"faith in Christ" vs "faith of Christ"

[jmgipson]

Justification in Christ is a constitutive justification. However, the Holy Spirit testifies to each regenerate believer by faith that the inidividual IS justified in Christ's life and death. If this is not a declarative justification, then what is this?

Hey Brandan,
What I think you are calling a declaration by God at the new birth I call an enlightenment, a translating from darkness into the light, an understanding of our justification and what Christ did for us. I am not sure why that would be a declared justification (or declaring us just before the law). But maybe I am not understanding what you mean by a declaration.

John

[jmgipson]

John,

I have printed your paper and did a cursory reading this morning and will read it again in the coming days. Thank you for sharing it as I know you have put much thought and work into it. I can’t keep up with all the posts even in this thread so just a short response.

I don’t quite understand though how your paper relates to the ‘in’ and ‘of’ discussion and I don’t agree with this statement regarding faith:

We make too much of the human side of faith:

I’m not sure how we make too much of the human side of faith as it is a part of salvation according the Eph 2:8 …..’By grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God’.

First Eileen, the reason the paper was there was more for the salvation issue like you have used above. The faith spoken of here I have no problem with being what you are saying. But when you claim a salvation (or deliverance) through faith, I would ask what are you being saved from? Please don't get me wrong. I am not downplaying the believing faith part of scripture, I am claiming that alot of the usage of faith as believing in Romans and Galatians does not apply I believe to this believing faith. The context has to be the determination of this and I don't believe the case has been made that there is a continual justification going on. I believe that the justification which Paul speaks of is declared and finished at the cross and everything after that is a revealing of this justifcation by the faithful work in life and death by Christ.

The comparison that Paul makes in Romans is the unfaithful man compared to the faithful man.

Rom 5:19
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. KJV

So much to answer and my brain is fried and I can't keep up.

John

[Brandan]

Hey Brandan,
What I think you are calling a declaration by God at the new birth I call an enlightenment, a translating from darkness into the light, an understanding of our justification and what Christ did for us. I am not sure why that would be a declared justification (or declaring us just before the law). But maybe I am not understanding what you mean by a declaration.

John

A declarartion of justification (or enlightenment as you would call it) to the conscience of the individual. God does this for each of His people. He speaks to each one individually and tells them they are righteous in His sight. That is what I mean by declarative justification, and it comes only by faith (belief in the Gospel.)

There is no declaration of justification before that time. Period. God ALWAYS constitutes one as righteous, based on Christ's work alone, but the actual declaration to that individual that he is righteous in Christ does not come until faith is given to him.

[jmgipson]

I am not sure if I got to all the questions. I hope I answerd everything. If I forgot something please let me know because I am not ignoring anything I am just slow and old (Haaa). Thanks everyone for challanging me and making me look and support what I am declaring to you. I can only learn when I am challanged.

John

[jmgipson]

A declarartion of justification (or enlightenment as you would call it) to the conscience of the individual. God does this for each of His people. He speaks to each one individually and tells them they are righteous in His sight. That is what I mean by declarative justification, and it comes only by faith (belief in the Gospel.)

There is no declaration of justification before that time. Period. God ALWAYS constitutes one as righteous, based on Christ's work alone, but the actual declaration to that individual that he is righteous in Christ does not come until faith is given to him.

The legal declaration in how I understand scripture is at the cross. The law satisfied is declared which is our legal in time justification. This is what I mean by the declaration of justification by God.

Would you not say that the satisfaction of the law by Christ would be the legal declaration of us being just in time?

John

[jmgipson]

I believe the righteousness of God was now manifested (clearly apparent to the sight or understanding) in the person of Christ, by His obedience and it is the righteousness imputed to the elect, the only righteousness that stands before God. The only ones who can ever ‘see clearly’ or ‘understand’ that manifestation of the righteousness of God (in Christ) are those who are given the gift of personal faith, for it is only by personal faith that Christ can be comprehended, seen, or understood. Isn’t that what declares (to make known) to us our justification before God, the faith that is given?
Eileen~

Yes Eileen. This is totally what I understand and hopefully have stated clearly.

