deliberately went out of my way to explain that I agree with his premise. Any teaching that does compete with justification finished at the cross is blasphemy. To state that justification is based upon anything but Christ and His accomplished work is to rob God of His glory which was purposed in the everlasting covenant of grace. Steve agreed with me that Justification was purposed from eternity, but he in my opinion could not successfully defend how a denial of God’s eternal view of the elect as righteous does not destroy the concept of an immutable God.

In our conversation, we also talked about the the Old Testament saints where he commented that they were not seen as righteous until the cross. He referenced Rom. 3:25 where Paul talks about how Christ’s death is a propitiation for those saints who were supposedly suffered by God through His forbearance. Apparently forbearance according to Steve was understood by himto be something that allowed God not to send them to hell immediately for their sins. But Steve believed that righteousness had not been imputed to their account. In a sense, Steve is right. Imputation had not yet been imputed to their account because imputation is something that does not occur in time. It happens in the mind of God, and that is in eternity because that is where He has his inhabitance (see above). The work of Christ was still yet to occur in time from Abraham’s perspective, but that does not mean he was not seen as righteous by God! God’s view of Abraham was identical to that of His view of the post-calvary Christians. He saw Abraham as righteous in Christ, otherwise He would not be able to demonstrate a timely forbearance because any sort of love demonstrated toward Abraham had to be conditioned upon something; and that something was indeed Christ! Forbearance for Abraham meant that God would not crush him because of what Christ was about to do. Abraham had to wait for that time when the messiah would come and bear his sin in his body. The only difference between Abraham and new testament Christians is he looked forward to the cross for the basis of his justification whereas new testament saints look backward to it. God’s view of it or His people has not changed one iota. And to suggest that God’s affections or understanding of anything has changed is to deny His immutability, and thus God Himself! Baloga, and those who would deny that imputation of righteousness is an eternal and immanent act of God are being ignorantly inconsistent or they are worshipping a god of their own imagination. So while I will patiently struggle with these men, I too would hope that they would patiently suffer those that for many years they have had agreement with, but now recently have started to reject. Scott Price believes that salvation is based solely upon the work of Christ, yet he inconsistently claims that imputation occurs at the time of faith. What exactly he means by that I do not understand, but I am patiently striving with him, hoping that he will begin to see things more clearly as I hope for myself. For the time being, I will assume that Scott is simply being inconsistent, or is using a semantic that is different from mine. I’m not denying that semantics aren’t important, but I contend that sometimes we have the tendency to split hairs!

I walked away from my conversation with Steve thinking that there was a misunderstanding of justification from eternity on his part, and that is why he condemned it. I explained to him my position, and he seemed a bit more comfortable with me. I have hope that we can continue to discuss this peacefully and that the truth would be magnified.

To conclude this segment, I will reiterate that time itself is inherited from eternity. Eternity is not at all affected by what happens in time as God Himself iseternity. Eternity is not an extension of time, or even measured in time. To suggest that time is a starting place for anything in eternity will enable those who are opposed to the Gospel of Sovereign Grace to dream up all kinds of strange ideas such as the well-meant offer and common grace / fulerism because those ideas are based on the idea of there being "multiple wills" of God. It leads to the dangerous errors of Spurgeonesque preaching where men are enabled to stand in the pulpit and declare, that God desires all men to be saved. But if God is seen as something that does not change, and as a Person who has defined all the events of time simultaneously, these things are incomprehensible. The doctrine of eternity unfortunately has been neglected and an erroneous undestanding has been taught for far too long. Let us throw off this old baggage and come to know more of the infinite riches of God!
Personally, it is the idea of imputation in eternity, and the work of justification being purposed from eternity that has brought much peace to my soul. To think that God has never viewed His elect as sinful, but from eternally as always joined to Christ and baptized in His death and thus their resurrection in Him means that they were indeed made for this great salvation. They were made to be the objects of His affection from the beginning. God did not create decree to create Adam and allow Him to sin only so that He would decretively select from a group of fallen humanity. But He purposed his fall so that ultimately He would be glorified and that those who come to know Him would rejoice in Him forever and ever! The new earth for God's people will not be simply a restoration to the garden of Eden, but the creation was subjected to much suffering to prepare a way for something even greater that has been planned from eternity! What exactly God's people will experience, I cannot say entirely. But it will be far greater than anything any of us including Adam ever experienced. Time will never come to an end, and forever God's people can rest knowing that nothing is a surprise to Him. God reacts to nothing! They can rest knowing that He has always loved them, and that all things have been purposed and will continue to be of benefit for those that love Him.

jmgipson
02-06-06, 05:02 PM
Brandan,
I have gone back and read that chapter in Gills book twice now and am still amazed. Eternity is so not what I thought in my past life. Thanks for that word.

John

lionovjudah
02-06-06, 05:21 PM
I cant get an attachement on here. exceedes quota

Brandan
02-06-06, 05:31 PM
I cant get an attachement on here. exceedes quota
E-mail it to me Joe.

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 11:52 AM
as new participant, I am trying to catch up. Can someobdy tell me where there has been any discussion of Romans 4 and Paul's point that Abraham was justified by God before Abraham was circumcised?

Of course faith in the true gospel is immediately after God's imputation of righteousness. That does not prove that God imputed the righteousness to all the elect at the same time that God decreed to justify, or at the same time at which Christ earned that righteousness which God imputes.

Does anybody on this list believe that God knows before and after, that God has a plan BEFORE that plan happens in history. Is there anybody on the list who questions the Platonic notion of "eternity" when it is read into Bible talk about the ages?

Brandan
02-07-06, 11:57 AM
"Bush is a liar", I'm going to have to ask you to change your screen name. It's offensive, and while I agree that all men are liars, we will give more respect to the President of the United States on this board than what you have displayed. So please send me a private message with the new username, or I will change it for you to something of my choosing.

Concerning your insistence upon imputation in "time", where exactly does imputation take place? I thought imputation was a charging to one's account righteousness or sin. And where are these "accounts?" Do you believe men are carrying their accounts in their back pockets?

lionovjudah
02-07-06, 12:29 PM
THis attachement is how I look at justification from eternity in time...

The circle represents eternity and the linear line across represents time. The cross is in view from beginning to end. and all lines are attached to the cross of Christ.

Thanks for the help on this pic BK

jmgipson
02-07-06, 12:34 PM
Over in the download section I uploaded 1 minute section of what most preachers preach on justification. And it is the extent of what folks hear. This was the heritic I once sat under 5 years ago. Not only do they have no clue of the timing of Justification, they don't even know what it is.

John

Brandan
02-07-06, 12:40 PM
Wow John, that was pretty bad!

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 12:56 PM
God has the account. Justification is before God, not simply before my conscience. Before the propitiation is imputed by God to God's account, those who rely on the works of the law are under the curse. The elect are not only at enmity with God, but God is at "law enmity" with the elect, until the propitiation/reconciliation is imputed. This is before regeneration, calling and faith.

Or do you maintain that you were never of the works of the law, and never under the curse. See Galatians 3:10.

lionovjudah
02-07-06, 12:59 PM
God has the account. Justification is before God, not simply before my conscience. Before the propitiation is imputed by God to God's account, those who rely on the works of the law are under the curse. The elect are not only at enmity with God, but God is at "law enmity" with the elect, until the propitiation/reconciliation is imputed. This is before regeneration, calling and faith.

Or do you maintain that you were never of the works of the law, and never under the curse. See Galatians 3:10.

May I ask who you are speaking too?

Brandan
02-07-06, 01:00 PM
God has the account. God has it, but where is it? Where is God? I agree that men before faith have no experience of justification. They are condemned by their own consciences, but they are God's view of them does not change when they come to have faith, wouldn't you agree?

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 01:02 PM
Notice that I do not teach that faith is the righteousness, nor do I teach that faith is a condition of the righteousness. I teach that where there is faith (assurance) in the gospel, this is evidence that one was elect in Christ and how has now been imputed with Christ's righteousness. There is a time in history in which all those in the Lamb's book of life become dead to the law, and pass from a state of condemnation into legal life and peace with God. The calling of the gospel is not the imputation but the effect of the imputation. II thess 2:13 God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit...

Brandan
02-07-06, 01:05 PM
I agree that faith is a result of imputation, but why does imputation occur just before faith? Why cannot imputation occur in the mind of God in eternity and then have assurance of imputation appllied at the appointed time to each and every one of His elect?

jmgipson
02-07-06, 01:19 PM
Notice that I do not teach that faith is the righteousness, nor do I teach that faith is a condition of the righteousness. I teach that where there is faith (assurance) in the gospel, this is evidence that one was elect in Christ and how has now been imputed with Christ's righteousness. There is a time in history in which all those in the Lamb's book of life become dead to the law, and pass from a state of condemnation into legal life and peace with God. The calling of the gospel is not the imputation but the effect of the imputation. II thess 2:13 God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit...

Isa 45:24-25
24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
KJV

The seed of Israel is in eternal union with the Lord. The text declares, the seed of Israel is justified in the Lord, not by the Lord, though they are justified by the Lord and througbht the Lord, yet is is "in the Lord", the eternal union which existed before all the worlds. it is by virtue of this eternal union we stand acquitted and accepted in the beloved - as it says here in the text justified in Him.

1 Cor 1:30-31
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. KJV

John

Brandan
02-07-06, 01:24 PM
According to RbF's profile, he believes that God actually hates the elect at some point in time. This makes God a timely being dependent upon what happens in time.

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 01:26 PM
We are not dealing with what can or could happen, but rather with what the Bible says does happen. Romans 4 says that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. (The bigger point is that Abraham is the father of all who believe the gospel, and the even bigger point is that the gospel is Christ crucified and resurrected.) But what sense does it make to say that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, if indeed all the elect are born robed in the rightousness, even while they remain in Arminianism, conditionalism, and the works of the law?

Once upon a time a promise came to Abraham and be believed it. His believing it was not righteousness. The righteousness of Christ (not yet earned) was the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Justification is not righteousness. Justification is a legal declaration when righteousness is imputed. Without Gill or Plato, Romans 4 is clear about imputation by God being in time.

Romans 4:13 For the promise did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Read the paragraph following...

II Peter 1:1 to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savour Jesus Christ


ibp

Brandan
02-07-06, 01:30 PM
Justification is not just a declaration. It is a real accounting of one as righteous, and that is in Christ from eternity. If we are talking about declaration of righteousness, then yes, I agree that comes at the time of faith to each and every individual. Concerning Romans 4, that is talking about the experience of the elect. He experieced justification by faith alone. But that is not at all talking about God's view of Abraham!

jmgipson
02-07-06, 01:31 PM
We are not dealing with what can or could happen, but rather with what the Bible says does happen. Romans 4 says that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. (The bigger point is that Abraham is the father of all who believe the gospel, and the even bigger point is that the gospel is Christ crucified and resurrected.) But what sense does it make to say that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, if indeed all the elect are born robed in the rightousness, even while they remain in Arminianism, conditionalism, and the works of the law?

Once upon a time a promise came to Abraham and be believed it. His believing it was not righteousness. The righteousness of Christ (not yet earned) was the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Justification is not righteousness. Justification is a legal declaration when righteousness is imputed. Without Gill or Plato, Romans 4 is clear about imputation by God being in time.

Romans 4:13 For the promise did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Read the paragraph following...

II Peter 1:1 to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savour Jesus Christ


ibp

By your statement we are not dealing with what can or cannot happen. So by your statement there is not yet a righteousness to impute. Abes out of luck.

John

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 01:51 PM
you will notice that none of my questions about Romans 4 got answered. He asked a question, and I answered it. I asked a question, and he jumps to the profile. No need. Look at my posts. I believe that those who rely on the works of the law are under the curse. I can and perhaps deal with all of these metphsical speculations about God not being present in time. But I want to stick with Galatians 3:10. Are you saying that you never relied on works of the law? If you ever did, then Galatians says that you were under the curse. Now, you can try to avoid answering that by saying this means that I think that curse means so and so. But stick with "curse of the law". Were you ever under the law? How could you be, if you were born with that perfect robe of righteousness?

We became dead to the law by the body of Christ. Romans 7:4. This does not mean that we became dead to the law when Christ became dead to the law. We have to be baptised by God into that death. Baptised into the death is not water, is not what man does. Baptised into the death is what God does. When were the elect united to the death of Christ? That is the question. Romans 6:17 you were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the mind to the standard of doctrine ....having been justified from sin, have become slaves of righteousness...

God is the imputer. The elect were never goats, but they were under the law and after imputation are free from the law, justified. Romans 6:7 One who has died has been justified from the law.

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 02:07 PM
Justification is not just a declaration. It is a real accounting of one as righteous,

rbf: We need to define terms, not simply repeat soundbites. What does real mean. Fortner thinks it means impart or infuse. We agree that it does not. There is nothing more "real" than the legal accounting, reckoning, declaring of God, that a person is no longer under the law and no longer under the curse.
Think of marriage. If you say to your girl, the sex is real and what need is there for legal stuff, you are wrong. Real marriage is legal marriage. See Romans 5:19 by the one man's obedience the many will be made righeous.
This means that there has been a legal transfer of Christ's work (finished in His death and resurrection) to the one baptised into that work.

I think we disagree about many things, but this is not one of there. Nothing mere about it. Legal is real. Accounting is real.

Romans 7:5 (after the marriage illustration) For while we were living in the flesh, our works of the law, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law...

Or are you saying that you were never bearing fruit for death, that despite your experience and knowledge, you were born bearing fruit for God?

and that is in Christ from eternity. If we are talking about declaration of righteousness, then yes, I agree that comes at the time of faith to each and every individual. Concerning Romans 4, that is talking about the experience of the elect.

rbf:that is the thing which you need to prove. As a latecomer, you can refer me to the posts where you have proved it. Or do you have footnotes in your bible which tell us what to read above: as in, works of the law means experience of works of the law, and curse means experience of the curse, but not really....

He experieced justification by faith alone. But that is not at all talking about God's view of Abraham![/quote]

rbf: so the seal given to Abraham was not given by God but by Abraham?
And Romans 4:6 about David is not about God counting righteousness to David, but only about David singing about it? And Romans 4:17 is not about God giving life to the dead but only about people who thought they were dead finding out that they were never dead but only thought so....?

Brandan
02-07-06, 02:08 PM
you will notice that none of my questions about Romans 4 got answered. He asked a question, and I answered it. I asked a question, and he jumps to the profile. No need. Look at my posts.Look, are you going to whine about me, or are you going to suck it up like a man and answer my questions? Blah blah blah blah. Are you here for serious discussion, or do you have an agenda to promote?

I believe that those who rely on the works of the law are under the curse. I agree. But what do you mean by "curse?" Do you think it means they are cursed to hell, even the elect?

I can and perhaps deal with all of these metphsical speculations about God not being present in time.I didn't say He wasn't present in time. I'm saying that He doesn't RESIDE in time as time is something that He created. Tell me, where does time come from. If you believe God is a timely individual, than you and I cannot be united in doctrine. And know this is not a mystical understanding as it's derived from scripture and has been plainly revealed to all who would bother to investigate this issue.

But I want to stick with Galatians 3:10. OK, good, we'll stick with Galatians. You're not going to hop around on me now, are you?

Are you saying that you never relied on works of the law?No.

If you ever did, then Galatians says that you were under the curse. Yessir, I sure was. All men are cursed with a covenant of works.

