# The issue of "by faith".



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 7, 2007)

I was just looking at the Macarthur's theology thread when I started to read the discussion about faith, and justification. I find that some here believe we were justified from eternity. I wanted to ask Israelite a question, which by no means is restricted only to him.



> Israelite said:
> 
> 
> > God's elect were justified at the cross 2,000 years ago.
> ...


----------



## bookslover (Sep 7, 2007)

How about putting it this way?

*Objectively,* God chose those to be saved out of the mass of humanity before He even performed any creative act, before anything existed. And, God had these people in His mind when His Son went to the cross. So, in this sense, we (the elect) were justified in eternity.

*Subjectively,* individuals (who all belong to that group chosen to be saved) are saved when they, as they come along in the stream of history, place their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And, they are enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit who, with the Father and the Son, chosen them back in eternity past in the first place.

Is this helpful?


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 7, 2007)

If I may post some key resources:

_The Doctrine of Justification, by the Righteousness of Christ, Stated and Maintained_. (Part 5)

_Of Other Eternal and Immanent Acts in God, Particularly Adoption and Justification_. 

_A Defense of the Doctrine of Eternal Justification_

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


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 7, 2007)

bookslover said:


> How about putting it this way?
> 
> *Objectively,* God chose those to be saved out of the mass of humanity before He even performed any creative act, before anything existed. And, God had these people in His mind when His Son went to the cross. So, in this sense, we (the elect) were justified in eternity.
> 
> ...



Right, I understand election. Yet, election doesn't equal justification. Those are two seperate works of God. Election is the act of choosing or electing. Justification is the act of declaring someone just.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 7, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Right, I understand election. Yet, election doesn't equal justification. Those are two seperate works of God. Election is the act of choosing or electing. Justification is the act of declaring someone just.



*Dr. Twisse:* "Forgiveness of sin, if you regard the quiddity of it, is no other than a negation of punishment, or a will not to punish: be it therefore, that to forgive sin is no other than to will not to punish; why, this will not to punish, as it is an immanent act in God, was from eternity."

*Dr. Twisse:* "Justification and absolution, as they signify an immanent act of the divine will, are from eternity: but the external notification of the same will and manner of a judicial and forensic absolution, which is made by the Word and Spirit, at the tribunal of every one’s conscience, is that imputation of Christ’s righteousness, remission of sins, justification and absolution, which follow faith. For hereupon absolution is pronounced, as it were by the mouth of a judge, and so that internal purpose of absolving, which was from eternity, is made manifest."

John Gill dealing with objections:

Thirdly, To consider the objections which are made against this doctrine.

*1.* It is objected, that persons cannot be justified before they exist; they must be, before they can be justified; and this is strengthened with some old trite philosophical maxims: as, Non entis nulla sunt accidentia, nullæ affectiones; accidentis esse, est inesse; "No accidents can be predicated of a non-entity; no affections can be ascribed to it, &c." To which I answer, with Maccovius, That this is true of non-entities that have neither an esse actu, nor an esse cognitum; that have neither an actual being, nor is it certain, or known, that they shall have any future being. But God’s elect, though they have not an esse actu, an actual being from eternity, yet they have an esse cognitum; it is certain by the prescience and foreknowledge of God, that they shall have one; for known unto God are all his works from eternity. (Acts 15:1) Besides, they have an esse repræsentativm, a representative being in Christ; which is more than other creatures have, whose future existences are certain; and therefore they were blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ, before the foundation of the world; (Eph. 1:3) and had grace given them in Christ before the world began. (2 Tim. 1:9) Moreover, "Justification is a moral act, which does not require the present existence of the subject; it is enough that it shall exist some time or other." It is, indeed, granted, that justification taken passively, as it is declared to, and passes upon the conscience, by the Spirit of God, and is received by faith: that this requires the actual existence of the subject on whom it terminates; but we are not speaking of justification as a transient, but as a an immanent act; not as received by us, but as it is in God, who justifies.

*2.* It is objected, that if God’s elect are justified from eternity, then they were not only justified before they themselves existed, but also from that which, as yet, was not committed, that is, sin; and it seems absurd to say, that they are justified from sins, before they were committed, or any charge was brought against them for sin. To which I answer; it is no more absurd to say, that God’s elect are justified from their sins, before they were committed, than it is to say, that their sins were imputed to Christ, and laid upon him, as he was delivered up to justice, and died for them, before they were committed. And as this will not be denied by those, who believe the substitution of Christ in the room and stead of the elect, the imputation of their sins to him, and his plenary satisfaction to divine justice for them, by his sufferings and death; so it is an answer which ought to be satisfactory to them.