When you define declare this way I agree. But there is a declaring that the law is satisfied and we have been made righteous (just). It is finished. The law is satisfied and it has no more claim on us because we are now justified by Christ in time.

John

[Brandan]

The legal declaration in how I understand scripture is at the cross. The law satisfied is declared which is our legal in time justification. This is what I mean by the declaration of justification by God.

But when is this declared to US? Declaration of justification MUST have an audience. God is not timely. We are. Therefore, we must witness this declaration for it to have any meaning to us. IT must be declared to us personally. Without God declaring anything to us personally, it has no meaning to us.

Would you not say that the satisfaction of the law by Christ would be the legal declaration of us being just in time?

I would call that the legal constitution. The legal declaration comes with faith. The extreme importance of justification (declaration of righteousness secured by Christ's obedient life and death) by FAITH ALONE cannot be overemphasized. THAT is the Gospel. To leave off the declarative aspect of justification by faith (apart from the constitutive aspect) is to leave one open to the false gospel.

Assurance of justification (or declaration of justification to the elect individual) comes by faith. It comes through faith alone or in other words simply a mental assent and positive affirmation of the truth. If we leave this personal declaration of righteousness out of the Gospel message, we are left with nothing. What good is constitutive justification to the elect in this world without it being declared to them personally? If we have no way of knowing of our justification in Christ, then there is no difference between us and the rest of the world. We might as well be universalists because we would have no way of knowng if we or anyone else for that matter are numbered amongst the elect.

[Greg]

Assurance of justification (or declaration of justification to the elect individual) comes by faith. It comes through faith alone or in other words simply a mental assent and positive affirmation of the truth. If we leave this personal declaration of righteousness out of the Gospel message, we are left with nothing. What good is constitutive justification to the elect in this world without it being declared to them personally? If we have no way of knowing of our justification in Christ, then there is no difference between us and the rest of the world. We might as well be universalists because we would have no way of knowng if we or anyone else for that matter are numbered amongst the elect.

Nicely put!!

This got me thinking about this:

Rom 8:17-17, (NASB)
15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him

.

[MCoving]

I believe that the justification which Paul speaks of is declared and finished at the cross and everything after that is a revealing of this justifcation by the faithful work in life and death by Christ.

Hmmm.. I would have to disagree as well John. Though I do value your thoughts so much, and missed you and Mary Ellen in St Louis this year! I think there is still a part of justification happening when a believer is converted. I do believe the opening of ones eyes, the opening of ones ears to hear, the finding of the lost sheep is part of justification. If we were lost and never found by God, then how could we be made right before God? How could the justification of that individual be complete if they were never found? If they were never revealed Gods Truth? The finish, the icing to the cake if you will is God opening our eyes and God finding His lost sheep.

Take this verse for example:
Eph 2:8, (NASB), For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

What is the gift of God? Its faith right? And it is by grace we are saved. But we dont understand this salvation of Gods until we are given faith. It says been saved THROUGH faith. Its the last piece of the puzzle!! Faith! Mere assent to the Truth, believing in Christ. It still is a gift from God.. its still His doing and not our own. Its the finishing touch... its how we KNOW that we are His children when He finds us, when He opens are eyes to see and ears to hear.. "Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me, I once was lost but now am found was blind but now I see".

So John whats so wrong with thinking some of those verses are talking about God giving us this faith which causes us to see and hear? And this Faith as being the last puzzle of our justification? Justified as meaning: to be made just and right, declared innocent. Theres no justification without the person that is needed to be justified! Like if one went to court.. say you broke the law, you were guilty. How can a judge declare you not guilty (justified) if you are not there? Declaring you are not guilty to no one in particular does NOTHING! Now if I look so and so in the eye and say you are not guilty then they are not, they are declared not guilty and they have heard it. If they were declared that but never knew it.. never heard it, then it has no meaning. Does that make sense any?