Now, you can try to avoid answering that by saying this means that I think that curse means so and so. But stick with "curse of the law". Were you ever under the law? How could you be, if you were born with that perfect robe of righteousness?The curse of the law does not mean that God hated the elect! The curse was GIVEN to drive His elect to them, so that they could see the robes of righteousness that had alrady been given to them in Christ. You cannot comprehend this because you hold to an unbiblical understanding of eternity and are for all intents and purposes an infralapsarian. You should update your profile accordingly.

We became dead to the law by the body of Christ. Romans 7:4. This does not mean that we became dead to the law when Christ became dead to the law. As far as God was concerned, God's people died to the law by the body of Christ (Rom 7:4). When Christ died, as far as the law of God is concerned, the Christian is dead as well. The law can make no demands or requirements upon the Christian. The only thing it brings is misery to the Christian who would ignorantly place himself under it as it is a curse.

We have to be baptised by God into that death. Baptised into the death is not water, is not what man does. Baptised into the death is what God does. When were the elect united to the death of Christ? Well the elect were first united to Christ in the mind of God in eternity. It is in His earthly work in time that the elect look to for their salvation, and thus their union to Him.

That is the question. Romans 6:17 you were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the mind to the standard of doctrine ....having been justified from sin, have become slaves of righteousness...You see only one aspect of justification, and stumble all over yourself because of it. Men are justified by faith, but that justification is only a declaration to the individual of what has already been accomplished for them in Christ. It is reckoned to them as righteousness. But a true imputation is an eternal and immanent act of God. God does not live in time as you would suggest, and if you believe he does, then there can be no further dialogue as we will be talking about two different things.

Regards,
Brandan

Brandan
02-07-06, 02:12 PM
rbf: so the seal given to Abraham was not given by God but by Abraham?NO!


And Romans 4:6 about David is not about God counting righteousness to David, but only about David singing about it? And Romans 4:17 is not about God giving life to the dead but only about people who thought they were dead finding out that they were never dead but only thought so....?

Rom 4:6-7, (GILL)
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,.... the apostle having instanced in Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, cites some passages from David, king of Israel, a person of great note and esteem among the Jews, in favour of the doctrine he is establishing; who in a very proper and lively manner describes the happiness of such persons:

unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. This righteousness cannot be the righteousness of the law, or man's obedience to it; for that is a righteousness with works, is a man's own, and not imputed; and indeed is not a righteousness in the sight of God: nor does man's blessedness lie in, or come by it; no man is, or can be instilled by it, nor saved by it, or attain to heaven and eternal happiness by the means of it; but the righteousness here spoken of is the righteousness of Christ, called the righteousness of God; and is better than that of angels or men; is complete and perfect; by which the law is honoured, and justice is satisfied. This is freely bestowed, and graciously "imputed" by God. Just in the same way his righteousness becomes ours, as Adam's sin did, which is by imputation; or in the same way that our sins became Christ's, his righteousness becomes ours; and as we have no righteousness of our own when God justifies us, this must be done by the righteousness of another; and that can be done no other way by the righteousness of another, than by imputing it to us: and which is done "without works"; not without the works of Christ, of which this righteousness consists; but without the works of the creature, or any consideration of them, which are utterly excluded from justification; for if these came into account, it would not be of grace, and boasting would not be removed. Now such who have this righteousness thus imputed to them, are happy persons; they are justified from all sin, and freed from all condemnation; their persons and services are acceptable to God; it will be always well with them; they are heirs of glory, and shall enjoy it.

7 Saying, blessed are they,.... These words are cited from Ps 32:1 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=19&chapter=32&verse1=1), and contain the proof of the happiness of justified persons. In this citation the singular number is changed into the plural, to take in all sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles, and very agreeably to the sense of the original; for the word yrva may be rendered "blessed are they", or, "O the blessednesses"; that is, of everyone of them,


whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: such whom God justifies by imputing the righteousness of his Son to them, he removes their iniquities from them, which is meant by their being "forgiven", and that "as far as the east is from the west", Ps 103:12 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=19&chapter=103&verse1=12); he casts them behind his back, Isa 38:17 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=23&chapter=38&verse1=17), and into the depths of the sea, Mic 7:19 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=33&chapter=7&verse1=19), so that they shall never be found more: such whom he clothes with the robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation, Isa 61:10 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=23&chapter=61&verse1=10), "their sins are covered"; from the eye of divine justice, and shall never be seen more, or be brought against them to their condemnation, and therefore must be happy persons. The [e] Jews tell us, that "on the day of atonement Satan comes to accuse Israel, and he particularizes their sins, and the holy blessed God he particularizes their good works, and takes a pair of balances, and puts their sins against their good works, and weighs the one against the other; and when the two scales of the balances are alike, Satan goes to bring in other sins to overweigh; what does the holy blessed God do? he takes the sins out of the scale, and hides them wlv yryprwp txt, "under his purple garment"; and when Satan comes and finds no iniquity there, as it is said "the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none", Jer 50:20 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=24&chapter=50&verse1=20); and when Satan sees this, he says before him, Lord of the world, "thou hast taken away the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin", Ps 85:2 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=19&chapter=85&verse1=2). Selah.'' The purple garment they explain by wlv Mymxr lv vwblm, "his garment of mercy"; which is true of the mercy of God covering the sins of his people, through the purple blood of his Son; which is the purple covering of Christ, So 3:10 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=22&chapter=3&verse1=10), under which the saints go safe to glory, and by which blood their crimson and scarlet sins are blotted out, so as never to be seen more. [e] Caphtor, fol. 59. 1, 2.

jmgipson
02-07-06, 02:17 PM
I would even add verse 8 in there Brandan: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. He did not impute and then unimpute. He decided in eternity not to impute my sin to me but to the captain of my salvation.
John

Brandan
02-07-06, 02:29 PM
I would even add verse 8 in there Brandan: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. He did not impute and then unimpute. He decided in eternity not to impute my sin to me but to the captain of my salvation.
JohnAmen John!

Brandan
02-07-06, 02:40 PM
Those who suggest that God's view of His elect change are saying that God changes. Period. There can be no change in God, and to suggest that God viewed His elect as unrighteous and then later in time sees His elect as righteous because of any condition met have totally destroyed the concept of God. God changes men, but He Himself does not change. This is something that I will always trumpet, and I challenge men who would prick against this to prove otherwise. They cannot, and they will not. They will promote their vain speculations and attempt to change the topic. Don't be persuaded by their perverse philosophies that are not at all rooted in Scripture. They can and will twist the Scriptures and stand upon on isolated exegeses. But they cannot harmonize their strange doctrines with the complete revelation of God.

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 02:43 PM
Look, are you going to whine about me, or are you going to suck it up like a man and answer my questions? Blah blah blah blah. Are you here for serious discussion, or do you have an agenda to promote?

gbf: my agenda is serious. 1. it is to get you to see that there are
more views than you now know. You think in terms of general justification in eternity, or general justification at the cross, or a justification conditioned on faith. But there is a fourth view, in which imputation is before faith, but the elect are imputed by God with righteousness right before they are called. 2. So it would be a success for me if you at least understand what this view is, and did not lump it in with faith being a condition. Then my agenda would be to get you to read Romans 4, not merely in terms of Gill's agenda...


I agree. But what do you mean by "curse?" Do you think it means they are cursed to hell, even the elect?

rbf: trying to find jargon that you would recognise, who about Gill's "law-enmity". Before and after, under law and not under law. According to Romans 1, God's wrath is being revealed, not simply will be. Now those who are not yet justified are still under the wrath. One visible way we can see this is that they do not know and love the gospel. It is not knowing and loving the gospel which is the rightousness, but anybody who is justified does know and love the gospel. Is that begging the question?
You do that every time you assume that election in Christ before creation means justification in Christ before creation.

I am a supralapsarian, but Gill rejected supralapsarainism because he had no room for a before and after in history. But Romans 6 and Galatians 3 and Philippians teach such a before and after.


I didn't say He wasn't present in time. I'm saying that He doesn't RESIDE in time as time is something that He created. Tell me, where does time come from. If you believe God is a timely individual, than you and I cannot be united in doctrine.


rbf: I do think we will have to help you unlearn what Plato and Augustine (baptismal regeneration) and Gordon Clark (speaking peace to Arminians) what had to say about time. But we can't do everything at once. It is my impression that your apriori notions about what God can do are more important to you than these texts, which you reduce down to human experience.

Hebrews teaches that the Lord Jesus learned obedience, which is not to say that He was ever disobedient. I cor 15:45 says that the last Adam became the life-giving spirit. I hope you agree that Jesus was and is God, and that He remained God even though now incarnate. God's redemptive actions in history are temporally successive. I could refer you to the discussion in supralapsarian Reymond's systematic. But let me say this:
God accomplished His purposes in the fullness of time. God has decreed that all the blessings of salvation will be given to all those in eternal union with Christ. But not all those blessings have yet been given.

God is not ignorant of time but rather is sovereign over time. For example, there is not only one covenant, but two ages, two covenants. This doesn't mean that God changed God's mind, but that it was always God's purpose to have these ages, these covenants.

II Cor 6:2 now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation. Suffering now will be followed later by glory. I Peter 1:3-7 All events are God working IN HISTORY. The sequence is foreordained by God's decree But God brings the decree to pass in time. Even before the incarnation, God was not only there but here, not only then but now

jmgipson
02-07-06, 02:51 PM
According to Romans 1, God's wrath is being revealed, not simply will be. Now those who are not yet justified are still under the wrath.

Which would be the reprobate.

1 Thess 5:9
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath , but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, KJV

Hmmm. Did He decide this when we believed. I think not. The elect were never appointed to wrath. So there will never be a not yet. It is a done deal.

Brandan
02-07-06, 02:51 PM
gbf: my agenda is serious. 1. it is to get you to see that there are



more views than you now know. You think in terms of general justification in eternity, or general justification at the cross, or a justification conditioned on faith. But there is a fourth view, in which imputation is before faith, but the elect are imputed by God with righteousness right before they are called. 2. So it would be a success for me if you at least understand what this view is, and did not lump it in with faith being a condition. Then my agenda would be to get you to read Romans 4, not merely in terms of Gill's agenda...Well this is in direct violation of our posting policies.... As stated in our FAQ
Further, one may not attempt to publicly or privately (pm system) convert someone to his position. Persuasive techniques will not be effective against those who are grounded in predestinarian doctrine and they will be seen as a distraction and nuisance.

Further, I'm completely aware of your position. It is the position of Marc Carpenter and Andrew C. Bain.



Hebrews teaches that the Lord Jesus learned obedience, which is not to say that He was ever disobedient. I cor 15:45 says that the last Adam became the life-giving spirit. I hope you agree that Jesus was and is God, and that He remained God even though now incarnate. God's redemptive actions in history are temporally successive. I could refer you to the discussion in supralapsarian Reymond's systematic. But let me say this: God accomplished His purposes in the fullness of time. God has decreed that all the blessings of salvation will be given to all those in eternal union with Christ. But not all those blessings have yet been given.They have all been given in Christ, just not yet experienced.


God is not ignorant of time but rather is sovereign over time. For example, there is not only one covenant, but two ages, two covenants. This doesn't mean that God changed God's mind, but that it was always God's purpose to have these ages, these covenants.I don't recall denying this.


II Cor 6:2 now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation. Suffering now will be followed later by glory. I Peter 1:3-7 All events are God working IN HISTORY. The sequence is foreordained by God's decree But God brings the decree to pass in time. Even before the incarnation, God was not only there but here, not only then but nowI agree. But you have failed to show to me that imputation is an event. If imputation is something that God does in time, please tell me where it takes place. Where are the accounts of men? You say that God owns them, but where?

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 02:59 PM
You cannot comprehend this because you hold to an unbiblical understanding of eternity and are for all intents and purposes an infralapsarian. You should update your profile accordingly.

rbf: we need to define terms. You don't even know that Gill rejected supralapsarianism because of his view of timelessness. You seem to know that Clark was supra and believed in timelessness. But there is no way that you can that separating the accomplishment of righteousness and the imputing of righteousness says anything about order and sequence in the decree. Gill denies sequence in the decree. I teach this order

1. the election of some sinners to salvation in Christ (and the non-election of the rest of sinners)

2. to apply Christ's redemption/reconciliation/righteousness to the elect sinners

3. to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ

4 that humans should become sinners, beginning with Adam

5 that the world and humans should be created

in other words, just plain old supralapsarianism: begin with the end and go back to the beginning.

now where in my posts, do I deviate from this. You remind of Phil Johnson: make one statement with which he disagrees, and then he thinks he knows all of what you believe and where you will disagree. Be patient, there's time if this is helpful, and if not, who cares

my prooftext for sequence in decree: Ephesians 3:9-11 redemption is the purpose of creation, not plan b

jmgipson
02-07-06, 03:09 PM
rbf: we need to define terms. You don't even know that Gill rejected supralapsarianism because of his view of timelessness. You seem to know that Clark was supra and believed in timelessness. But there is no way that you can that separating the accomplishment of righteousness and the imputing of righteousness says anything about order and sequence in the decree. Gill denies sequence in the decree. I teach this order

1. the election of some sinners to salvation in Christ (and the non-election of the rest of sinners)

2. to apply Christ's redemption/reconciliation/righteousness to the elect sinners

3. to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ

4 that humans should become sinners, beginning with Adam

5 that the world and humans should be created

in other words, just plain old supralapsarianism: begin with the end and go back to the beginning.

now where in my posts, do I deviate from this. You remind of Phil Johnson: make one statement with which he disagrees, and then he thinks he knows all of what you believe and where you will disagree. Be patient, there's time if this is helpful, and if not, who cares

my prooftext for sequence in decree: Ephesians 3:9-11 redemption is the purpose of creation, not plan b

This is Infra not supra. God Loves and hates out of Mankind unfallen. Romans 9 is very clear on this.

It is more like this:

God decreed that he would glorify himself by the atoning work of Christ.


To accomplish this, he decreed that he would manifest his mercy by redeeming those whom he has chosen for salvation, and to manifest his wrath by condemning those whom he has chosen for damnation (Romans 9:10-24).


To accomplish this, he decreed that all human beings would become sinners, so that he may convert the chosen ones for salvation, and condemn the rest as reprobates.


To accomplish this, he decreed that Adam would be the representative of all human beings, and that Adam would bring about the fall of mankind by his disobedience.


Then, upon Adam's disobedience, God began to execute his plan, and decreed that humanity would be divided into two groups, that is, the elect and the reprobates (Genesis3:15). Since then, the two groups have been in constant conflict. (This is the enmity God put between the two seeds.)

Brandan
02-07-06, 03:09 PM
Gill denies sequence in the decree. I do too as did Gordon Clark! There was not a timely sequence in the decree of God. There was only a logical sequence. There are not multiple decrees of God. Just one - from eternity. And from that single decree all comes into existance.


1. the election of some sinners to salvation in Christ (and the non-election of the rest of sinners)

2. to apply Christ's redemption/reconciliation/righteousness to the elect sinners

3. to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of ChristYou are teaching that salvation isn't accomplished until it's applied. This is fullerism. In 2, if you intended the benefits of redemption, we wouldn't have a problem. But God's view of the elect is not based on what happens in 2 as you would have us to think.

