# "Orthodox" Eternal Justification?



## toddpedlar (Sep 13, 2007)

In another thread, I wrote:


> (just as Twisse's presence at the Assembly doesn't mean it allowed for eternal justification, which it clearly came down against).


to which Richard replied:



> They came out against a certain understanding of EJ but there is an orthodox view that is compatable with the Westminster Standards. But this thread is not the place to discuss this



Well, here's your thread. What is the "orthodox view" of Eternal Justification that is compatible with the Westminster Standards which (In my humble opinion) denies any view of justification in which the actual act of justification takes place outside of time?

As Alex Trebek says, please remember to phrase this in the form of a question...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 13, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> In another thread, I wrote:
> 
> 
> > (just as Twisse's presence at the Assembly doesn't mean it allowed for eternal justification, which it clearly came down against).
> ...



I hope you have a copy of Goodwin's _The Acts and Objects of Justifying Faith_. The relevant section I shall post below. Read it and we can carry on later for he is advocating an orthodox understanding of eternal justification and one that I subscribe to. I doubt you will label Thomas Goodwin as being at odds with Westminster theology. 


*BOOK I, CHAPTER XV*
That God, considered as justifying the ungodly, is the object of faith. How we may be said to be justified from eternity. In what sense it is to be under stood that we were justified upon the resurrection of Christ. How we are said to be justified when we believe. 

_Who shall lay anything to the charge of God s elect ? It is God that justifieth. *ROM. VIII. 33*._​
In seeking justification, our faith must have recourse to God, as justifying also. Thus in the words of the text it is expressed, It is God that justifies. And upon this the apostle builds his confidence, as well as upon that, that Christ died. Therefore we find, that as Christ dying, so God as justifying is made the object of faith; Rom. iv. 5, * That believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly i. e., who believeth on God the Father, imputing Christ s righteousness to persons ungodly. And therefore you shall find that the righteousness we are justified by is called as often the righteousness of God, as of Christ : thus Rom. i. 17, The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith ; for as faith looks at this righteousness as purchased by Christ, so appointed by God, and bestowed by him, and imputed by him : 2 Cor. v. 21, &lt; For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. We see Christ there to be the meritorious cause of that righteousness, for his soul paid for it. But his Father was the original cause of all, for he made him sin for us, and he makes his righteousness ours. It is called the righteousness of Christ, as he is the worker of it; but the righteousness of God, as he is the appointer and imputer of it. So Rom. iii. 25, 26, it is called the righteousness of God for a double reason; because God sent forth and appointed Christ, ver. 25, and because he is the justifier by it, ver. 26. It is called the righteousness of faith, as the apprehender of it, Rom. iv. 13. It is called man s righteousness (Job xxxiii. 26, He will render to man his righteousness ), because it was extended to him, and paid for him. Yea, let me add this farther, that God justifying is the main and ultimate object of your faith. Christ, though he is the first and next to you, yet God is the ultimate, in whom faith rests. Therefore believers, 1 Pet. i. 21, are said by him to believe in God, that their faith and hope might be in God. Thus, as the promise brings you to Christ, so Christ brings you to God. 

The reason of this is, because God hath as great a hand in justifying you as Christ ; yea, he is the principal in it : 2 Cor. v. 18, And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. Therefore in the matter of justification, Isaiah liii. 11, God calls him his servant; My servant shall justify many. It was God against whom principally our sins are committed, and unto whom the satisfaction of Christ was paid, and by whom it was ordained, and by virtue of whose decree it hath power to justify. As the value of it to justify us depends on the worth that is in Christ, so the acceptation of it for us depends upon God s will ; By which will ye are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus, Heb. x. 10. It is the will of God, spoken of before, which Christ came to accomplish. It was God that appointed the persons for whom Christ died, and Christ, as Mediator, put not in a man, but whom his Father gave him ; and then the great blessing of pardon comes to be bestowed. God guides, and directs, and orders the bestowing of it, and sets his hand to the act of grace, ere pardon comes down. Christ s merits have their efficacy to justify us _ex compacto_, from agreement between the Father and the Son ; for though the merits are in themselves superabundant, vvregeirteovatK, 1 Tim. i. 14, the apostle therefore shewing how the righteousness of Christ is more to us than Adam s sin, tells us also that free grace must put in before it can be accepted for us, Rom. v. 17. 

There are two things in justification. 