Mary

[Saint Nicholas]

First of all, I do not agree with the title of this topic . "faith in Christ" vs "faith of Christ" . This is not a boxing match here. This versus buisness tends to be misleading, at least to me. Faith in Christ as expressed by the individual elect person is the fruit and consequence OF the faith of Christ.
This faith (Subsistent quality) of Christ is the very gift from the Holy Spirit given to elect at regeneration to enable the person to assent(believe) to the objective Gospel. So in conclusion, I see no "vs" at all. Both are vital and are not at odd with one another. It is true that Justification is a real verdict of righteousness imputed to the elect prior to our existence and from eternity, however how is the elect individual to know this reality (Justification) except this very "Faith"(substance) of Christ is imparted through regeneration. And even at that, faith in Christ still is not the ground or basis of our Justification.

Nicholas

[jmgipson]

We have been over this in the forum again and again. The reason that some translators go with 'faith in Christ' for passages such as Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 is because they are convinced that the tense is a subjective genitive as opposed to an objective genitive. The 'faith of Christ' translators believe that an objective genitive is the proper translation.

The difference is this:

Subjective Genitive: "Faith sovereignly COMING FROM or GIVEN BY Jesus Christ according to His purposes."

Objective Genitive: "Jesus Christ's own PERSONAL faith that none of his redeemed subjects participate in."

The whole of scriptural testimony favors the view that this should be translated as a subjective genitive. It is the faith coming from, owned by, and given by Jesus Christ-but resident in our own souls. Christ was faithful in all things in His life on earth--but He was under no oblibation to turn away from His sins (which did not exist) and believe in the righteousness of another (who?) to merit His salvation (which He did not need).

I think some on this forum think this is some new debate in Christianity. It is not. I believe it even goes further back than what this article says.

Bob, I believe you have your post incorrect on the difference between Objective and subjective genitive.

Dr. A. T. Robertson in "Word Pictures in the New Testament" (1930-33) insists that the Apostle used the "objective genitive", meaning 'faith in Jesus Christ', and not the "subjective genitive", meaning "faith of Jesus Christ".

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"
- Romans 3.21,22

In many modern versions "by faith of Jesus Christ" is changed to "through faith in Jesus Christ", and the question arises whether the earlier translators were mistaken, or whether both renderings are admissible. The Greek reads DIA PISTEOS IESOU CHRISTOU, literally - through (by means of, by) faith of Jesus Christ - the names having the genitive ending. For more than two hundred years it has been debated among Biblical scholars whether the genitive in English rightly conveys the meaning of the Greek.

The Rev. John Owen, who translated and edited Calvin's Commentary on Romans for the Calvin Translation Society in 1849, wrote: "The words 'by or through the faith of Jesus Christ' mean not the faith which is His, but the faith of which He is the object. They ought to be rendered 'through faith in Jesus Christ'. The genitive case often has this meaning: 'Have faith in (of) God', Mk. 11.22; ‘I live by the faith of the Son of God', should be in our language, 'I live by faith in the Son of God'. This genitive case of the object is an Hebraism, and is of frequent occurrence".

Dr. James MacKnight, who published his new translation and commentary on the Epistles in 1795 after thirty years of labour, thought otherwise: "I therefore think the original clause does not signify through faith in Jesus Christ', which is sometimes the meaning of the expression, but 'through faith of Jesus Christ', as it is rightly rendered in our English Bible; understanding thereby, 'the faith which Jesus Christ hath enjoined', agreeably to the use of the genitive of the agent. For that this is the true meaning of the expression is plain from Philippians 3. 9, where 'the righteousness which is through the faith of Christ' is termed 'the righteousness which is of God by faith'. In like manner Romans 4.16 'That which is of the faith of Abraham' does not mean faith in Abraham, but faith like that which Abraham exercised. In Matthew 6.33, Romans 1.17 The righteousness of God is not the righteousness which God possesses, but which He requires....See Gal. 2.16, where PISTEOS IESOU, as in this verse, signifies 'the faith enjoined by Jesus'."

Heading up to Main today so will write more in next few days.