Brandan
02-07-06, 03:13 PM
This is Infra not supra. God Loves and hates out of Mankind unfallen. Actually, that was a very good ordering of the decrees in line with supralapsarianism by rbf, and I don't think rbf is infra. I'm almost certain he would say that God loved the unfallen elect and hated the unfallen reprobate, but later hates the elect in time. That is the position of Carpenter based on my correspondence with him.

jmgipson
02-07-06, 03:20 PM
Actually, that was a very good ordering of the decrees in line with supralapsarianism by rbf, and I don't think rbf is infra. I'm almost certain he would say that God loved the unfallen elect and hated the unfallen reprobate, but later hates the elect in time. That is the position of Carpenter based on my correspondence with him.

Brandan,
The supra that I am accustomed to does not have men fallen in God's election. This falls in-line with the thinking of passing over the rest which I understand as infra.

John

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 03:23 PM
But you have failed to show to me that imputation is an event. If imputation is something that God does in time, please tell me where it takes place. Where are the accounts of men? You say that God owns them, but where?
rbf: I would not presume to speak for Carpenter and Andrew Bain, but I do think we agree on justification. As I do with Anthony lawson and Scott Pprice, and with Bill Parker's old position (before he converted to "at the cross" without ever telling his congregation about it). But I dare not speak for any of these gentleman. Since you know about this view, it would be helpful for you to acknowledge it when you are talking about views. There is a difference between disagreeing with Scott Price and not understanding him: you know what his view is--imputation in time before faith. I agree. Imputation has real effects. If one is imputed with righteousness, then one no longer will believe a false gospel. But you seem to be saying that you were justified even while you were imputed with that righteousness, so that the righteousness was for a while without effect!
Interesting, I say it is not effective until imputed. You say: imputed long before effective.

To answer again, Justification is before God. God's mind counts, reckons righteousness. God's mind counts, reckons sin. Where there is God's law, God's mind counts sins as sin. Where God credits righteousness, there is no condemnation. Two states. Either or.
I don't see where we disagree about it being God who justifies or who counts or even how God counts. (we both can avoid speculations about things we don't know) The question is: did God ever count Abraham's sins against him? God can and does count. We can agree about that.

Galatians 3:25 the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that the object of faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith...

not faith to become sons, but become sons and thus obtain faith;
not faith to become imputed with righteousness, but imputed with the righteousness that faith receives

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ.

God is the baptiser, God is the imputer.

I define this imputing as legal crediting, as lagal declaration.
I now pronounce you man and wife...

faith is not what imputes, faith is not imputed

btw, part of my agenda is to understand your view: so you teach that people who are already justified really do works of the law (not just experience their work as that though it really isn't)? You teach that people who are already justified are under the curse?
If that is so, are people already justified still under the law? What gets them from under law if not righteousness imputed?

lionovjudah
02-07-06, 03:38 PM
and with Bill Parker's old position (before he converted to "at the cross" without ever telling his congregation about it).

Then Mr. Parker is the only one who is correct.:cool:

Justification at regeneration/faith says yes it is finsihed. It is accomplished, it is complete, but for some odd reason, I am witholding the benefits until the Spirit applies it. The debt is paid, but you cannot get the title until I see fit.

Righteous by Faith
02-07-06, 03:41 PM
Tell me why there can be no consciousness of successive duration in God's mind. (especially in light of your supralapsarianism which I assume talks about redemption being the purpose of creation). Does God not know that Richard Nixon is dead now? Did God not know that Nixon was alive when Nixon was alive? Isn't God omniscient?
God learns no new facts. But God knows when Nixon is dead and also knows when Nixon is not dead. Or is it only humans can know a before or after concerning Nixon?

Psalm 90:2 before the mountains were brought forth or ever you had formed the earth, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Does this mean that God did not know the difference after God brought forth the mountain? Does it mean that God never brought forth the mountain?

Jeremiah 12:15 and after I have plucked them up, I will again have compassion on them.
Does the immutability of God mean that God cannot have law-enmity against Christ so that Christ dies bearing the sins of the elect?

ugly_gaunt_cow
02-07-06, 03:44 PM
Tell me why there can be no consciousness of successive duration in God's mind.

Seeing how God is ALL KNOWING, the above statement is false.

Brandan
02-07-06, 03:57 PM
Seeing how God is ALL KNOWING, the above statement is false.Thank you Scott. That is EXACTLY what RBF is denying. And if that is Scott Price's and Anthony Lawson's position as well, than that is what they are too denying. I will let them speak for themselves though.

Brandan
02-07-06, 04:08 PM
rbf: I would not presume to speak for Carpenter and Andrew Bain, but I do think we agree on justification. As I do with Anthony lawson and Scott Pprice, and with Bill Parker's old position (before he converted to "at the cross" without ever telling his congregation about it). Seems to me you have a bone to pick with Mr. Parker!


But I dare not speak for any of these gentleman. Good, for if Scott Price or Anthony actually believe as you do, I'd have to reconsider my opinion of them.


Since you know about this view, it would be helpful for you to acknowledge it when you are talking about views. There is a difference between disagreeing with Scott Price and not understanding him: you know what his view is--imputation in time before faith. I agree the benefits of the imputation are not experienced UNTIL faith. But God's view of men does not change. That is what you are advocating. And to be honest with you, that position makes me want to PUKE AND GAG! Barf.


I agree. Imputation has real effects. If one is imputed with righteousness, then one no longer will believe a false gospel. Here we go with carpenterism again... Sheesh.


But you seem to be saying that you were justified even while you were imputed with that righteousness, so that the righteousness was for a while without effect!Not so. There are benefits of the cross that are applied to elect men before they are converted to the truth.


Interesting, I say it is not effective until imputed. You say: imputed long before effective.No. I'm saying it's imputed in eternity. Not "long before" or "long after" as God's thoughts cannot be measured in lengths of time as you would suggest.


To answer again, Justification is before God. God's mind counts, reckons righteousness. God's mind counts, reckons sin. Where there is God's law, God's mind counts sins as sin. Where God credits righteousness, there is no condemnation. Two states. Either or. But God does not think in time.


I don't see where we disagree about it being God who justifies or who counts or even how God counts. (we both can avoid speculations about things we don't know) The question is: did God ever count Abraham's sins against him? God can and does count. We can agree about that. If God counted Abraham's sin against him, then Abraham is in hell. So to answer your question... NO! God did not count Abraham's sin against him!

GraceAmbassador
02-07-06, 04:16 PM
"Bush is a liar", I'm going to have to ask you to change your screen name. It's offensive, and while I agree that all men are liars, we will give more respect to the President of the United States on this board than what you have displayed. So please send me a private message with the new username, or I will change it for you to something of my choosing.

Concerning your insistence upon imputation in "time", where exactly does imputation take place? I thought imputation was a charging to one's account righteousness or sin. And where are these "accounts?" Do you believe men are carrying their accounts in their back pockets?

Brandan:

Sometimes I don't know why I love you, but when I come home from work and I see your request to change this screen name, I begin to find some of the reasons...

thank you!

Milt

Brandan
02-07-06, 04:19 PM
Sometimes I don't know why I love you, but when I come home from workDitto, brother!

lionovjudah
02-07-06, 05:17 PM
But God does not think in time.



Be careful here brandan. Remember God is BOTH transcendant and imminent. Dont speak one truth at the expense of another.

The dates of the Holy Writ are true. So when God states things as:

Gen 1:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html#14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Gen 7:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen007.html#4) For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


Exd 24:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd024.html#18) And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.


these are literal days.....not some mysterious eternal thought

Brandan
02-07-06, 05:18 PM
Be careful here brandan. Remember God is BOTH transcendant and imminent. Dont speak one truth at the expense of another.

The dates of the Holy Writ are true. So when God states things as:

Gen 1:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html#14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Gen 7:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen007.html#4) For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


Exd 24:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd024.html#18) And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.


these are literal days.....not some mysterious eternal thoughtIf God thinks in time, that means His thoughts change. And God cannot be defined in terms of change which is exactly what TIME IS!

GraceAmbassador
02-07-06, 05:37 PM
If God thinks in time, that means His thoughts change. And God cannot be defined in terms of change and that is exactly what TIME IS!

Check and see if you find the revelation about "time" and where "time" is and where "time" is confined:

"there is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event UNDER HEAVEN."

I would suppose that no one here believes:

that there is time in heaven
that UNDER HEAVEN is God's realm

I am giving too many hints... You have to find the revelation for yourself, or perhaps, only the Holy Spirit's illumination on this text.

Milt

lionovjudah
02-07-06, 05:50 PM
If God thinks in time, that means His thoughts change. And God cannot be defined in terms of change which is exactly what TIME IS!


Then this would destroy the countless, thousands of verses that has God speakign about specific days. Again, I would suggest of study of transcendance and imminence.

AS an aside, what do we do with these verses? This is getting way too confusing here BK. take a deep breathe and rethink a little.

Again, if you deny the imminece of God, you deny 80% of the words in the writ. His revelation happenned in time. His tabernacling with man happenned in Time. Not only in His mind.


14And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

the trinity itself is an example of both the transcendance and imminence of God.


Plus this will get very mystical if we believe that God cannot tell time!!!

He knows it is 2-7-06 And He is present here and now.


Just rethink this approach BK. Dont worry so much about protecting the immutibility of God, and stumble over this truth.

Brandan
02-07-06, 07:56 PM
RbF, you seem very familiar to me. I am guessing you are Mark McCulley. Am I right?

Brandan
02-07-06, 08:02 PM
Actually, I AM CONVINCED YOU ARE MARK! Welcome to the forum Mark. Why did you hide your real name? Do you know how I know you are Mark? Because I have an old e-mail from you that I traced back to Lancaster, PA. Your current IP address also traces back to Lancaster. It seems you changed your ISP within the last year from dejazzed to verizon. :) Please do spseak up and reveal your true name as we believe in being open and honest discussion with each other.

Brandan

Brandan
02-07-06, 08:06 PM
I must admit, your jabs at Bill Parker and Pederson make you a dead giveaway. :)

Brandan
02-07-06, 08:13 PM
Brandan,
The supra that I am accustomed to does not have men fallen in God's election. This falls in-line with the thinking of passing over the rest which I understand as infra.

JohnIf you look at Mr. McCulley's order of decrees, you'll see that he has not advocated it. Read it again. He first has an election to salvation in Christ, and then he has man falling. It is an election to salvation from an unfallen mass of humanity. I think you misread Mark's post. (And yes, I'm calling "rbf" Mark because his debating style as well as physical evidence leads me to believe this is Mark.)

jmgipson
02-07-06, 08:27 PM
rbf said:
1. the election of some sinners to salvation in Christ (and the non-election of the rest of sinners)

When I see elect some sinners to salvation and the non-election of the rest of sinners, it seems the clay is fallen man to me. I might be looking at it wrong, I don't know. I usually think of God creating a people for salvation and creating a people for damnation. I know it is probably a small thing but to some so is saying God permitted the fall which sends chills up my spine.

John

Brandan
02-07-06, 08:29 PM
I see your point John... I never noticed that... Thanks!

Bob Higby
02-07-06, 09:13 PM
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justification, and sanctification, and redemption. 1 Cor. 1:30. Why most translators limit the translated Greek to 'righteousness' in this context I have no idea; such a translation waters down what is being said in light of the whole of Paul's theology.

rbf:Tell me why there can be no consciousness of successive duration in God's mind.

The successive duration of all events from the beginning of time to eternity future are ever-present in God's mind at ALL times and transcendent of time. This very moment, the creation of the first atomic matter in the past and the succession of trillions of ages in eternity future are equally present. What we are discussing is not merely the relation of time to eternity in God's mind but the immutability of God in his disposition to save. If God purposes to regard his elect under hell-wrath for a period of time and not merely temporal wrath, then he purposes to deny his own immutability and eternal disposition of grace toward such elect souls.

We all agree with the doctrine of the curse extending to every member of humanity. We disagree that this curse ever equals hell-wrath for the elect. Before conversion, the elect are under the experience of temporal condemnation and wrath but not under God's disposition of eternal condemnation and irreversible damnation. As God's disposition of eternal love and grace is irreversible, even so God's disposition of eternal wrath and condemnation is irreversible! So there is no such thing as God's hell-wrath and condemnation toward the elect in time which he purposed from eternity to also completely reverse at a later time with 'previously withheld but everlasting in the future' grace.

Brandan, I love your last 5 blogs--they were the best! I can't say enough in agreement with them!

Mark--if you are indeed rbf please stick around for a while! --Bob

Saint Nicholas
02-07-06, 09:40 PM
God has the account. Justification is before God, not simply before my conscience. Before the propitiation is imputed by God to God's account, those who rely on the works of the law are under the curse. The elect are not only at enmity with God, but God is at "law enmity" with the elect, until the propitiation/reconciliation is imputed. This is before regeneration, calling and faith.

Or do you maintain that you were never of the works of the law, and never under the curse. See Galatians 3:10.

RBF......Why did you not list the rest of Galatians 3:13,14. " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of law, having become a curse for us (for it is written Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree), that the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

Yes RBF I do maintain that I was never under the curse of the law,BECAUSE CHRIST REDEEMED ME FROM THE CURSE OF THE LAW.

When? In eternity (The lamb of God slain before the foundation of the earth) and the outworking of that same and one decree historically at the Cross.

Let's think for a moment....Was Christ's death a potential Justification ? or was it an real and Actual propitiation of sin ? A real Justification ..A real transfer of debt ?

If your answer is a real transfer of debt.. A real declaration of Righteousness, Then it was imputed to us before we were ever born. None of us on this board were alive at the time of the CROSS.

Saint Nicholas
02-07-06, 09:55 PM
Justification is not just a declaration. It is a real accounting of one as righteous,

rbf: We need to define terms, not simply repeat soundbites. What does real mean. Fortner thinks it means impart or infuse. We agree that it does not. There is nothing more "real" than the legal accounting, reckoning, declaring of God, that a person is no longer under the law and no longer under the curse.
Think of marriage. If you say to your girl, the sex is real and what need is there for legal stuff, you are wrong. Real marriage is legal marriage. See Romans 5:19 by the one man's obedience the many will be made righeous.
This means that there has been a legal transfer of Christ's work (finished in His death and resurrection) to the one baptised into that work.

I think we disagree about many things, but this is not one of there. Nothing mere about it. Legal is real. Accounting is real.

Romans 7:5 (after the marriage illustration) For while we were living in the flesh, our works of the law, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law...

Or are you saying that you were never bearing fruit for death, that despite your experience and knowledge, you were born bearing fruit for God?

and that is in Christ from eternity. If we are talking about declaration of righteousness, then yes, I agree that comes at the time of faith to each and every individual. Concerning Romans 4, that is talking about the experience of the elect.

rbf:that is the thing which you need to prove. As a latecomer, you can refer me to the posts where you have proved it. Or do you have footnotes in your bible which tell us what to read above: as in, works of the law means experience of works of the law, and curse means experience of the curse, but not really....

He experieced justification by faith alone. But that is not at all talking about God's view of Abraham!

rbf: so the seal given to Abraham was not given by God but by Abraham?
And Romans 4:6 about David is not about God counting righteousness to David, but only about David singing about it? And Romans 4:17 is not about God giving life to the dead but only about people who thought they were dead finding out that they were never dead but only thought so....?[/quote]

RBF....Who is Fortner? If Fortner thinks that a Real Righteousness means to Impart or Infuse, Then you tell him that I said he could go to Rome, and I swear the Pope will kiss his feet. Why?... Because that is Exactly what the Council of Trent teaches in their canons pertaining to Justification.....I will have none of it!! That is out and out HERESY.