1. The righteousness imputed; and that is Christ s, and to him we go for it. 

2. The act of imputation, the accounting it mine or thine ; and that is the act of God primarily. 

Justification is attributed as much to free grace as to Christ s righteousness, for both are joined : Rom. iii. 24, 25, Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ : whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Therefore faith looks as much to free grace ordaining and imputing, as to Christ performing. In a word, God s free grace is the original, Christ s righteousness is instrumental to the manifestation of free grace, and faith is the instrument of apprehending all; and yet God still is in all, 2 Cor. v. 18 ; and Christ is all in all, Col. iii. 11. And faith, as it is our act, is nothing at all in our justification, but only as it apprehends all. 

Now, for a direction concerning God justifying as the object of your faith, you are to consider all the acts and ways of God justifying, and to direct you to a right conceiving of God as justifying, you must know that there are _tria momenta_, or three stages of motion in this way. I do not say that there are three parts of justification itself, which, as it is applied to us, is _actus individuus_, an individual act; but three several steps, three paces and progresses of God, as I may call them ; though, in respect of the materials which justification consisteth of, it is actus totalis, an entire act, a complete discharge from all sin, and a perfect investiture with the whole righteousness of Christ. God pardons not the debt by halves, nor bestows Christ s righteousness by parcels, but entitles us to the whole in every of those moments of justification : yet, in regard of our investiture into this, there are several pauses, or several iterations of this act ; as in passing over an estate in land, when the deeds are drawn, written, and sealed, there is a title or interest given into the whole estate ; and then again, when possession is further given, it is not an interest into any new parcel, but both convey the whole estate ; yet they may be called several acts of conveyance, and of title and admission into it : and such several acts of investiture of us into this whole grace of justification were performed towards us by God, which go to the accomplishment of it. This also answers to the distinct works of the three persons, who, as they have a distinct hand in the whole work of redemption, so also in this main point 
of our justification. 

1. The first progress or step was at the first covenant-making and striking of the bargain from all eternity. We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ what is said of Christ, that their goings forth are from everlasting. Justified then we were when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head, as he had our persons then given him, and we came to have a being and interest in him. You are in Christ, saith the apostle, and so we had the promise made of all spiritual blessings in him, and he took all the deeds of all in our name; so that in Christ we were blessed with all spiritual blessings, Eph. i. 3; as we are blessed with all other, so with this also, that we were justified then in Christ. To this purpose is that place, Rom. viii. 30, where he speaks of all those blessings which are applied to us after redemption, as calling, justification, glorification, as of things already past and done, even then when he did predestinate us: Whom he hath predestinated, them he hath called, them he hath justified, them he hath glorified. He speaks it as in the time past. Neither speaks he thus of these blessings as past simply in regard of that presence, in which all things stand before him from eternity, all things both past, present, and to come, being to him as present. Nor doth he speak it only in regard of a resolution or purpose taken up to call and justify, he calling things that are not as if they were, Bom. iv. 17. For thus it may be said of all his other works towards the creatures in common, that he hath created and preserved them from everlasting. But in a more special relation are these blessings decreed said to have been bestowed, because, though they existed not in themselves, yet they existed really in a Head that represented them and us, who was by to answer for them, and to undertake for them, which other creatures could not do ; and there was an actual donation and receiving of all these for us (as truly as a feoffee in trust may take lands for one unborn), by virtue of a covenant made with Christ, whereby Christ had all our sins imputed unto him, and so taken off from us, Christ having then covenanted to take all our sins upon him when he took our persons to be his ; and God having covenanted not to impute sin unto us, but to look at him for the payment of all, and at us as discharged. Of this seems that place, 2 Cor. v. 19, evidently to speak, as importing that everlasting transaction, as I have shewn, [In his discourse of Christ the Mediator, Book i. chap. i. in vol. iii. of his works, Vol. V. of this edition. ED.] God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; i.e., not imputing them then, when he was reconciling us unto himself in Christ. So as then God told Christ, as it were, (for it was a real covenant), that he would look for his debt and satisfaction of him, and that he did let the sinners go free ; and so they are in this respect justified from all eternity. And indeed, if the promise of life was then given us (as the apostle Paul speaks, Titus i. 2), then also justification of life, without which we could not come to life. Yet this is but the inchoation, though it be an estating us into the whole tenure of life. 