John

[jmgipson]

I think there are many good men which fall on both sides of this debate and I do not believe it is going to be solved in this forum as it still rages. I think I have almost come to a conclusion in how I will fall on this from what I have read and studied (with as much as I could not being an expert in the original language). I don’t believe there has been any real challenge to the subjective genitive view and I think it, at least right now in my mind, is the more faithful to Pauls writings. Eileen, the verses you have brought up to me are very much a part of the debate. For example; Hab. 2:4. Read this verse in the LXX and the other English translations and look at the various ways they are translated. These verses are very hard to translate even by the greek experts.

There is the issue of Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

The issue is this is where many claim that God imputed righteousness and justified Abraham. Understanding Gen 15:6 this way transfers also to Rom. 4:3.

Romans 4:3: For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

But I would challenge this because this is not the first time Abraham shows faith. Hebrews tells us that Abraham left the land of UR by faith. So what exactly can this mean. Also we have a Psalm to deal with:

Ps 106:30-31

30 Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.
31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.

Does this mean Phinehas was justified in the same sense as Abraham when he ran a spear through the Jew and whore?

There are many good men who do not believe that this is faith in Christ and it is not at all an issue in which any of us here have an answer. But with that said, I would not just sweep it under the rug and say, “I will just follow what Bob says or I will just follow what John says etc…”. I really think it is well worth the intense study time I think it deserves.

Mary, I think you are missing the whole issue of the debate. I think you would benefit a lot in further study of Christ and His humanity (I say this in respect) before getting into anything to do with the faith of Christ.

I will leave it with this paper Ken Wimer wrote:


“The traditional answer to this question is typically, 'When the sinner believes.' 'Doesn't the Bible teach justification by faith?' Ironically, this is exactly what freewill religion teaches, but those of us who believe the message of sovereign grace will typically qualify that answer with, 'O, but, I'm not saying that faith is the cause of God justifying, only that He doesn't actually justify me until or unless I believe.'

No matter how you define it, it still makes faith to be the reason for God justifying the sinner, and not the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The fact is that 'when' a sinner is justified cannot be separated from 'how' or 'why' a sinner is justified. How is a sinner justified? In Galatians 2:16 we read, '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.' Here are two things to note in this verse:

1. It is by the faith of Jesus Christ that a sinner is justified, not by the sinner's faith. The faith of Christ may also be translated, by the 'faithfulness' of Christ. It is because of His faithfulness to God the Father, as the Substitute and Righteous Surety, that His people are justified, 'declared righteous' before His throne. Therefore, the 'how' defines 'when.' It was 'when' Christ faithfully accomplished all that God the Father required that all for whom He died were fully and completely justified before Him and His holy law.

2. Faith is the evidence of having been justified by Christ. "Even we have believed in Jesus Christ" because of the faithfulness of Christ. Notice it is not that we might be justified by OUR faith. It says, "by THE FAITH OF CHRIST." In the original 'that we might be justified' is actually 'having been justified.' Faith is the evidence of one HAVING BEEN JUSTIFIED BY THE FAITH OF CHRIST.

Does that mean that sinners are declared righteous before they even believe? Absolutely! That is the meaning of Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Either his death effectively accomplished the elect sinner's justification or it didn't. God is not waiting for the redeemed sinner to believe to impute the work of Christ to his account. Rather, because it was imputed when Christ died and rose again, the Spirit of God will, in God's time, most certainly cause every one for whom Christ died to believe and enter into that justification accomplished already by Christ. 'For by one offering he hath PERFECTED forever them that are sanctified,' Hebrews 10:14.”

Pastor Ken Wimer, Shreveport Grace Church, Shreveport, Louisiana

John Gipson

[Brandan]

Keep in mind that Mr. Wimer calls justification from eternity a heresy. We believe that if one gets hung up on justification as a timely event (that is the constitutive aspect), the rest of his theology will go awry.

There are three positions that I know of...