I used to be a Roman Catholic. I could smell Roman Catholic Soteriology a mile away !! :mad:

Nicholas

jmgipson
02-08-06, 09:12 AM
I think one of our biggest mistakes even as reformed men is to constantly think of words as meaning the same thing wherever they are used in scripture. Examples: world, all, circumcision, etc. Should we not consider this same thing when it comes to the word faith. Sometimes it means the obedience of christ, sometimes it is believing, etc. I put this forward to you: Could we not also think of faith as a synonym for Christ? For instance:

Gal 3:23-24
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. KJV

Now does it make sense to say that before believing came, we were kept under the law.... we might be justified by believing....

It is more accurate I think to say "before Christ" came, ..... justified by Christ.....

Context is always the master and I know I continually have to remind myself of that. That is my 2 cents worth. Faith does not always mean believing just like world does not mean every person in the world.

John

harald
02-08-06, 11:22 AM
Could we not also think of faith as a synonym for Christ? For instance:

Gal 3:23-24
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. KJV

Now does it make sense to say that before believing came, we were kept under the law.... we might be justified by believing....

It is more accurate I think to say "before Christ" came, ..... justified by Christ..... (John Gipson)

Verse 23 in the Greek has all along stated that "the faith" (Gr. teen pistin) is Christ. I pointed this out to someone here last year. KJV and other versions obscure the verse and Paul's sense by omitting a determiner and not rendering TOU literally. In fact most versions neglect to translate TOU at all. Moreover the majority of versions do wrong by adding an article "the" to "law" in v. 23. The Greek has an anarthrous nomos. Furthermore most versions mistranslate the participle present mellousan. KJV mistranslated as "should afterwards", while in fact it is "being about .. to be directly revealed".

As for v. 24 "faith" does not mean "Christ (crucified)". Then, the preposition "by" of KJV is a mistranslation of EK. EK here has its primary sense, "from within". Thus lit. "to the end that from within faith we would be justified". Go and learn what sense dikaioŰ has in this verse.
Moreover "schoolmaster" is a mistranslation of paidagŰgos. It does not denote "school-master", but it denoted someone whose task it was to escort or lead children to and from school. "the law" of v. 24 cannot mean the Mosaic law, because Paul was writing to Galatian members of the Body of the Christ with "heathen" background. Thus the article "the" (with nomos) of v. 24 is the article of previous reference. And the previous instance where nomos occurred was the anarthrous nomos of v. 23. The Galatians, when they were "heathen" still, had absolutely not been under the Mosaic law. If so then they would have had some knowledge of Elohim. But now Paul says in chapter 4, v. 8, that they had had absolutely no propositional or perceptive or cognitive knowledge (eidoo) of Elohim. Had they been under the Mosaic law they would have had some cognitive knowledge of Elohim.

Harald

ray kikkert
02-08-06, 11:50 AM
Could we not also think of faith as a synonym for Christ? For instance:

Gal 3:23-24
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. KJV

Now does it make sense to say that before believing came, we were kept under the law.... we might be justified by believing....

It is more accurate I think to say "before Christ" came, ..... justified by Christ..... (John Gipson)

Verse 23 in the Greek has all along stated that "the faith" (Gr. teen pistin) is Christ. I pointed this out to someone here last year.

Yeah, so what?


KJV and other versions obscure the verse and Paul's sense by omitting a determiner and not rendering TOU literally. In fact most versions neglect to translate TOU at all.

God forbid, you d'ont say Harold. We have been blinded all this time. Thank you Harold for your "blinder theology".:(


Moreover the majority of versions do wrong by adding an article "the" to "law" in v. 23. The Greek has an anarthrous nomos. Furthermore most versions mistranslate the participle present mellousan. KJV mistranslated as "should afterwards", while in fact it is "being about .. to be directly revealed".

Well then all ploughboys and pewsitters repent of the KJV and look to the gospel according to Harold.:(



As for v. 24 "faith" does not mean "Christ (crucified)". Then, the preposition "by" of KJV is a mistranslation of EK. EK here has its primary sense, "from within". Thus lit. "to the end that from within faith we would be justified". Go and learn what sense dikaio&#244; has in this verse.

Yes Johnor Ray you idiotic ploughboys, smarten up, you ought to know better.;)



Moreover "schoolmaster" is a mistranslation of paidag&#244;gos. It does not denote "school-master", but it denoted someone whose task it was to escort or lead children to and from school. "the law" of v. 24 cannot mean the Mosaic law, because Paul was writing to Galatian members of the Body of the Christ with "heathen" background. Thus the article "the" (with nomos) of v. 24 is the article of previous reference. And the previous instance where nomos occurred was the anarthrous nomos of v. 23. The Galatians, when they were "heathen" still, had absolutely not been under the Mosaic law. If so then they would have had some knowledge of Elohim. But now Paul says in chapter 4, v. 8, that they had had absolutely no propositional or perceptive or cognitive knowledge (eidoo) of Elohim. Had they been under the Mosaic law they would have had some cognitive knowledge of Elohim.

Harald

I think the sky is going to fall. My interpretation of "schoolmaster" has made my faith void. If only I had the right lexicon in the first place, I would not be in the mess I am in.

Harold, your doctrinal views I will continue to refute as long as you continue to promote this dung infested "blinder theology". When your ready to deal with the whole counsel of the Lord here I would then like to know how your above babble could explain Job and his standing before the Lord Justified and his sin NOT Imputed??

jmgipson
02-08-06, 12:15 PM
Yes John or Ray you idiotic ploughboys, smarten up, you ought to know better.;)

Ray, you kill me!!!:D

harald
02-08-06, 01:19 PM
Yeah, so what? (Ray Kikkert)

Yeah, so what. You could probably not, in your lukewarmness, care less for what Paul wrote by Spirit-inspiration in the original Greek. But I do.

23 That is, prior to him [Gr. tou, MASCULINE] who was to come, namely the faith [FEMININE],


How's that for "blinder theology".


Harald

ray kikkert
02-08-06, 01:27 PM
Here is the attachment of my review of the EAGC Conference.

Darth, thank you for putting to paper your clear definitions of the doctrines of Justification and Imputation of Righteousness. The Gospel of Christ is full of examples that vindicate this God honoring response of yours.

ray kikkert
02-08-06, 01:37 PM
Yeah, so what? (Ray Kikkert)

Yeah, so what. You could probably not, in your lukewarmness, care less for what Paul wrote by Spirit-inspiration in the original Greek. But I do.

23 That is, prior to him [Gr. tou, MASCULINE] who was to come, namely the faith [FEMININE],


How's that for "blinder theology".


Harald

Lukewarmness?? It is not that I care less for it. It is after all PART of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Something you ignore. I see you also ignored my challenge with regards to your theology for Job.

Can you Harold , in simple language explain how the doctrines of justification and imputation of righteousness are as valid for Job, David, Daniel..... as the New Testamnent saint??

Brother Darth was able to and he needed no lexicon or original Greek to come to an answer.


What I care less about is "Harold's Perspective on Paul" which includes this lexicon, and that original Greek. The Holy Spirit and Christ are not subserviant to these tools. They must honor and glorify Him as the Sovereign Lord.

jmgipson
02-08-06, 01:54 PM
Darth, thank you for putting to paper your clear definitions of the doctrines of Justification and Imputation of Righteousness. The Gospel of Christ is full of examples that vindicate this God honoring response of yours.

I have finished reading the paper and I must give my thanks with Ray. When you can see the definitions of these doctrines in writing, you can see how much in common you have with most in this forum. THANKS!

John

lionovjudah
02-08-06, 02:06 PM
THis reoccuring thought about justification has caused me to seriously look at the issue at hand.

One thing I find missing is any scriptural backup to justify eternal justification. Not logical conclusions, we can all do that. But solid biblical inspired words that explicitly or implicitly that speak of justification in eternity past, I cannot find. I see throughout the writ explicit teachings that speak completely against this thought.

For starters, not to blast out 20 at once, look at Abraham. He does not look backwards as we do, but only forward. "that God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal.3:18). This would have been the perfect opportunity for the Holy Spirit to say Abe looked back. But He doesnt. The example of Abraham in the epistles constantly speak of some future promise to be brought about by the faithfullness of God. What did the OT saints look forward to? The cross. When all were reconciled by His blood.

Now we can muddy the waters by speaking of some platonic concept of time and eternity, but we need not go there. The writ is perfectly clear to me.

"And these all having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

Christ actually became our substitute. And was not only ordained to be.


Joe

Brandan
02-08-06, 02:15 PM
Joe, nobody here has said the work of justification took place "in" eternity. We're saying that imputation takes place in eternity.

jmgipson
02-08-06, 02:21 PM
Joe,

I think this verse as I wrote earlier speaks volumes.

Rom 4:8
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

3364 ouv me ou me {oo may}
Meaning: 1) never, certainly not, not at all, by no means
Origin: from 3756 and 3361;; particle
Usage: AV - not 56, in no wise 6, no 6, never + 1519 + 165 + 3588 6, no more at all + 2089 5, not tr 1, misc 14; 94

ray kikkert
02-08-06, 03:31 PM
THis reoccuring thought about justification has caused me to seriously look at the issue at hand.

One thing I find missing is any scriptural backup to justify eternal justification. Not logical conclusions, we can all do that. But solid biblical inspired words that explicitly or implicitly that speak of justification in eternity past, I cannot find. I see throughout the writ explicit teachings that speak completely against this thought.

For starters, not to blast out 20 at once, look at Abraham. He does not look backwards as we do, but only forward. "that God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal.3:18). This would have been the perfect opportunity for the Holy Spirit to say Abe looked back. But He doesnt. The example of Abraham in the epistles constantly speak of some future promise to be brought about by the faithfullness of God. What did the OT saints look forward to? The cross. When all were reconciled by His blood.

Now we can muddy the waters by speaking of some platonic concept of time and eternity, but we need not go there. The writ is perfectly clear to me.

"And these all having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

Christ actually became our substitute. And was not only ordained to be.


Joe

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.Through faith we understand the the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:1-3.

Lets look at the accounts of Abraham in the Gospel:


Genesis 17:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=17&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Genesis 17:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=17&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Genesis 17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=17&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter) .... it is the Lord who is faithful and will preform that which He commands for His chosen people.


Genesis 21:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=21&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Genesis 21:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=21&verse=11&end_verse=13&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Genesis 21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=21&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter) God's sovereign purposes come first which includes His gracious covenant with His elect alone.

Consider Genesis 18 and 22. Who was it that appeared to and spoke to Abraham? The angel of the Lord. The angel of the Lord spoken of was none other then the second person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ.

Genesis 18: 18-19, the Lord has spoken it and He will preform His good pleasure.


Psalm 105:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=105&verse=6&version=9&context=verse)
O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
Psalm 105:5-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=105&verse=5&end_verse=7&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Psalm 105 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=105&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)


Isaiah 63:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=63&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
Isaiah 63:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=63&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Isaiah 63 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=63&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)

Luke 3:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=3&verse=8&version=9&context=verse)
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Luke 3:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=3&verse=7&end_verse=9&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Luke 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)


Repentance is the gift of the Lord.


John 8:53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=53&version=9&context=verse)
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
John 8:52-54 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=52&end_verse=54&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
John 8:56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=56&version=9&context=verse)
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
John 8:55-57 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=55&end_verse=57&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
John 8:57 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=57&version=9&context=verse)
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
John 8:56-58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=56&end_verse=58&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
John 8:58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=58&version=9&context=verse)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:57-59 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=57&end_verse=59&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter) Abraham knew very well of His Redeemer. He was not put in some kind of Justification and Imputed Righteousness Purgatory.



Acts 13:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=13&verse=26&version=9&context=verse)
Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
Acts 13:25-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=13&verse=25&end_verse=27&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Acts 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=13&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=1&version=9&context=verse)
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Romans 4:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=2&version=9&context=verse)
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=3&version=9&context=verse)
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=2&end_verse=4&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Romans 4:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Romans 4:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=11&end_verse=13&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=13&version=9&context=verse)
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:12-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=12&end_verse=14&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Romans 4:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter) That promise is sure only in Jesus Christ as determined by the Lord would save His elect.


Romans 9:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Romans 9:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&verse=6&end_verse=8&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Galatians 3:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=6&end_verse=8&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=8&version=9&context=verse)
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Galatians 3:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=7&end_verse=9&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Galatians 3:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=14&version=9&context=verse)
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:13-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Galatians 3:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=18&version=9&context=verse)
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Galatians 3:17-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=17&end_verse=19&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=29&version=9&context=verse)
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:28-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=28&end_verse=30&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter) It is hard to fathom that you can miss that the Lord in eternity saw His elect child as justified and did not impute sin to Him on account of seeing Abraham as righteous in the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the earth. That is how the Lord seen Abraham among the other Old Testament saints.

lionovjudah
02-08-06, 03:48 PM
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.Through faith we understand the the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:1-3.

Lets look at the accounts of Abraham in the Gospel:


Genesis 17:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=17&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Genesis 17:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=17&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Genesis 17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=17&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter).... it is the Lord who is faithful and will preform that which He commands for His chosen people.


Genesis 21:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=21&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Genesis 21:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=21&verse=11&end_verse=13&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Genesis 21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=21&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)God's sovereign purposes come first which includes His gracious covenant with His elect alone.

Consider Genesis 18 and 22. Who was it that appeared to and spoke to Abraham? The angel of the Lord. The angel of the Lord spoken of was none other then the second person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ.

Genesis 18: 18-19, the Lord has spoken it and He will preform His good pleasure.


Psalm 105:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=105&verse=6&version=9&context=verse)
O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
Psalm 105:5-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=105&verse=5&end_verse=7&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Psalm 105 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=105&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)

Isaiah 63:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=63&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
Isaiah 63:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=63&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Isaiah 63 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=63&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Luke 3:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=3&verse=8&version=9&context=verse)
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Luke 3:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=3&verse=7&end_verse=9&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Luke 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)


Repentance is the gift of the Lord.


John 8:53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=53&version=9&context=verse)
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
John 8:52-54 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=52&end_verse=54&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
John 8:56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=56&version=9&context=verse)
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
John 8:55-57 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=55&end_verse=57&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
John 8:57 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=57&version=9&context=verse)
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
John 8:56-58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=56&end_verse=58&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
John 8:58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=58&version=9&context=verse)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John 8:57-59 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&verse=57&end_verse=59&version=9&context=context) (in Context) John 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)Abraham knew very well of His Redeemer. He was not put in some kind of Justification and Imputed Righteousness Purgatory.



Acts 13:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=13&verse=26&version=9&context=verse)
Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
Acts 13:25-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=13&verse=25&end_verse=27&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Acts 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=13&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=1&version=9&context=verse)
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Romans 4:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=2&version=9&context=verse)
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=3&version=9&context=verse)
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=2&end_verse=4&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Romans 4:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Romans 4:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=11&end_verse=13&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=13&version=9&context=verse)
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:12-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=12&end_verse=14&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Romans 4:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Romans 4:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)That promise is sure only in Jesus Christ as determined by the Lord would save His elect.