*3.* It is suggested, "That justification strictly speaking, cannot be said to be from eternity, because the decree of justification is one thing, and justification itself another; even as God’s will to save and sanctify is one thing, and salvation and sanctification itself another; and therefore, though the decree is from eternity the thing itself is not." To which I reply: That as God’s decree to elect certain persons to everlasting life and salvation, is his election of them to everlasting life and salvation; so his decree, will, and purpose to justify any, is his justification of them: for by, or through the decree of justification, as Dr. Ames expresses it, (which was before observed) the sentence of justification was conceived in God’s mind; and, being there conceived, was complete and perfect. God’s will, not to impute sin to his people, is the non-imputation of it to them; and his will to impute Christ’s righteousness, is the imputation of it to them, The same may be said of all God’s immanent acts of grace concerning us; such as election, &c. Which are entirely within himself, and do not require that the object should exist; only that it certainly shall exist some time or other; but this cannot be said of transient acts, which produce a real, physical and inherent change upon the subject. It is one thing for God to will to act an act of grace concerning us, and another thing to will to work a work of grace in us. God’s will in the former instance, is his act; in the latter it is not: wherefore though God’s will to justify is justification itself, because justification is a complete act, in his eternal mind without us: yet his will to sanctify is not sanctification, because this is a work wrought in us. Hence it appears, that there is not the same reason to say, we were created, called, sanctified or glorified from eternity; as to say, that we were justified from eternity. Because, as Mr. Eyres observes; "These import an inherent change in the person created, called, glorified; which forgiveness does not, it being perfeet and complete in the mind of God:" by which he means justification.

*4.* It is observed, That the apostle Paul, in recounting the several blessings of divine grace, in his famous chain of salvation, Romans 8:30, places vocation before justification, as something antecedent to it; from whence it is concluded, that vocation is, in order of time, before justification. To which I reply: That the order of things is frequently inverted in scripture. The Jews have a saying, That "there is neither first nor last in the law," that is, it does not always observe to put that first which is first; and that last which is last; but frequently changes the order; so that nothing strictly is to be concluded from thence. And as this is obvious in the law, and in the other writings of the Old Testament, so it is in the books of the New Testament; where it is easy to observe, that the order of the three Persons in the Trinity is not always kept to. Sometimes the Son is placed before the Father, and sometimes the Holy Spirit is mentioned before the Father and Son. And though this may well express the equality there is between them; yet it ought not to be urged, to confound the order among them. But to consider the instance of vocation before us: let it be observed, that this is sometimes placed before election, as in 2 Peter 1:10, Make your calling and election sure. And yet none but an Arminian, and scarcely such an one, will infer from hence, that vocation, or calling, is before election. And, on the other hand, salvation is placed before vocation, 2 Timothy 1:9, Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling. From whence it may be as strongly concluded, that salvation, and so justification, is before vocation, as that vocation is before justification from the other text. If, indeed, by justification is meant the declarative sentence of it upon the conscience, by the Spirit of God, and received by faith, it will he allowed, that it follows vocation, and that vocation precedes it.