1. The most common. Constitutive and declarative justification at faith. I cannot agree with this.

2. The second most common. Constitutive and declarative justification "at the cross."

3. Our position. ETERNAL constitituve justification BASED ON Christ's LIFE and DEATH (not just "the cross.") Declarative and subjective justification at faith.

Deviate from number 3, and you'll be left with nothing.

[jmgipson]

Keep in mind that Mr. Wimer calls justification from eternity a heresy. We believe that if one gets hung up on justification as a timely event (that is the constitutive aspect), the rest of his theology will go awry.

There are three positions that I know of...

1. The most common. Constitutive and declarative justification at faith. I cannot agree with this.

2. The second most common. Constitutive and declarative justification "at the cross."

3. Our position. ETERNAL constitituve justification BASED ON Christ's LIFE and DEATH (not just "the cross.") Declarative and subjective justification at faith.

Deviate from number 3, and you'll be left with nothing.

Yes Brandan, I know what Ken believes. That is why I said in the beginning of this that I have never run across in man that I take all his theology 100%. But I also don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Many people call the Augustine a great theologian, but the man knew hardly anything of the oringinal language greek. So there are things I may disagree with in men and other things I agree. For example, I disagree with your view of James, but yet I agree with you on other things. That does not cause you in my books to go astray in all the rest of your theology.

John

[Brandan]

Yes Brandan, I know what Ken believes. That is why I said in the beginning of this that I have never run across in man that I take all his theology 100%. But I also don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Many people call the Augustine a great theologian, but the man knew hardly anything of the oringinal language greek. So there are things I may disagree with in men and other things I agree. For example, I disagree with your view of James, but yet I agree with you on other things. That does not cause you in my books to go astray in all the rest of your theology.

John

The reason I pointed it out is because Wimer omits justification from eternity he is OBSESSED with the timely aspect of justification. His position is anti-gospel in my opinion because it is low grace theology making salvation conditioned upon something that happens instead of God's perfect purpose from eternity. He fails to see the purpose of the cross because he sees it as a reactionary event... as a sort of a "stop gap" so that God would be enabled to love men. He misses out on the point that God purposed the cross because that is what He deemed would be satisfactory to Him in justifying His people. Christ died not because he "had to", but because it was God's purpose.

I don't recall if you answered my question, but here goes... If as you say God declared that JOHN GIPSON was righteous "AT THE CROSS", who did He declare it to? WHO was the audience?

Second question, does God ever DECLARE righteousness to the individual personally through the Holy Spirit?

[jmgipson]

The reason I pointed it out is because Wimer omits justification from eternity he is OBSESSED with the timely aspect of justification. His position is anti-gospel in my opinion because it is low grace theology making salvation conditioned upon something that happens instead of God's perfect purpose from eternity. He fails to see the purpose of the cross because he sees it as a reactionary event... as a sort of a "stop gap" so that God would be enabled to love men. He misses out on the point that God purposed the cross because that is what He deemed would be satisfactory to Him in justifying His people. Christ died not because he "had to", but because it was God's purpose.

I don't recall if you answered my question, but here goes... If as you say God declared that JOHN GIPSON was righteous "AT THE CROSS", who did He declare it to? WHO was the audience?

Second question, does God ever DECLARE righteousness to the individual personally through the Holy Spirit?

I have not heard this what you speak of him in all the sermons of his I had listened to so I cannot speak of him believing this.

I would say to this it would be the same audience whom heard God declare them sinners, being that I am not sure I go along totally with all of Bobs theory on the 2 seeds. I must admit though, I find the 2 seeds very eye opening.

BRANDAN KRAFT, do you ever think you were declared a sinner by God before you were born?

John

[jmgipson]

The reason I pointed it out is because Wimer omits justification from eternity he is OBSESSED with the timely aspect of justification. His position is anti-gospel in my opinion because it is low grace theology making salvation conditioned upon something that happens instead of God's perfect purpose from eternity. He fails to see the purpose of the cross because he sees it as a reactionary event... as a sort of a "stop gap" so that God would be enabled to love men. He misses out on the point that God purposed the cross because that is what He deemed would be satisfactory to Him in justifying His people. Christ died not because he "had to", but because it was God's purpose.