Romans 9:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Romans 9:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&verse=6&end_verse=8&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Romans 9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Galatians 3:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=6&end_verse=8&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=8&version=9&context=verse)
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Galatians 3:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=7&end_verse=9&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Galatians 3:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=14&version=9&context=verse)
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:13-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Galatians 3:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=18&version=9&context=verse)
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Galatians 3:17-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=17&end_verse=19&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Galatians 3:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=29&version=9&context=verse)
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:28-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=28&end_verse=30&version=9&context=context) (in Context) Galatians 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&version=9&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)It is hard to fathom that you can miss that the Lord in eternity saw His elect child as justified and did not impute sin to Him on account of seeing Abraham as righteous in the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the earth. That is how the Lord seen Abraham among the other Old Testament saints.


Ray, no need to place a barrage of scripture that proves nothing of the sort. Not one speaks of Abraham being justified before being born. Instead the scripture speak of Abraham looking forward to the promise. Not looking back.

Look, I am not going to repeat 100 times. not one of the 1500 verses you mention equal justification.imputation before the worlds were created, not one Ray. Infact until one adressed Galatians3 that i posted, there is no need to go further. This whole concept you strive against the writteen word to promote is just not there Ray. You would have to conclude that we are not born in need of a savior Ray. We are born in grace, then fall when we sin. I dont know, but this sounds pelagian to me. All you mention does not equal justification or imputation truthfuilly. You can say it does, but that does not make it so. In fact it is repeatedly stated as a promise that God WOULD fulfil, not had fulfilled right? All you have shown is Gods plan of salvation is not by works. Of which I agree 100%.


Answer one question please. What is the promise and did Abraham look back or forward. That is all I would like to know.

lionovjudah
02-08-06, 03:57 PM
It is hard to fathom that you can miss that the Lord in eternity saw His elect child as justified and did not impute sin to Him on account of seeing Abraham as righteous in the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the earth. That is how the Lord seen Abraham among the other Old Testament saints.

Election does not equal imputation

Eternal Union does not equal imputation.

These words are not synonyms ray. Not even close. Was not adams sin imputed to Abraham? And to all of his posterity? What are we concluding here. Christs death is not some secondary event to play out a decree. It is the consumation of ALL events in the redemptive history of mankind. There is no remission without the shedding of blood period. Christ did not shed His blood in eternity. He was not whipped in eternity. He did not die in eternity. He died in 30 ad. We also forget that it wa His obedience that is imputed also. And the Law was not even given yet, therefore what did he obey?

ray kikkert
02-08-06, 04:25 PM
Ray, no need to place a barrage of scripture that proves nothing of the sort. Not one speaks of Abraham being justified before being born. Instead the scripture speak of Abraham looking forward to the promise. Not looking back.

According to the Lord He was Justified and also the Lord did not impute sin to Abraham. You may stop your ears from witnessing this truth but the Soverign Lord and His eternal, deteminate counsel come first.



Look, I am not going to repeat 100 times. not one of the 1500 verses you mention equal justification.imputation before the worlds were created, not one Ray.

Well from everlasting to everlasting He is God and that includes His eternal purposes.


Infact until one adressed Galatians3 that i posted, there is no need to go further.

No need to go further. I dare say Galatians 3 will not be explained properly if the whole counsel of the Lord is not taken into account. The apostle seemed intent on doing so, why not you?


This whole concept you strive against the writteen word to promote is just not there Ray. You would have to conclude that we are not born in need of a savior Ray.

I conclude from the account of Abraham that he not only was in need of a Redeemer but knew that His Redeemer liveth, spoke with Him and rejoiced to see Him. So do I.



We are born in grace, then fall when we sin. I dont know, but this sounds pelagian to me.

We are born and conceived in sin. The Lord by His determinate counsel willed to save His elect whom He loved. That His glory and honored may be magnified. Read John 17. I have no idea where you get Pelagianism from. Please explain.


All you mention does not equal justification or imputation truthfuilly. You can say it does, but that does not make it so.

Well then do not take my word for it , read again Numbers 23 and 24. Why did the Lord not see iniquity in Jacob??


In fact it is repeatedly stated as a promise that God WOULD fulfil, not had fulfilled right? All you have shown is Gods plan of salvation is not by works. Of which I agree 100%.


Answer one question please. What is the promise and did Abraham look back or forward. That is all I would like to know.

Well a clear example is Christ speaking of Abraham, what I sent through regarding John 8:54-58. But alas, as for your answer to your question the promise is eternal salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ and that same Redeemer Abraham knew of and rejoiced to see His day and verily Abraham saw it.

Consider Gill's exposition of the John 8 text:

John 8:54 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/John/8.html#54)

Ver. 54. Jesus answered, if I honour myself, my honour is nothing,.... It is empty and vain, and will not continue; see 2Co 10:18 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/2_Corinthians/10.html#18);

it is my Father that honoureth me: by a voice from heaven, both at his baptism, and transfiguration, declaring him to be his beloved Son, and by the works and miracles he did by him; as he afterwards also honoured him by raising him from the dead, and setting him at his own right hand, by pouring forth his Spirit on his disciples, and succeeding his Gospel in every place:

of whom ye say that he is your God; your covenant God and Father, being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; of this the Jews boasted. The Alexandrian copy, and some others, and all the Oriental versions read, "our God".


John 8:55 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/John/8.html#55)

Ver. 55. Yet ye have not known him,.... Not as the Father of Christ, nor as in Christ, whom to know is life eternal: they had no spiritual knowledge of him, nor communion with him; nor did they know truly his mind and will, nor how to worship and serve him as they ought:

but I know him; his nature and perfections, being of the same nature, and having the same perfections with him; and his whole mind and will lying in his bosom: nor did, or does any know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom he is pleased to reveal him:

and if I should say, I know him not, I should be a liar like unto you. Our Lord still intimates, that they were of their father the devil, and imitated him not only as a murderer, but as a liar: this is quite contrary to the character they give of themselves, for they say {x}, that an Israelite will not tell a lie.

But I know him, and keep his saying: do his will, and always the things that please him, observe his law, preach his Gospel, fulfil all righteousness, and work out the salvation of men, which were the will and work of his Father he came to do.

{x} Maimon. in Misn. Pesachim, c. 8. sect. 6.


John 8:56 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/John/8.html#56)

Ver. 56. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day,.... Or "he was desirous to see my day", as the Syriac and Arabic versions rightly render the word; or "very desirous", as the Persic version: and indeed, this was what many kings and prophets, and righteous men, were desirous of, even of seeing the Messiah and his day: we often read of xyvmh twmy, "the days of the Messiah": and the Jews, in their Talmud {y}, dispute much about them, how long they will be; one says forty years, another seventy, another three ages: it is the opinion of some, that they shall be according to the number of the days of the year, three hundred and sixty five years; some say seven thousand years, and others as many as have been from the beginning of the world; and others, as many as from Noah; but we know the day of Christ better, and how long he was here on earth; and whose whole time here is called his day; this Abraham had a very great desire to see:

and he saw [it] and was glad; he saw it with an eye of faith, he saw it in the promise, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and when it was promised him he should have a son, which was the beginning of the fulfilment of the other, he laughed, and therefore his son was called Isaac, to which some reference is here made; he saw him in the birth of his son Isaac and rejoiced, and therefore called his name Isaac, that is, "laughter": he saw also Christ and his day, his sufferings, death, and resurrection from the dead, in a figure; in the binding of Isaac, in the sacrifice of the ram, and in the receiving of Isaac, as from the dead; and he not only saw the Messiah in his type Melchizedek, and who some think was the Son of God himself, but he saw the second person, the promised Messiah, in an human form, Ge 18:2 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Genesis/18.html#2); and all this was matter of joy and gladness to him. This brings to mind what the Jews say at the rejoicing at the law, when the book of the law is brought out {z}

"Abraham rejoiced with the rejoicing of the law, he that cometh shall come, the branch with the joy of the law; Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, rejoiced with the joy of the law; he that cometh shall come, the branch with the joy of the law.''

{y} T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 99. 1. {z} Seder Tephillot, fol. 309. 1. Ed. Basil.


John 8:57 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/John/8.html#57)

Ver. 57. Then said the Jews unto him, thou art not yet fifty years old,.... One copy reads forty, but he was not that; no, not much more than thirty; not above two or three and thirty years old: the reason of their fixing on this age of fifty might be, because Christ might look like such an one, being a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefs, as well as of great gravity; or they might be free in allowing him as many years, as could be thought he should be of, and gain their point; for what were fifty years, when Abraham had been dead above two thousand? and therefore he could never see Abraham, nor Abraham see him; moreover, this age of fifty, is often spoken of by the Jews, and much observed; at the age of fifty, a man is fit to give counsel, they say {a}; hence the Levites were dismissed from service at that age, it being more proper for them then to give advice, than to bear burdens; a Methurgeman, or an interpreter in a congregation, was not chosen under fifty years of age {b}; and if a man died before he was fifty, this was called the death of cutting off {c}; a violent death, a death inflicted by God, as a punishment; Christ lived not to that age, he was now many years short of it:

and hast thou seen Abraham? if he had not, Abraham had seen him, in the sense before given, and in which Christ asserted it, and it is to be understood.

{a} Pirke Abot, c. 5. sect. 21. {b} T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 14. 1. Juchasin, fol. 44. 2. {c} T. Hieros. Biccurim, fol. 64. 3. T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 28. 1. Macsecheth Semachot, c. 3. sect. 9. Kimchi in Isa. xxxviii. 10.


John 8:58 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/John/8.html#58)

Ver. 58. Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you,.... Whether it will be believed or not, it is certainly fact:

before Abraham was, I am; which is to be understood, not of his being in the purpose and decree of God, foreordained to sufferings, and to glory; for so all the elect of God may be said to be before Abraham, being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world: or that Christ was man, before Abraham became the father of many nations; that is, before the calling of the Gentiles; for nothing is said in the text about his being the father of many nations; it is a bold and impudent addition to it: and besides, Abraham was made the father of many nations, as Ishmaelites, Israelites, Hagarenes, &c. long before the incarnation of Christ; yea, he was so from the very promise in Ge 17:5 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Genesis/17.html#5), which so runs, "a father of many nations have I made thee"; so that this appears a false sense of the text, which is to be understood of the deity, eternity, and immutability of Christ, and refers to the passage in Ex 3:14 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Exodus/3.html#14). "I am that I am--I am hath sent me unto you", the true Jehovah; and so Christ was before Abraham was in being, the everlasting I am, the eternal God, which is, and was, and is to come: he appeared in an human form to our first parents before Abraham was, and was manifested as the Mediator, Saviour, and living Redeemer, to whom all the patriarchs before Abraham looked, and by whom they were saved: he was concerned in the creation of all things out of nothing, as the efficient cause thereof; he was set up from everlasting as Mediator; and the covenant of grace was made with him, and the blessings and promises of it were put into his hands before the world began; the eternal election of men to everlasting life was made in him before the foundation of the world; and he had a glory with his Father before the world was; yea, from all eternity he was the Son of God, of the same nature with him, and equal to him; and his being of the same nature proves his eternity, as well as deity, that he is from everlasting to everlasting God; and is what he ever was, and will be what he now is: he is immutable, the same today, yesterday, and for ever; in his nature, love, grace, and fulness, he is the invariable and unchangeable I am.

lionovjudah
02-08-06, 05:38 PM
According to the Lord He was Justified and also the Lord did not impute sin to Abraham. You may stop your ears from witnessing this truth but the Soverign Lord and His eternal, deteminate counsel come first.

My ears are open ray. He did not impute sin because it was purposed to be convered by the sacraficial death of Christ.





No need to go further. I dare say Galatians 3 will not be explained properly if the whole counsel of the Lord is not taken into account. The apostle seemed intent on doing so, why not you?
Are you telling me one cannot find truth in scripture without using all 66 book? I know you are not saying that. So again, Paul expounds much truth In galatians 3 and romans 4. We need not read Job for the answer




ray]I conclude from the account of Abraham that he not only was in need of a Redeemer but knew that His Redeemer liveth, spoke with Him and rejoiced to see Him. So do I.We are born and conceived in sin. The Lord by His determinate counsel willed to save His elect whom He loved. That His glory and honored may be magnified. Read John 17. I have no idea where you get Pelagianism from. Please explain.
Pelagious claimed man is born in a somewhat neutral state with some grace. Then falls from this grace only when they consciously sin. What you appear to be proposing is that this "determinate council" you so "eloquently" repeat ad nauseum(i just learned what that meant so I used it), Saves the elect from nothing. Since we are viewed as justified before creation, imputed before the foundations of the world with Christs righteoussness.




Well then do not take my word for it , read again Numbers 23 and 24. Why did the Lord not see iniquity in Jacob??
I have read it. And it more accurately means He has not held the offenses against those whom He has found satisfaction in the death of Christ.

Look at Jer 50:20:

er 50:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jer&chapter=50&verse=20&version=kjv)In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and [there shall be] none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve. At what time? Why did He not say, I have already pardoned them in eternity past? Again he says I Will Pardon them. Not He has pardoned them without viewing the death of Christ

Gill speaks of the eye of faith. This stil looks forward to the promise and not backwards. This is a roadblock that you cannot get over. Not once is the promise spoken of as completed or in the past.

As an aside, why did Christ have to die Ray? If all it took for God to view us as righteouss and justified before the foundations of the world, then why the horrible death of His Only Begotten son? Please do not tell me it was only to show us His secret determinate will. Please do not say Christ shed His blood for no reason. Why would God humble Himself, and become man. Flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone. Walk the earth for 33 years.

Did Christ shed His blood before the foundations of the world?

There is NO remission without the shedding of blood.

melted
02-08-06, 06:04 PM
I have just posted an article that speaks to the objective and subjective aspects of justification. While some may not agree with some of the conclusions therein, I think it may help bring light to at least some of the many issues that confuse this topic.

http://www.bornagain.net/index.php?action=Objective%20and%20Subjective%20Ju stification

jmgipson
02-08-06, 06:52 PM
I have just posted an article that speaks to the objective and subjective aspects of justification. While some may not agree with some of the conclusions therein, I think it may help bring light to at least some of the many issues that confuse this topic.

http://www.bornagain.net/index.php?action=Objective%20and%20Subjective%20Ju stification

Makes sense Kyle!

1 Thess 5:9
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Eph 2:3
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Rom 5:9
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

John

ray kikkert
02-08-06, 06:55 PM
My ears are open ray. He did not impute sin because it was purposed to be convered by the sacraficial death of Christ.

Correct. The Lord's purpose is first and foremost.






Are you telling me one cannot find truth in scripture without using all 66 book? I know you are not saying that. So again, Paul expounds much truth In galatians 3 and romans 4. We need not read Job for the answer

Yes you as I need to read Job. The whole Gospel must be taken into consideration to do justice to the text exegetically.






Pelagious claimed man is born in a somewhat neutral state with some grace. Then falls from this grace only when they consciously sin. What you appear to be proposing is that this "determinate council" you so "eloquently" repeat ad nauseum(i just learned what that meant so I used it), Saves the elect from nothing. Since we are viewed as justified before creation, imputed before the foundations of the world with Christs righteoussness.

I said man(including me) are born and conceived in sin. I totally detest that man falls from the Lord's grace. Remember Joe I maintain that the Lord views us as justified and His purpose was accomplished in time at the cross. This does not mean there are 2 justifications, it is one in the same. I see your nicely ignore my post as others to the effect.