*5.* "The several passages of scripture, where we are said to be justified by, or through faith, are urged, as declaring faith to be a prerequisite to justification; which cannot be, say they, if justification was from eternity." To which I answer: That those places of scripture, which speak of justification, by, or through faith, do not militate against, nor disprove justification before faith: for though justification before, and by faith differ; yet they are not opposite and contradictory: yea, justification by, or through faith; supposes justification before faith. For if there was no justification before faith, there can be none by it, without making faith the cause or condition of it. As to those places of scripture, which speak of justification by, or through faith, declaring faith to be prerequisite to justification, I reply: If by a prerequisite, is meant a prerequisite to the being of justification, it is denied that those scriptures teach any such thing; for faith adds nothing to the being of justification: but if by it, is meant a prerequisite to the sense and knowledge of it, or to a claim of interest in it, it will be allowed to be the sense of them. But a learned author says: That "to refer them to a sense of justification only, is weak and foreign to the mind of the apostle Paul." But I must beg leave to differ from him, till some reasons are given why it is so. But let us a little consider some of the scriptures which are insisted on. Perhaps the words of my text may be thought to stare me in the face and to furnish out an objection against justification, before faith; when the apostle says, And by him all that believe are justified. From whence it can only be inferred: that all who believe are justified persons, which no body denies; and they may be justified before they believe, for aught that the apostle here says. And if any one should think fit to infer from hence, that those who believe not, are not justified, it will he allowed that they are not declaratively, or evidentially justified: that they do not know that they are; that they cannot receive any comfort from it, nor claim any interest in justification; but that they are not justified in God’s sight, or in Christ the Mediator, cannot be proved. Again, the apostle in 1 Corinthians 6:11, says of the Corinthians, that they were now justified, as if they were not justified before. But this I conceive, does not at all militate against justification before faith: for they might be justified in foro Dei, and in their Head, Christ Jesus, before now, and yet not till now be justified in their own consciences, and by the Spirit of God; which, it is plain, is the justification the apostle is here speaking of. But the grand text, which is urged to prove justification a consequent of faith, is Galatians 2:16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. Here the apostle is speaking of justification, as it terminates upon the conscience of a believer; and this is readily granted to follow faith, and to be a consequent of it; for that none are justified by faith until they believe, is acknowledged by all. The apostle’s meaning then is, that we have believed in Christ, or have looked to him for justification, that we might have the comfortable sense and apprehension of it, through faith in him; or that we may appear to he justified, or to expect justification alone by his righteousness, received by faith, and not by the works of the law. In the same light may many other scriptures, of the same kind, be considered.

*6.* It is urged: "That justification cannot be from eternity, but only in time, when a man actually believes and repents; because else it would follow, that he, who is justified, and consequently hath passed from death to life, and is become a child of God, and an heir of eternal life, abides still in death, and is a child of wrath; because he who is not converted, and lies in sin, abideth in death, 1 John 3:14, and is of the devil, 1 John 3:8. and in a state of damnation, Galatians 5:21." In order to solve this seeming difficulty, let it be observed, That God’s elect may be considered under two different Heads, and as related to two different covenants at one and the same time. As they are the descendants of Adam, they are related to him, as a covenant-head, and as such, sinned in him; and, through his offence judgment came upon them all to condemnation; and so they are all, by nature, children of wrath, even as others. But then, as considered in Christ, they were loved with an everlasting love: God chose them in him before the foundation of the world; and always viewed and accounted them righteous in Christ, in whom they were eternally secured from eternal wrath and damnation. So that it is no contradiction to say, that the elect of God, as they are in Adam, and according to the covenant of works, are under the sentence of condemnation; and that as they are in Christ, and according to the covenant of grace, and the secret transactions thereof, they are justified and freed from all condemnation. This is no more a contradiction, than that they are loved with an everlasting love, and yet are children of wrath at one and the same time, as they certainly are. And again, this is no more a contradiction, than that Jesus Christ was the Object of his Father’s love and wrath at one and the same time; sustaining two different capacities, and standing in two different relations when he suffered in the room and stead of his people.

*7.* It is objected, that this doctrine makes assurance to be of the essence of faith. And, indeed, I think, that assurance, in some degree or other of it, is essential to faith: but then by this I do not mean such an assurance as excludes all doubts and fears, and admits of no allay of unbelief; which the apostle calls, The full assurance of faith, (Heb. 10:22) and is the highest degree thereof. Nor do I intend assurance in so low a sense, as the mere assurance of the object; for this may be in devils, in hypocrites, and formal professors: but I mean an assurance of the object with relation to a man’s self in particular. As for instance: That faith by which a man is said to he justified, is not a mere assurance of the object, or a bare persuasion that there is a justifying righteousness in Christ; but that there is a justifying righteousness in Christ for him; and therefore he looks unto, leans, relies, and depends on, and pleads this righteousness for his justification: though this act of his may be attended with many doubts, fears, questionings, and unbelief. And what is short of this I cannot apprehend to be true faith in Christ, as the Lord our righteousness.