I don't recall if you answered my question, but here goes... If as you say God declared that JOHN GIPSON was righteous "AT THE CROSS", who did He declare it to? WHO was the audience?

Second question, does God ever DECLARE righteousness to the individual personally through the Holy Spirit?

I missed your last question. So let me answer it. I am trying to get all I can in before I head for Maine.

I believe that I am translated from ignorance and blindness, into light and it is revealed to me that Christ has given me a righteousness that is not my own. If this is what you are calling a declaration, then yes. When Christ declared it is finished I was made (in time) righteous. When the curtain tore, this is a declaration of reconciliation.

John

[MCoving]

There are many good men who do not believe that this is faith in Christ and it is not at all an issue in which any of us here have an answer. But with that said, I would not just sweep it under the rug and say, “I will just follow what Bob says or I will just follow what John says etc…”. I really think it is well worth the intense study time I think it deserves.

Mary, I think you are missing the whole issue of the debate. I think you would benefit a lot in further study of Christ and His humanity (I say this in respect) before getting into anything to do with the faith of Christ.


John Gipson

Ya know I am kind of getting annoyed with comments such as "I would not just sweet it under the rug and say I will just follow what Bob says or I will just follow what John says". Why did you bring that up? What was your motive behind that? If its to say that I am just following Bob on this one, you are wrong. Why do some people on here think that just because I'm young or new that I am just following Bob or Brandan?? I have a mind I can think for myself.

And no John I dont believe I am missing the WHOLE issue. And I do study Christ and His humanity, its at the heart of every day of my life, its my joy and only purpose in living is to know Him more. But I guess thanks for telling me to study God more.. we all should thats for sure.

Either way when I read Gods Word I see verses which say faith in God, faith in Christ. Even BEFORE any of Bob's comments I've always read this and just thought belief in Christ. Or putting my trust in Christ and His Works.

Phil 3:9, (NASB), and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
Col 1:4, (NASB), since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints; Col 2:5, (NASB), For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ.

Believing in Christ, faith is a part of justification. If someone NEVER believed in God, NEVER had faith in Christ and His Word on the cross... how could they possibly be saved?? Their eyes were never opened and ears never opened to hear and understand the Gospel.

If you JUST say its faith of Christ.. and has nothing to do with our believing or our own personal faith in the Lord then all you have is Christ's death. If we were not predestined to believe and have faith in Christ, and in time that was manifested then justification is pointless because their is no one to justify for no one believes.

I understand that Christ was faithful.. that He lived a perfect life, that His life and His faith is all part of our justification. And I also believe that faith in Christ is part of our justification. It all goes together.. I wont seperate faith of Christ from faith in Christ. I agree with some of what Nicholas said on this. I dont understand all the different versions from each Bible... but it doesn't really matter to me for throughout the Bible in verses not using those terms it is evident that our belief in the Lord is the last piece of the puzzle in justification. And it is also evident that Christ lived a perfect life was faithful to death and saved His sheep. Thats all I need to know in all of this... I have no desire to take it any further. I'l take a middle road in this.. I wont say its ALL faith of Christ or ALL faith in Christ (though I really dont see anyone saying this here... I think we agree more than we realize right now).

I gotta go for now.. anyways please no one else imply that I'm just following the moderators here. I can think for myself. Thanks.

Mary

[Bob Higby]

This is a difference in interpretation of who is 'object' and 'subject' (which way the objective vs. subjective genitive is stated). The theologians are viewing Christ as the object of faith when they call this an objective genitive. The more common English use of the terms according to the grammar of the genitive (which I posted earlier) is a reverse of this.

"Faith in Christ" is not a strict translation of the genitive but only of the dative. I have given my interpretation of what the genitive "faith of Christ" means in contrast those who deny personal declared justification.

[Brandan]

When Christ declared it is finished I was made (in time) righteous.

But righteousness is not imputed in time. It's impossible because it's an eternal and immanent act of God.