I have read it. And it more accurately means He has not held the offenses against those whom He has found satisfaction in the death of Christ.

Wow, God actually seen no iniquity in the elect, before Christ actually in time died on the cross. The death of Christ would indeed take place some time after Baalam's vision, yet according to the Lord sin cursed elect vessels of honor are viewed by the Lord as without sin.




Look at Jer 50:20:

er 50:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jer&chapter=50&verse=20&version=kjv)In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and [there shall be] none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve. At what time? Why did He not say, I have already pardoned them in eternity past? Again he says I Will Pardon them. Not He has pardoned them without viewing the death of Christ

...and what of elect vessels as Jeremiah? Are they cast to purgatory till Christ in time suffered on the cross? What of their state before the death and resurrection of Christ??



Gill speaks of the eye of faith. This stil looks forward to the promise and not backwards. This is a roadblock that you cannot get over. Not once is the promise spoken of as completed or in the past.

According to the Lord it is. If it was not the roadblock into eternal bliss for the patriarchs before Christs death would needs be purgatory or transition place of some kind. What of this roadblock? What of those vessels of dishonor? Is there a possibility that they as well are in a transition place before the death and resuurection of Christ ?



As an aside, why did Christ have to die Ray?

It was the determinate counsel of the Lord to do so.



If all it took for God to view us as righteouss and justified before the foundations of the world, then why the horrible death of His Only Begotten son?

As I have said time and again, that the Lord may be glorified and honored by it. His Sovereign good pleasure comes first.


Please do not tell me it was only to show us His secret determinate will.

Is it then still a secret Joe??


Please do not say Christ shed His blood for no reason.

Again, the Lord's purpose was to honor and glorify Himself.


Why would God humble Himself, and become man. Flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone. Walk the earth for 33 years.

The Lord saw fit that His honor and glory should be manifested in this way.



Did Christ shed His blood before the foundations of the world?

Again the Lord saw His elect as such in the shed blood of Christ and His determinate counsel was set forth in time.



There is NO remission without the shedding of blood.

This was accomplished in time as well as determined by the Sovereign will and good pleasure of the Lord.

jmgipson
02-08-06, 07:13 PM
Joe,
If we follow this line of thinking we would have to say that we are not yet justified or righteous. We still have to stand before God.

2 Tim 4:8
8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Rev 19:8
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

GraceAmbassador
02-08-06, 07:17 PM
Eph 2:3
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

When quoting this scriptures it is always a good suggestion to quote the continuation of the text. Paul's style sometimes is in the form of an explanation of the previous sentence which in fact ALTERS the previous sentence. Let me show you:

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Both in Greek and in English, BUT has a function of explaining or altering the previous sentence.

Verse 3 may lend the impression that God hated us; It is actually only saying that we were children of wrath (a hebraism).

Verse 4 says that "even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, for His great love for us He quickened us...

I have not read Kyle's posted article yet, but I believe the explanation here is pertinent. I have seen many people using verse 3 as an argument that God hated the elect at one time, which is NOT what the text is saying. Nowhere else in the Bible God refers to His enemies as "children". Verse 4 starts with a BUT. This style from Paul is used in many other verses. Example: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, BUT they are mighty. The fact that our weapons are not visible and used by the arm of flesh (2 Chronicles 32:8), they are nonetheless MIGHTY. The emphasis and the PRESENT truth is what comes after the BUT and not the previous phrase.

Milt

jmgipson
02-08-06, 07:25 PM
When quoting this scriptures it is always a good suggestion to quote the continuation of the text. Paul's style sometimes is in the form of an explanation of the previous sentence which in fact ALTERS the previous sentence. Let me show you:

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Both in Greek and in English, BUT has a function of explaining or altering the previous sentence.

Verse 3 may lend the impression that God hated us; It is actually only saying that we were children of wrath (a hebraism).

Verse 4 says that "even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, for His great love for us He quickened us...

I have not read Kyle's posted article yet, but I believe the explanation here is pertinent. I have seen many people using verse 3 as an argument that God hated the elect at one time, which is NOT what the text is saying. Nowhere else in the Bible God refers to His enemies as "children". Verse 4 starts with a BUT. This style from Paul is used in many other verses. Example: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, BUT they are mighty. The fact that our weapons are not visible and used by the arm of flesh (2 Chronicles 32:8), they are nonetheless MIGHTY. The emphasis and the PRESENT truth is what comes after the BUT and not the previous phrase.

Milt

Thanks Milt. They were quoted as an example of things which are Objective and subjective which the article speaks of. I have no doubts that the elect were never under wrath.

John

ray kikkert
02-08-06, 07:32 PM
Thanks Milt. They were quoted as an example of things which are Objective and subjective which the article speaks of. I have no doubts that the elect were never under wrath.

John

Me either and Darth said it well:

Personally, it is the idea of imputation in eternity, and the work of justification being purposed from eternity that has brought much peace to my soul. To think that God has never viewed His elect as sinful, but always as joined to Christ and baptized in His death and thus their resurrection in Him means that they were indeed made for this great salvation. They were made to be the objects of His affection from the beginning. God did not decree to create Adam and allow Him to sin only so that He would decretively select from a group of fallen humanity. But He purposed his fall so that ultimately He would be glorified and that those who come to know Him would rejoice in Him forever and ever! The new earth for Godís people will not be simply a restoration to the Garden of Eden, but the creation was subjected to much suffering to prepare a way for something even greater that has been planned from eternity!

melted
02-08-06, 08:11 PM
Amen to all of the recent posts concerning Eph 2:3! I've spoken to this before as well (http://www.bornagain.net/index.php?id=10). It is a common belief so deserves a specific and logical answer for everyone who misuses it (I know that you did not misuse it, John!). Most concerning to me about those who take such a position is that they believe God hated them while He was supposedly dying for them on the cross. What a strange and horrible concept.

Brandan
02-08-06, 08:30 PM
Agreed Kyle. The notion of God hating His own people or His own Son is hard to comprehend! Anyone who believes such has obviously not had the truth burned deep in their souls! For if God hates someone, they are still hated, and will continue to be hated because God is immutable.

jmgipson
02-09-06, 06:41 AM
"My people," He says, "hath been lost sheep." They do not become sheep by being found, nor do they cease to be sheep by being lost. They were sheep eternally in the mind of God; and their becoming lost did not alter nor destroy their character of being sheep any more than the wandering of a sheep literally and naturally from the fold turns it into a goat. It may be lame, sick, or diseased; it may stray away miles from the fold; its fleece may be torn with briars or soiled with mud, and its whole appearance so altered that the shepherd can scarcely recognise it; but it is a sheep still, and ever will be a sheep whilst it continues to exist. And thus the elect being sheep eternally in the mind of God, and as such possessing an eternal union with the Son of God, could not cease to be sheep by falling in Adam, nor do their personal, individual falls, slips, and transgressions destroy their original, unalterable character.

But viewed as to the place where the Lord the Spirit finds them, they are "lost sheep," ruined, undone, without hope, without help, without strength, without wisdom, without righteousness; lost, so as to have no power to find the way to glory; lost, as to any expectations of finding that in the creature which God can look upon with acceptance; lost, as to any hope of ever reaching the heavenly shore, save under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit; lost, as to any possibility of doing the least thing towards propitiating the favour of God, or gaining an interest in His love.

When God the Holy Ghost takes a soul in hand, just as the fingers of a manís hand wrote a sentence of condemnation upon the wall of the palace of the king of Babylon, so does the blessed Spirit write the word "Lost" upon the conscience of every vessel of mercy; and when He has written this word with power on their consciences, they carry it about with them branded as it were in letters of fire, in such a manner that the impression is never to be erased, until it is blotted out by the atoning blood of the Mediator.

And thus in the teachings of the Holy Ghost in the consciences of Godís family, "lost, lost, lost," is written on their heart; "lost, lost, lost," is the cry of their lips; "lost, lost, lost," is the deep feeling of their soul. And none was ever found who had not the feeling lost, written more or less deeply upon his heart. None was ever gathered in the arms of the heavenly Shepherd; sought out upon the mountains and the hills, laid upon His shoulders, and brought home with rejoicing; none was ever brought into a spiritual acquaintance with Jesus, so as to enjoy communion with Him, who had not sighed, and groaned, and cried under a sense of his lost state, as a guilty sinner before God.

Now when the soul has been taught by the Holy Ghost to feel as well as to see and know itself to be without strength to deliver itself from the wrath to come, and is in consequence sunk down into despondency and dismay, then is the time when the Holy Ghost usually gives it some discovery of the mercy of God in the face of Jesus Christ. We find this sweetly set forth in that remarkable chapter, Eze 16. The vessel of mercy is there delineated under the figure of a new-born babe, abandoned by its mother, and "cast out in the open field, to the loathing of its person in the day that it was born". Eze 16:5 As unpitied, as abandoned, as polluted, as helpless, as perishing, as wretched as an outcast is the quickened soul. But it is not left to perish. "When I passed by thee," says the loving Redeemer, "and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee" (the time of espousal), Ru 3:9 "and covered thy nakedness; yes, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine". Eze 16:8

JOSEPH CHARLES PHILPOT (1802-1869)

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 08:04 AM
Joe,
If we follow this line of thinking we would have to say that we are not yet justified or righteous. We still have to stand before God.

2 Tim 4:8
8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Rev 19:8
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

John. What line of thinking are we speaking of? This is not at all what I am speaking.

Do you think I am advocating that the elect are in danger of hell fire?

Brandan
02-09-06, 08:07 AM
Here is one more draft with some errors corrected. There are a couple more typos, but I'm tired of editing! It's in PDF & Word format.

jmgipson
02-09-06, 08:13 AM
John. What line of thinking are we speaking of? This is not at all what I am speaking.

Do you think I am advocating that the elect are in danger of hell fire?

No Joe. It was more that the scripture states that we will not be complete in righteousness until that day when we stand before the lord. It probably was a poor example.

John

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 08:18 AM
Joe, nobody here has said the work of justification took place "in" eternity. We're saying that imputation takes place in eternity.

I know you are saying this, but please show me where scripture speaks of such thoughts BK. How can Christs acive/passive obedience,His righteousness be imputed to His elect prior to any sin in them?

This "logic" seperates the Godhead. This puts 100% of our salvation in the decree of the Father. And the Son and Spirit just agree to do something in the future only to what? I believe Justification is the most important Biblical concept that one must understand. Therefore our triune Godhead MUST all be active in this act. Scripture constantly speaks of looking at the cross of Christ. Not the decree of God.

I asked Ray the question of why did Christ have to die if we were already imputed with His righteousness. He gives some pat Sovereign Grace cliche that is never mentioned in the writ. I surely hope His death means more to you, than just glorifying the Father, and only because the Father purposed it. Tell that to Christ, when He hung on the tree, or the aginy in the garden. Without His literal death in 30 ad, without His resurrection we are still in our sins according to Paul.

Why did Israel have to put the blood on their doorpost? The same reason we have to be covered in His blood. We are not covered only by His will to impute.

Again their is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. And unless Christ shed His blood in eternity, wherever that is, imputation could not take place.

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 08:23 AM
No Joe. It was more that the scripture states that we will not be complete in righteousness until that day when we stand before the lord. It probably was a poor example.

John

Which is a truth anyway right? I mean as long as we are on this side of the grave, we are sinners, wretched creatures.

ANother thought has crossed my mind is a subject we never or rarely speak of. The mediatorship role of Christ for His sheep. Constantly making intercession for us. This shows that the Father does get angry with us and hates our sin. Hates it with a righteouss passion. But again our Savior takes the hyssop and "reminds" the Father that the elect are covered by His blood. We need Christ forever. Why would we need constant intercession?

I see a relationship with this and the thoughts on justification.

Brandan
02-09-06, 08:42 AM
I know you are saying this, but please show me where scripture speaks of such thoughts BK. How can Christs acive/passive obedience,His righteousness be imputed to His elect prior to any sin in them? First, Joe, tell me how the sins of the elect can be imputed to Christ before they are actually committed. There is where you will find your answer.

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 09:26 AM
First, Joe, tell me how the sins of the elect can be imputed to Christ before they are actually committed. There is where you will find your answer.

Christ paid for the elects sins/sin at the cross. This is where imputation takes place. You are speaking 1 part at the expense of the Whole.

The decree to impute was a decree to impute at the cross. And as the OT saints looked forward with the eye of faith, we look backwards.

Again the cross is where we were reconciled. I mentioned this before, but noone commented. Paul explicitly states reconcilliation happenned at the cross, redemption by His blood. If you say His righteoussness was imputed before the foundations, then all these scriptures are meaningless. Why would we need to be reconciled if we are already imputed /justified?

His death was not only to Glorify the Father, To be a secondary act just because of some decree. It was the decree.

Look at 1 cor 15.

17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Do you see how the Scriptures overwhelmingly point to His life , death and ressurection BK?

Paul could have said, "If Christ has not been raised, you are still covered because of His decree to impute before the foundations of the world."

But he does not.

jmgipson
02-09-06, 09:32 AM
Christ paid for the elects sins/sin at the cross. This is where imputation takes place. You are speaking 1 part at the expense of the Whole.

The decree to impute was a decree to impute at the cross. And as the OT saints looked forward with the eye of faith, we look backwards.

Again the cross is where we were reconciled. I mentioned this before, but noone commented. Paul explicitly states reconcilliation happenned at the cross, redemption by His blood. If you say His righteoussness was imputed before the foundations, then all these scriptures are meaningless. Why would we need to be reconciled if we are already imputed /justified?

His death was not only to Glorify the Father, To be a secondary act just because of some decree. It was the decree.

Look at 1 cor 15.

17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Do you see how the Scriptures overwhelmingly point to His life , death and ressurection BK?

Paul could have said, "If Christ has not been raised, you are still covered because of His decree to impute before the foundations of the world."

But he does not.

But Joe, I think what Brandan is asking is how could John Gipsons sins be imputed at the cross when I haven't even committed them yet because I was still not born.

John

harald
02-09-06, 11:58 AM
It is after all PART of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Something you ignore. (Ray Kikkert)

What do you mean?


I see you also ignored my challenge with regards to your theology for Job.

Ah yes. You said something to the import of Job as "justified", prior to Christ's death I presume. First you show me where the Hebrew text reads that Job was "justified" before God at the time when he lived.


Can you Harold , in simple language explain how the doctrines of justification and imputation of righteousness are as valid for Job, David, Daniel..... as the New Testamnent saint??

Such saints as lived pre Calvary were justified before the God at the point when Christ shed His blood on Calvary. The same applies to saints that lived when Christ was here. The same applies to post Calvary saints. All of God's chosen ones, of whatever age in time, of whatever household, were justified in and through Christ when He was on the stake. The time pre Calvary's death is by Paul called "the forbearance of the God", Rom. 3:25. While this verse strictly speaking applies to the (distinction-less) Body of the Christ the truth of "by-passed" sinful acts in the forbearance of the God also applies to pre Calvary sinful acts of members of other elect households. So, the God passed by Job's (David's, Daniel's) sinful acts in His forbearance. Then at the appointed occasion in time the God judged them in their promised Substitute, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ bore them away in His own body on the tree. And there they were justified before, in the sight of, the God through and out of consideration of the instrumentality of the faith-righteousness of Christ.