*8.* It is objected: That if justification is before faith, then there is no need of faith; it is a vain and useless thing. To which I answer, that though faith does not justify us, it being neither the whole, nor a part of our justifying righteousness, nor the cause or condition of our justification; yet, as it apprehends and receives Christ’s righteousness for our justification, it brings much peace, joy, and comfort into our hearts. The awakened sinner, before faith is wrought in his soul, or be enabled to exercise it on Christ, finds himself in a state of bondage, and under a sentence of condemnation; as he really is, as a descendant of Adam, and according to the open rules of God’s word: so that there is nothing else but a fearful expectation of fiery indignation to consume him. But when the Spirit of God brings near Christ’s righteousness, and puts it into the hand of faith, and declares the justifying sentence of God, upon the account of that righteousness, in the conscience, his mind is unfettered, his soul is set at liberty, and filled with a joy unspeakable and full of glory. So that faith is just of the same usefulness in this respect, as a condemned malefactor’s actually receiving the king’s pardon into his own hand is to him; when, in consequence of this, he is not only delivered from prison and confinement, and all the miseries which attended such a state; but also freed from all those fears, terrors, horrors, and tortures of mind, which arose from his daily expectation of just punishment. In fine, justification is by faith, and in a way of receiving, as the whole of salvation is, That it might be by grace, that is, that it might appear to be of grace, and not of works. Thus have I freely given my thoughts concerning justification, both before and at believing, and have endeavoured to remove the objections made against it. I leave what I have said to the blessing of God, and pass on,​


----------



## KMK (Sep 7, 2007)

Interesting that these are similar argumets put forth by hyperpreterists against a future eternal judgment. God already judged at the cross, therefore, there is no problem saying that all the prophecies and promises of judgment were fulfilled in AD 70.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 8, 2007)

KMK said:


> Interesting that these are similar argumets put forth by hyperpreterists against a future eternal judgment. God already judged at the cross, therefore, there is no problem saying that all the prophecies and promises of judgment were fulfilled in AD 70.



Interesting indeed, but I trust that you are not arguing _ad hominem_ here


----------



## JM (Sep 8, 2007)

_Sometimes_, Richard, I think that you and I may have "broken necks."

"Concerning predestination, it is best to begin below, at Christ, as then we both hear and find the Father; *for all those that have begun at the top have broken their necks.* I have been thoroughly plagued and tormented with such cogitations of predestination; I would needs know how God intended to deal with me, etc. 

But at last, God be praised! 

I clean left them; I took hold again on God’s revealed Word; higher I was not able to bring it, for a human creature can never search out the celestial will of God; this God hides, for the sake of the devil, to the end the crafty spirit may be deceived and put to confusion. The revealed will of God the devil has learned from us, but God reserves his secret will to himself. It is sufficient for us to learn and know Christ in his humanity, in which the Father has revealed himself." Martin Luther, Table Talks

...sometimes...


----------



## KMK (Sep 8, 2007)

JM said:


> _Sometimes_, Richard, I think that you and I may have "broken necks."
> 
> "Concerning predestination, it is best to begin below, at Christ, as then we both hear and find the Father; *for all those that have begun at the top have broken their necks.* I have been thoroughly plagued and tormented with such cogitations of predestination; I would needs know how God intended to deal with me, etc.
> 
> ...



Great post!

And no, I would not dare to try to argue about a doctrine such as this. (I don't even know what 'ad hominem' means.)


----------



## JM (Sep 8, 2007)

ad hominem


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 8, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Right, I understand election. Yet, election doesn't equal justification. Those are two seperate works of God. Election is the act of choosing or electing. Justification is the act of declaring someone just.
> ...



Lest anyone think that Twisse's views were deemed proper, one should note
that the Confession rejects the doctrine of justification from eternity. Justification
is an act that occurs IN TIME, in each individual's life.



> WCF XI.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 not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.



The Confession specifically teaches a justification "in due time", contrary to the
teachings of Dr. Twisse, prolocutor though he may have been. He was wrong on
this (at least confessionally speaking) and I fully agree with the WCF on this matter.

Todd


----------



## KMK (Sep 8, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that these are similar argumets put forth by hyperpreterists against a future eternal judgment. God already judged at the cross, therefore, there is no problem saying that all the prophecies and promises of judgment were fulfilled in AD 70.
> ...



Now I get it! You are wondering if I am trying to accuse you of being a hyper-preterist. 

No, but I think you are traveling down a dangerous road for no reason. If we were justified from all eternity, then what is the purpose of a future eternal judgment?


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 8, 2007)

KMK said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



Let's be careful here.... one could hear you saying that you believe we aren't really
justified until the last judgment, Ken.

You're not saying that, are you?