What I care less about is "Harold's Perspective on Paul" which includes this lexicon, and that original Greek.

What "this lexicon" are you babbling about?


The Holy Spirit and Christ are not subserviant to these tools. They must honor and glorify Him as the Sovereign Lord.

What a pathetic reply. The original Greek glorifies Christ as the sovereign Lord. Didn't you know this? Are you a King James Only lad?


Harald

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 12:32 PM
But Joe, I think what Brandan is asking is how could John Gipsons sins be imputed at the cross when I haven't even committed them yet because I was still not born.

John

Because of the elects eternal Union with Christ. Which does not equal justification or imputation.

Without Him coming into the world, without His death, without His ressurection, Paul said we would still be in our sins.

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on Him and receive eternal life." (1Timothy 1:15-16).

doctr_of_grace
02-09-06, 12:40 PM
OK I have read this thread a couple of times because I am really trying hard to understand where ya'll are coming from. At first I was thinking ...how much does this really matter??? you are either justified or you aren't. You are either imputed with Christ's righteousness or you are not. Timing seems be the subject matter at hand and I still am not sure why it matters. Outside of this notion that God once hated the elect. I am not sure if Joe thinks that God once hated the elect or not. I surely don't believe that God ever hated the elect.

When trying to perceive something from the mind of God I think we can easily be confused about things like "time" or when something is effectual etc. From my own perspective it took regeneration from the Holy Spirit for me to understand or even consider myself "forgiven" by God. So God uses time to accomplish his decree ... right?

hmmm .... I see both sides of this argument but I see myself leaning closer to this belief that God being outside of time sees us all (the elect) as righteous through Christ of course before any of this began. Although the thought still gives me major brain cramps hahaha

I look forward to more discussion and Brandan I have really enjoyed your reviews and blogs on this topic!!!

God Bless all those that belong to HIM ... Out for now ... Jan

Brandan
02-09-06, 12:43 PM
Jan it is apparent to me that you are understanding the issue. You wrote:
From my own perspective it took regeneration from the Holy Spirit for me to understand or even consider myself "forgiven" by God. So God uses time to accomplish his decree ... right? That's right. Amen! From our perspective, it is through the gift of faith that we come to realize our forgiveness in Christ. God's view of us has not changed one bit though. We cannot say that God's view has changed, or we will end up with a god of our imagination because God is immutable.

ray kikkert
02-09-06, 12:53 PM
It is after all PART of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Something you ignore. (Ray Kikkert)

What do you mean?

What I mean Harold is that if you would take the time to study the other parts of the Gospel instead of limiting yourself to "pauls perspective" since the apostle himself called upon other parts of the Gospel to put forth an answer. An answer by the way which is Inspired by the Lord just as much as it was in the days of the patriarchs. It attests to Christ throughout and since you seem to limit it to the apostle you loose sight of Christ the Redeemer from before the foundations of the world.




I see you also ignored my challenge with regards to your theology for Job.

Ah yes. You said something to the import of Job as "justified", prior to Christ's death I presume. First you show me where the Hebrew text reads that Job was "justified" before God at the time when he lived.

No , I see in the next volley from you that you have , so I will move on to that.



Can you Harold , in simple language explain how the doctrines of justification and imputation of righteousness are as valid for Job, David, Daniel..... as the New Testamnent saint??

Such saints as lived pre Calvary were justified before the God at the point when Christ shed His blood on Calvary.

Yes Harold I agree. What I am saying is that these old testament saints knew "then" that their Redeemer , Saviour Christ liveth. Our heavenly Father viewed them as elect at there time and thus when there earthly walk was finished took these elect saints to heaven. Thus they were already viewed by the Lord as justified and that righteousness was imputed to these elect OT saints because the will of the Lord would not be frustrated, but that Christ would die on the cross and be resurrected. I really enjoyed that artcle John sent through. These were always sheep, they were always elect.

God's determinate counsel and purpose comes first.


The same applies to saints that lived when Christ was here. The same applies to post Calvary saints. All of God's chosen ones, of whatever age in time, of whatever household, were justified in and through Christ when He was on the stake. The time pre Calvary's death is by Paul called "the forbearance of the God", Rom. 3:25. While this verse strictly speaking applies to the (distinction-less) Body of the Christ the truth of "by-passed" sinful acts in the forbearance of the God also applies to pre Calvary sinful acts of members of other elect households. So, the God passed by Job's (David's, Daniel's) sinful acts in His forbearance. Then at the appointed occasion in time the God judged them in their promised Substitute, Jesus Christ.

No way, the Lord judged them as such in eternity and His counsel brought to pass in time. How is it then that when they died physically, they went to be with the Lord in Heaven??



Jesus Christ bore them away in His own body on the tree. And there they were justified before, in the sight of, the God through and out of consideration of the instrumentality of the faith-righteousness of Christ.

Yes, in time this came to pass as it most suredly would. Yet Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. The Lord determined it to be so in eternity and His purposes put forth in time.




What I care less about is "Harold's Perspective on Paul" which includes this lexicon, and that original Greek.

What "this lexicon" are you babbling about?

You do not use lexicons??




The Holy Spirit and Christ are not subserviant to these tools. They must honor and glorify Him as the Sovereign Lord.

What a pathetic reply. The original Greek glorifies Christ as the sovereign Lord. Didn't you know this? Are you a King James Only lad?

Yes I know this. But I will not be fooled by the "original greek only" rant. That is the same rant of the Roman Catholic priests and clergy. The ploughboy ought to understand the Word of the Lord , just as much as the one learned in the Hebrew and Greek language. It ought to be that simple. I do not have to remind you just how vicious Rome became in protecting there own vain philosophies while sweeping the Lord's sovereignty under the carpet.

Neither am I a KJV only lad:) I maintain it is the best translation out there at present and I use it.

But I digress, there are over 200 posts here on the subject. I am simply asking you to take the blinders off and deal forth right with the whole of the Gospel of Christ including the elect saints like Abraham and Job, whom the beloved apostle is the stock of and relates to them.

You also ought to do the same.

ray kikkert
02-09-06, 12:57 PM
Because of the elects eternal Union with Christ. Which does not equal justification or imputation.

Without Him coming into the world, without His death, without His ressurection, Paul said we would still be in our sins.

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on Him and receive eternal life." (1Timothy 1:15-16).

Joe this is absurd talk.

God's eternal decree and His purpose in time do not contradict each other.

If you continue to argue from this standpoint you are blind.

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 01:04 PM
I am not sure if Joe thinks that God once hated the elect or not. I surely don't believe that God ever hated the elect.


No Janny I do not confess that. That is why Christ died for them, because He loved us. He did not send His Son to die for us, because we were alread Justified or imputed with His robe if righteoussness. God's justice was not satisfied


hmmm .... I see both sides of this argument but I see myself leaning closer to this belief that God being outside of time sees us all (the elect) as righteous through Christ of course before any of this began. Although the thought still gives me major brain cramps hahaha

Again Janny, the quesiton is not about this. The issue at hand is this thought recorded in the writ. There is not any scripture itself, without drawing "logical"(Notice the quotes) conclusions.

There is not one recorded word stating that the redeemed look back to before creation, look back to our election in Christ as our rep, for our being declared justified or imputed before God.

Brandan
02-09-06, 01:06 PM
There is not one recorded word stating that the redeemed look back to before creation, look back to our election in Christ as our rep, for our being declared justified or imputed before God.Men look to Christ alone for their righteousness. But they understand that God's view of Christ is from eternity. This is not a difficult concept!

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 01:14 PM
Joe this is absurd talk.

God's eternal decree and His purpose in time do not contradict each other.

If you continue to argue from this standpoint you are blind.

I am the one not arguing about it Ray. You aare forcing the word to say what it does not say. One is not mutaully exclusive of the other. There would be no death of Christ without Gods decree, and there is no decree without the cross of Christ to redeem.. period. That is it in a nutshell.

I have never said they do, one flows from the other. But the decree to justify, or impute, does not equal the justification because this is not all of the decree.

God did not say, "I decree the elect will be justified and leave it at that." The writ says God decreed with the Son and the Spirit for our salvation. All 3.

God demanded Justice. God provided the Lamb, The Holy Spirit sprinkles His blood on the elects doorpost.

You get upset because you have all the buzz words. Go read what one of yours Carl Haak has to say about forgiveness and when it took place ok. I know you have drank much of the prc kool aid, so maybe you will believe him...:cool: Forgiveness did not happen until Christ shed His blood.We were ransomed by His blood. We were redeemed by His blood.

WHy are you muddying the waters here? Paul said he preached Christ crucified right? Thats all that i focus on. Now if he said, I preach Gods decree and that is my ficus." Well then thats what I would focus on.

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 01:17 PM
Men look to Christ alone for their righteousness. But they understand that God's view of Christ is from eternity. This is not a difficult concept!

All it is is a good discussion brandan. But again it is not spoken in the writ as such. Noone understands what God view of Christ in eternity means anyway. LEts face it. It is only mystical and good table talk. We are not eternal beings brandan. We are created. In Time. And this is the revelation of the Word. Of course God is eternal. And His ways are not our ways. So why are you trying to view things where we have no reason to be? We were redeemed in time at the cross. this is not a difficult concept.

doctr_of_grace
02-09-06, 01:19 PM
No Janny I do not confess that. That is why Christ died for them, because He loved us. He did not send His Son to die for us, because we were alread Justified or imputed with His robe if righteoussness. God's justice was not satisfied.
Joe ... Do you not confess that God hated then loved the elect? Or do you not confess that God ever hated the elect? I am still confused as to where you stand. Cuz I don't think you can have it both ways. If God has to look to the cross in order to justify or impute righteousness then God is timebound and would have to change (would he not?)



There is not one recorded word stating that the redeemed look back to before creation, look back to our election in Christ as our rep, for our being declared justified or imputed before God.

So I guess I must ask you as John asked you ... When were "ALL" my sins Not SEEN by God the Father? At the cross, or at my conversion or "IN" eternity where God seems to reside? This whole "time" thing seems to limit God when in fact God created it. I know I sound really lame here but I don't believe you can have God being eternal and in the same breath have Him confined to time. Which I believe Ray recognized as causing a conflict or contradiction.

Thanks in advance ... Jan

Brandan
02-09-06, 01:22 PM
All it is is a good discussion brandan. But again it is not spoken in the writ as such. Noone understands what God view of Christ in eternity means anyway. LEts face it. It is only mystical and good table talk.And I take offense at that! It is very much spoken of! God views everything in eternity! Don't you dare make God a timely creature! :mad: :mad: :mad:


We are not eternal beings brandan. We are created. In Time. And this is the revelation of the Word. Of course God is eternal. And His ways are not our ways. So why are you trying to view things where we have no reason to be?Because the Scripture says that His people have been given ETERNAL life. What does that mean to you Joe? Do you think it is just living forever and ever after men die? Or do you think it means they have joined to the eternal Godhead? Men have eternal life now, and they begin to view things with an eternal perspective when they are brought to a revelation of the truth! I will stand against you and your babbling with all the strength that I have!


We were redeemed in time at the cross. this is not a difficult concept.God's people were redeemed at the cross. I do not deny this.

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 01:37 PM
And I take offense at that! It is very much spoken of! God views everything in eternity! Don't you dare make God a timely creature! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Brandan, dont take personal offense, God doesnt. This is just another "Jesus SavED" not saves thoughts of yours. And it is interesting. Enjoyable to ponder, but again cannot be shown as part of His revealed will in the writ.

Again, unitl you realize God is both transcendant and immenent, you will never see the truth of both. Christ walkign the earth is enough to prove that God does not only exist in eternity.


Because the Scripture says that His people have been given ETERNAL life. What does that mean to you Joe? Do you think it is just living forever and ever after men die? Or do you think it means they have joined to the eternal Godhead? Men have eternal life now, and they begin to view things with an eternal perspective when they are brought to a revelation of the truth! I will stand against you and your babbling with all the strength that I have!

What babbling? All I am doing is parroting scripture. Where does it say redemmed man will view things from an eternal perspective when brought to the truth? This thought is happenning nowhere else in the world BK. And very little in the past. So the eternal imputation is not some new unfound truth that pooped up here at 5 solas. You are not standing against me, you are standing against the word and what IT says. But let us not digress here.


God's people were redeemed at the cross. I do not deny this.

Well this is the truth. So if you believe this, then why all this eternal mumbo jumbo? Why not just stay here for the rest of your life?

Brandan
02-09-06, 01:46 PM
Well I'm through discoursing with you Joe on this topic as I perceive you to be arguing for the sake of argument. I will observe your future responses in this thread, and if they do not quickly improve, I will ask you to refrain from posting. - Brandan

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 01:51 PM
Well I'm through discoursing with you Joe on this topic as I perceive you to be arguing for the sake of argument. I will observe your future responses in this thread, and if they do not quickly improve, I will ask you to refrain from posting. - Brandan

Lets not go there BK. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. This is of the utmost importance to me as well as you. I am as passionate about my redemption as you are. I apologize if i offended you.

Things can get out of hand quickly though. That is the excitement.

You willing to move on?

Brandan
02-09-06, 01:53 PM
If you wish to discuss this with me further, send me a private message. For the time, this is closed. Let's move on, and let us all not be so cavalier as this topic is extremely important. Thank you.

jmgipson
02-09-06, 04:09 PM
Gen 1:1 - Ps 139:16
O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. 2 You know when I sit and when I rise;you perceive my thoughts from afar. 3 You discern my going out and my lying down;you are familiar with all my ways. 4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. 5 You hem me in — behind and before;you have laid your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,too lofty for me to attain. 7 Where can I go from your Spirit?Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me,your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;the night will shine like the day,for darkness is as light to you. 13 For you created my inmost being;you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;your works are wonderful,I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body.All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.


What an awsome God. He wrote John's life in a book before there were any. Written in the mind of God.

John

ray kikkert
02-09-06, 05:07 PM
I am the one not arguing about it Ray. You aare forcing the word to say what it does not say. One is not mutaully exclusive of the other. There would be no death of Christ without Gods decree, and there is no decree without the cross of Christ to redeem.. period. That is it in a nutshell.

Well that goes back to what Melted stated with regards to objective and subjective. Yet in all honesty the decree comes first and is accomplished in time.


I have never said they do, one flows from the other. But the decree to justify, or impute, does not equal the justification because this is not all of the decree.

God did not say, "I decree the elect will be justified and leave it at that." The writ says God decreed with the Son and the Spirit for our salvation. All 3.

Understood. I am advocating the Sovereignty of God here and would not belittle it.



God demanded Justice. God provided the Lamb, The Holy Spirit sprinkles His blood on the elects doorpost.

I am not arguing a separation of the Godhead. I am stating the Godhead in eternity loved the elect and that love was revealed to man not only at the cross, but also to men like Abraham, Job and David. They knew there Redeemer lived and they knew they were sinners in need of a Saviour.



You get upset because you have all the buzz words. Go read what one of yours Carl Haak has to say about forgiveness and when it took place ok. I know you have drank much of the prc kool aid, so maybe you will believe him...:cool: Forgiveness did not happen until Christ shed His blood.We were ransomed by His blood. We were redeemed by His blood.

WHy are you muddying the waters here? Paul said he preached Christ crucified right? Thats all that i focus on. Now if he said, I preach Gods decree and that is my ficus." Well then thats what I would focus on.

Well poking fun at me using the PRC really will not help matters. But I notice you and Harold still steer clear of just how the elect saints before Christ's death on the cross are in heaven with the Lord even before the cross. There is a reason they have fellowship with the Godhead already.

I do not wish to muddy the waters, but I sense a belittling of the Sovereignty of the Lord by you in your posts. That I do not like. You make fun that I ad nauseum refer to the sovereignty of the Lord in my answers. So be it, I have not denied that God's will that Christ die on the cross and be resurrected is frustrated. Like you said it is one and the same will of God. I am not advocating this to promote antinomianism and I surely do not want arminianism to gain the upper hand here either.

beloved57
02-09-06, 06:16 PM
It would appear to me from eph 1:3,4 Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [B]who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: from this verse I would conclude that justification was before the foundation of the world, for it is one of the elects spiritual blessings !

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 07:12 PM
It would appear to me from eph 1:3,4 Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [B]who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: from this verse I would conclude that justification was before the foundation of the world, for it is one of the elects spiritual blessings !

The problem here is explained in verse 7 of the same book same chapter. Justification brings forgiveness of sins right? Well look at the inspired word:

[7] In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Again, Justification could not be done without the shedding of blood on the cross

lionovjudah
02-09-06, 07:23 PM
But I notice you and Harold still steer clear of just how the elect saints before Christ's death on the cross are in heaven with the Lord even before the cross. There is a reason they have fellowship with the Godhead already.

Who says they are in Heaven? Even Christ was in the grave 3 days!!!!

I do not believe paradise =heaven. Hades does not equal heaven. SO wherever you get this notion, it is not in the writ.

Save Enoch and Elijah, I see no record of men being broght to heaven

ray kikkert
02-09-06, 09:15 PM
Who says they are in Heaven? Even Christ was in the grave 3 days!!!!

I do not believe paradise =heaven. Hades does not equal heaven. SO wherever you get this notion, it is not in the writ.

Save Enoch and Elijah, I see no record of men being broght to heaven

Then where did the old testament saints go to when they died Joe??

jmgipson
02-09-06, 09:42 PM
The problem here is explained in verse 7 of the same book same chapter. Justification brings forgiveness of sins right? Well look at the inspired word:

[7] In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Again, Justification could not be done without the shedding of blood on the cross

Romans 4:1-2 Then what do we say about Abraham, the ancestor from whom we are descended physically? 2 If Abraham had been justified because of what he had done, then he would have had something to boast about.

Abraham was Justified not by what he had done, is stating he was justified another way. Surely this justification has been declared before the shedding of blood???

lionovjudah
02-10-06, 07:33 AM
Then where did the old testament saints go to when they died Joe??

I do not know exactly Ray. But there is nothing in the writ that says they were raised with Christ. The writ explicitly says Chris tis the first one raised form the dead.

lionovjudah
02-10-06, 07:45 AM
Romans 4:1-2 Then what do we say about Abraham, the ancestor from whom we are descended physically? 2 If Abraham had been justified because of what he had done, then he would have had something to boast about.

Abraham was Justified not by what he had done, is stating he was justified another way. Surely this justification has been declared before the shedding of blood???

All OT saints were justified because of the faithfullness of God and them looking forward to the promise.

Here is an article I found that speaks much better than I on the subject.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/trottsjustification.html

lionovjudah
02-10-06, 09:37 AM
I do not know exactly Ray. But there is nothing in the writ that says they were raised with Christ. The writ explicitly says Chris tis the first one raised form the dead.


I did not notice the mistake I made here. There is nothing in the writ that says they were raised before Christ was raised. Paul says Christ was the first ot be raised from the dead right?

ray kikkert
02-10-06, 10:29 AM
I do not know exactly Ray. But there is nothing in the writ that says they were raised with Christ. The writ explicitly says Chris tis the first one raised form the dead.

Ask me and I will tell you. Consider Luke 9:27. "But I tell you of a truth , there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God"

verse 29-31 "And as He prayed , the fashion of His countenance was altered, and His raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with Him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

The Old Testament saints were before Christs death on the cross most suredly in the kingdom of God.

" Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus said unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto Him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She said unto Him , Yea, Lord: I beleive that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
John 11:21-27

This is as true for the old testament saints as it was for Martha. They are the kingdom of God.

harald
02-10-06, 11:10 AM
What I mean Harold is that if you would take the time to study the other parts of the Gospel instead of limiting yourself to "pauls perspective" since the apostle himself called upon other parts of the Gospel to put forth an answer. An answer by the way which is Inspired by the Lord just as much as it was in the days of the patriarchs. It attests to Christ throughout and since you seem to limit it to the apostle you loose sight of Christ the Redeemer from before the foundations of the world. (Ray K)

I am not sure as to what "the Gospel" you are referring to. But this I know, Paul's good message is "the Gospel" for this age we now live in. In setting forth his good message Paul now and then quoted (God-breathed) OT scriptures. To this I agree. As for "from before the foundations of the world" there is no such in the Greek text. So you are bound to specify what you are meaning. And the word rendered "foundation" (katabolÍ) is never in the plural as far as I know.

Our heavenly Father viewed them as elect at there time and thus when there earthly walk was finished took these elect saints to heaven.

I assume you are speaking about God the Father. Nonetheless I am not sure about whether He is your heavenly Father.
But I agree that God the Father viewed them as elect. This was because of the fact that He had chosen them before ever they existed. As for His taking them to heaven (when earthly walk was finished), can you put forth proof for this notion from the Scriptures?

Thus they were already viewed by the Lord as justified and that righteousness was imputed to these elect OT saints because the will of the Lord would not be frustrated, but that Christ would die on the cross and be resurrected.

Can you put forth scripture proof in support of the notion that the Lord viewed them as "justified" prior to Christ's death? Also, can you show some passage(s) of scripture which would support the notion that a justifying righteousness was "imputed" to the same prior to Christ's death?

they were always elect.

Agreed. This is, however, not the same as "justified".

God's determinate counsel and purpose comes first.

No one here is denying this. Yet, these two things are not one and the same with justification before God.

No way, the Lord judged them as such in eternity and His counsel brought to pass in time.

What you say presupposes that God viewed them as sinful and sinning in eternity. Can you bring forth scriptures to support this notion?

How is it then that when they died physically, they went to be with the Lord in Heaven??

Where does the Scriptures inform of such?

Yet Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world.

I do not see this in the Scriptures, "slain BEFORE the foundations of the world". I do see "slain from [the] foundation of [the] world". What will you say?


You do not use lexicons??

I use lexicons, plural. You spoke about some "this lexicon", singular.

Yes I know this.

You knew it was a pathetic reply, and still you had to write it down in your reply. Why?


But I will not be fooled by the "original greek only" rant.

What is this thing?

The ploughboy ought to understand the Word of the Lord , just as much as the one learned in the Hebrew and Greek language.

Says who? Does God say so in the Scriptures? Besides, I thought you were a furniture seller.

It ought to be that simple.

Says who? And besides, tell me how the ploughboy who is ignorant of the Hebrew and the Greek can understand the Word of the Lord just as much as one learned in the Hebrew and Greek? Are you advocating ignorance as a virtue as respects the original tongues?

I do not have to remind you just how vicious Rome became in protecting there own vain philosophies while sweeping the Lord's sovereignty under the carpet.

We have not been discussing Rome. So why are you talking about Rome suddenly? I have never been in Rome, nor have I been Roman Catholic. So why bring up these?

I maintain it is the best translation out there at present and I use it.

This is your subjective opinion, but not objective fact and truth. I will not stop you from using it.

I am simply asking you to take the blinders off and deal forth right with the whole of the Gospel of Christ including the elect saints like Abraham and Job, whom the beloved apostle is the stock of and relates to them.

Precisely what are you meaning by "the blinders"? Have I wrested the Scriptures here of late? Paul's "the good message of the Christ" (Rom. 1:16 et. al.) is Body-specific. Not Jew-specific, nor nations-specific. But since you have asked I have answered how it was with Abraham's and Job's justification. To repeat, God justified them before Himself at Christ's death, in and through and out of consideration of Christ and His blood and faith-righteousness. This can be supported from Paul's epistles.

Harald

lionovjudah
02-10-06, 12:41 PM
Ask me and I will tell you. Consider Luke 9:27. "But I tell you of a truth , there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God"

verse 29-31 "And as He prayed , the fashion of His countenance was altered, and His raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with Him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

The Old Testament saints were before Christs death on the cross most suredly in the kingdom of God.

" Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus said unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto Him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She said unto Him , Yea, Lord: I beleive that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
John 11:21-27

This is as true for the old testament saints as it was for Martha. They are the kingdom of God.

Ray. None of these prove that OT saints when to the Heavens of Gods throne. Now c'mon, dont mangle the scriptures here.

Elijah could not have gone to heaven. He wrote a letter a few years later to Jerobim recorded in 2nd chronicales. In fact 50 men went to look for him. So elijah is not an example.

Remember the words of our Lord.

"No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven, the Son of man." (John 3:13 RSV)


This says No one. And I would guess this would include Elijah/moses/abe right?

The John 11 account is speaking of the second death. Everyone dies Ray. Even enoch died.

They did not rise before Christ.

Ill repeat this verse. Now dont read Job to answer this verse.

"No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven, the Son of man." (John 3:13 RSV)

Why is this hard to believe?


The KOG mentioned in Luke is not heaven. IT is the Gospel age coming to the world by the power of the spirit to be poured out after his death and ressurection.

Brandan
02-10-06, 12:42 PM
If OT saints didn't go to heaven, where did they go Joe? Purgatory?

lionovjudah
02-10-06, 01:15 PM
If OT saints didn't go to heaven, where did they go Joe? Purgatory?

Maybe:cool:

Say some hail mary's for them!!!!

The scriptures speak of the grave/hades/ abrahams bosom. But this is not heaven.

Brandan, If they did, then what do we do with John 3;13? Lump it in with James 2;14-24? :D


And Gill is wrong ont his one. his comemntary on 3;13 is weak.

Here is another one:
Acts 26:23 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/acts/26.html#23) That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead.

Brandan
02-10-06, 01:19 PM
Maybe:cool:

Say some hail mary's for them!!!!

The scriptures speak of the grave/hades/ abrahams bosom. But this is not heaven.OK, well I've heard everything now. Joe, this is disappointing.

lionovjudah
02-10-06, 01:36 PM
OK, well I've heard everything now. Joe, this is disappointing.

Brandan. It is not some purgatory. Did you think I was serious? sheesh.

It is not heaven though.

How could it be when the writ says Christ is the first to rise? And I am not being argumentative here.

Saint Nicholas
02-10-06, 01:47 PM
Maybe:cool:

Say some hail mary's for them!!!!

The scriptures speak of the grave/hades/ abrahams bosom. But this is not heaven.

Brandan, If they did, then what do we do with John 3;13? Lump it in with James 2;14-24? :D


And Gill is wrong ont his one. his comemntary on 3;13 is weak.

Here is another one:
[Acts 26:23 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/acts/26.html#23) That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead.]

Joe, I may be wrong here, however I think that you are missing the point.
When Jesus arose from the dead, He was raised in a glorified BODY.The Saints who died prior to the cross and after the cross are raised in the Spirit still awaiting their bodily ressurrection. But is not REGENERATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, at the New Birth, everlasting life?...So that is why they are united in heaven IN HIM. Old Testament saints and new testament saints alike..........Nicholas

lionovjudah
02-10-06, 03:01 PM
Joe, I may be wrong here, however I think that you are missing the point.
When Jesus arose from the dead, He was raised in a glorified BODY.The Saints who died prior to the cross and after the cross are raised in the Spirit still awaiting their bodily ressurrection. But is not REGENERATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, at the New Birth, everlasting life?...So that is why they are united in heaven IN HIM. Old Testament saints and new testament saints alike..........Nicholas


I could be Nick. That is always a possibility.

Nick, you and others are making it sound like I am saying they are dead. That there spirits are dead. I never spoke as such. This is not the question at hand.

Noone has ascended to heaven except Christ. He said it

and Luke says the same thing in Acts.
Acts 26:23 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/acts/26.html#23) That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead.


Ephesians 4 also states.
8 This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men."
9 (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions ?
10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.


Matthew 27:50 - 52 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=KJV&interface=print&search=&passage=Matthew+27) (English-KJV):
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

John 5:28-29 (English-NIV) (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&interface=print&passage=John+5:28-29&search=&showxref=&showfn=)
28 "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
29 and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

Christ conquered death at the cross. Here all the OT saints who lookfoward with the eyes of faith on His sacrafice we united with Him.

We are digressing here.

ray kikkert
02-10-06, 03:11 PM
Ray. None of these prove that OT saints when to the Heavens of Gods throne. Now c'mon, dont mangle the scriptures here.

Elijah could not have gone to heaven. He wrote a letter a few years later to Jerobim recorded in 2nd chronicales. In fact 50 men went to look for him. So elijah is not an example.

I am surprised you would say that Joe. Elijah indeed went to heaven. All elect saints prior to Christ's death on the cross are in heaven. As well all reprobate wicked went to hell prior to Christ's death on the cross.

This is sloppy exegesis Joe. What in fact did Elisha say to the men? Did he not tell them NOT to go searching for Elijah. What? Will you now exhibit vanity as well and think Elijah at that time was still walking the earth, it was just that the Lord placed him elsewhere for now? LOL.

You skirt Moses though dont you? What of him? Has he also broken from the secret grave where the Lord placed him and started walking the earth patiently waiting for Christ to die on the cross and be resurrected so that he could then go to heaven. LOL .

It seems the mysticism of Rome has nothing on you.

You and Harold both think this.This is a road block for you. Why?? Both of you now have asked for Scriptures to prove this. I do and you write it off. That is quite something. Will you write off the parable of Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham? Remember what Abraham said. "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." You both seem to have all the knowledge in the world to answer any other question under the sun, yet now are quiet. Hmmmmm.

Did you even take the time to consider a commentary from Gill or Calvin here and see what these learned men commented on the text? Oh thats right... Harold has no need for Calvin, and you have no need for Gill. That is telling. Lets rely on the epistle of Paul alone using the Greek text and by George if the answer is not to be gotten here, it plainly does not exist.

Blinder Theology.:mad:

I know my Redeemer liveth. Job knew it, Abraham knew it. When they physically died they went into that blessed covenant fellowship with the Triune Lord, thats right , including with Jesus Christ. Righteousness was imputed to them lone before they were even born. God viewed them as Justified and His determinate will accomplished, not frustrated in time. Also what about the reprobate wicked in the old testament? Where did they go? Yes that is right , they went to hell. They were not imputed with the righteousness of Christ, they were not viewed as Justified by the Lord through Christ, and never was that the Lord's determinate counsel for them. They are not having a comfy soul sleep. They are NOT in covenant fellowship with the Lord. They are without Christ.

Christ , from eternity the Redeemer, from eternity the Saviour, from eternity the Lamb slain for the sake of His covenant , for the sake of His beloved elect of all ages.

The Lord's Sovereign , predestinating will comes first and foremost. I do not pretend to fathom it all. I know what He has revealed in His Word and I thank Him for it. He has loved me with an eternal love and I will be with Him , in covenant family fellowship with my Father forever to honor and glorify Him.

Read Isaiah chapter 48. chapter 45. 43,44.