Todd


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 8, 2007)

Eternal Justification is essentially a denial of the reformed doctrine of justification BY faith. Those who hold to such a doctrine make faith a mere _realization_ that one was in reality justified from eternity. Faith is no longer the instrument of justification. No ad hominem here, but those who hold to eternal justification have been historically camped with hyper-calvinism/antinomianism.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 8, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew P.C. said:
> ...



Yes. Shaw:


> [SIZE=-1]Section IV.—God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]Exposition[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]This section is directed against the Antinomian error, that the elect were justified from eternity, or when the price of their redemption was paid by Christ. It is readily admitted that God, from eternity, decreed to justify the elect; but till the period of effectual calling they are in a state of wrath and condemnation.—Eph. ii. 3; John iii. 18. The righteousness by which they are justified was perfected in Christ's death, and the perfection of it was declared by his resurrection, and they may be said to have been virtually justified when Christ was acquitted and discharged as their head and representative; nevertheless, they are not actually and formally justified unti1 they are vitally united to Christ by faith.[/SIZE]



Hodge:


> [SIZE=-1]SECTION 4 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 in due time actually applies Christ unto them.(13)[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1](11) Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 1:2,19,20; Rom. 8:30. (12) Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 2:6; Rom. 4:25. (13) Col. 1:21,22; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:4-7.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]It has been objected to our doctrine by some Arminians, and held as a part of it by some Antinomians, that if Christ literally paid the debt of his elect in his obedience and suffering when on earth, it must follow that the elect have been justified from the moment that debt was paid. The Scriptures, on the contrary, as well as all Christian experience, make it certain that no one is justified until the moment that God gives him saving faith in Christ.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]Christ paid the penal, not the money debt of his people. It is a matter of free grace that his substitution was admitted. The satisfaction, therefore, does not liberate ipso facto , like the payment of a money debt, but sets the real criminal free only on such conditions and at such times as had been previously agreed upon between God, the gracious sovereign, on the one hand, and Christ, their representative and substitute, on the other hand. Christ died for his people in execution of a covenant between himself and his Father, entered into in eternity. The effects of his death, therefore, eventuate precisely as and when it is provided in the covenant that it should do so.[/SIZE]


----------



## KMK (Sep 9, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...



I would say that we are 'really' justified at the moment we have faith, but that justification is not legally established until final judgment. Am I on the right track? If I was accused of a crime, I would be 'really' guilty or innocent before the trial, but the trial is still necessary in order to legally establish my guilt or inocence.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 9, 2007)

Ken,

Realize this is just a lay person giving his opinion here, but from how I understand it, we are legally justified in the here and now, hence the legal nature of imputation (a legal declaration). I understand the final judgment to be more of a vindication, then a legal declaration.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 9, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Ken,
> 
> Realize this is just a lay person giving his opinion here, but from how I understand it, we are legally justified in the here and now, hence the legal nature of imputation (a legal declaration). I understand the final judgment to be more of a vindication, then a legal declaration.



Yes, hence the nature of _simul iustus et peccator_.


----------



## KMK (Sep 9, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Ken,
> 
> Realize this is just a lay person giving his opinion here, but from how I understand it, we are legally justified in the here and now, hence the legal nature of imputation (a legal declaration). I understand the final judgment to be more of a vindication, then a legal declaration.



Thank you for that correction. "At the same time righteous and a sinner" 

Perhaps, someday God will give me the ability to wrap my mind around this final judgment thing. I have no doubt that you are correct, but the word 'vindication' does not seem to do it justice in my mind. (pun intended) All I know is I can't wait for that day, God willing, when He says to me, "Ken Klein, get yourself over here on my right hand with the rest of My sheep!"


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 9, 2007)

You may be interested in this.


----------



## KMK (Sep 9, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> You may be interested in this.



Here it is from Oceanside United Reformed Church:



> On the Puritanboard Richard asks,
> 
> 1. In eternity in the covenant made with Christ as our head;
> 
> ...



I found this very helpful. I was concerned about the sufficiancy of the word 'vindication' in regards to final judgment. Thinking of it as a vindication before the world or a manifestation of God's glory make sense to me. 

Thanks, Richard!


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 10, 2007)

KMK said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > You may be interested in this.
> ...



When Scott Clark argues that "Most Reformed orthodox deny eternal justification" he is correct but some big hitters did not but as I have said previously there were tendencies by some to understand EJ as we are actually justified in eternity and that led to all sorts of errors. The position:



> 1. Decreed (the cause)
> 
> 2. Accomplished (the ground)
> 
> ...



I do not have any major problems with.


----------