2. There is a farther act of justifying us, which passeth from God towards us in Christ, upon the payment and performance by Christ at his resurrection : for Jesus Christ (who as he was one with us by stipulation before, so then by representation), at the time, the fulness of the time of payment appointed (which the apostle therefore calls the due time, Rom. v. 6), came into the world as our surety, and as representing our persons, as Adam once did; and at several payments, for three and thirty years and upwards, at last finished all at his death, and laid down the last payment when he laid down his life and his body in the grave, sin and the curse all the while holding him in bands as a debtor: but at that instant when he arose, God then performed a farther act of justification towards him, and us in him, admitting him as our advocate, into the actual possession of justification of life, acquitting him from all those sins which he had charged upon him. Therefore we read, that as Christ was made sin in his life and death, so that he was justified also, 1 Tim. iii. 16. After he had said, that he was manifested in the flesh, i. e., the likeness of sinful flesh, he says, he was justified in the Spirit, when by the power of that eternal Spirit he was quickened, and so declared to be that righteous one with power; at which time, as he vindicated himself before men, of all those imputations laid on him by men, as being an impostor (which, when he was under the curse, he lay under, but now was justified to all the world), so also before and by his Father he was discharged, and justified also from all those debts he had before charged him with, as now having fully paid the utmost farthing, and so received him up into glory, as it follows in that text. I say then, in the same sense that God made him sin, in the same sense he is said to have justified him ; and therefore, Heb. ix. 28, it is said, he shall at the latter day appear without sin ; implying, that when he appeared here, he appeared with sin : therefore there was a time when these sins were taken off, and the first moment of it was when he rose from under that state of humiliation (whereof the last part was his lying in the grave), and when he began to enter upon a glorified state, which was at his resurrection. And that he should be thus justified, is not spoken of him abstractly considered in himself, but as he hath us conjoined in him, and as he connotates us ; this new title to life, and of being righteous, he entered not upon for himself alone, but he was an attorney, took possession, and was admitted for us, and we by him as our advocate ; which I take to be the meaning of that place, Rom. iv. 25, He died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. When he died, then he paid our debts, and God received from him the price, and therefore the matter of justification is indeed the merit of his obedience and death ; but at his rising, then the formal act and deed of discharge was delivered to him by God, and that for our justification : He rose for our justification. And our justification 
is attributed his resurrection, not only because he rose again to apply it, but principally in this respect, because at his rising he received it for us, for he being justified then, we were justified in him: and therefore, as justification in respect of the matter imputed is attributed to his death and blood (we were justified by his blood) so the formal imputation of it to 
us ; may be ascribed to his resurrection, when the discharge of all was reckoned to Christ. And in this respect, when the apostle would shew them the benefit and necessity of Christ s resurrection in respect of them selves, he says, 1 Cor. xv. 17, If Christ be not risen, your faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins, i. e., that although Christ died for your sins, and you had faith in that his death to be justified from your sins, yet this faith would be in vain, and neither it nor Christ s death would justify you; and your title to justification were nothing worth, if Christ be not risen: for though you did believe, and could say the money was paid for you, if Christ had not risen to take delivery and seisin of the estate in your names, 
your plea would have heen made void, the formality of justification being wanting. Now all this argues that our justification hath a farther dependence upon his resurrection than merely as to working faith, and that he rose not only to give us faith, but that supposing we could have faith in his death, yet without his resurrection it had been in vain. For indeed 
this present state of our justification by faith depends upon that fere-passed justification of his in our stead then ; and as when he ascended we ascended with him (and therefore we are said now to sit together with him in heavenly places, Eph. ii. 6), so when he was justified we were justified also in him ; and as it may be said, Adam condemned us all, and corrupted us all, when he fell, so did then Christ perfect us all, and God justified us all, when he died and rose again. 

3. But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God ; and though they concern us, and are towards us, yet are not acts of God upon its, they being performed towards us, not as actually existing in ourselves, but only as existing in our Head, who covenanted for us, and represented us : so as though by these acts we are estated into a right title to justification, yet the benefit and the possession of that estate we have not without a farther act to be passed upon us, whereby we have not as existing in our head only, as a feoffee in trust for us, as children under age, this excellent grace given us, but are to be in our own persons, though still through Christ, possessed of it, and to have all the deeds and evidences committed to the custody and apprehension of our faith. We are in our own persons made true owners and enjoyers of it, which is then done at that instant when we first believe ; which act is the completion and accomplishment of the former, and is that great and famous justification by faith which the Scripture so much inculcates, and almost only mentioneth; yea, and so speaks of it, as if we were not justified at all till then: so 1 Cor. vi. 11, Such were some of you ; but now ye are sanctified, now ye are justified : which before they were not; and therefore the apostle speaks of a now of justification, being now justified, Rom. v. 9, that is, now we believe, ver. 1 ; and so ver. 11, By whom we have now received the atonement, because though it was given in Christ afore for us, yet then only we receive it ; and therefore before faith the Scripture pronounceth the very elect, even those whom Christ died for, children of wrath as well as others, till they believe, Eph. ii. 3. So as when we are said to be justified by faith, it is not only because then faith appre hends that justification that was in God s breast before, and that then we are justified merely foro conscientia, though before we were so _in foro Dei_, as much as ever (as some express it); but further it must be said, that even _in foro Dei_, in God s court, and according to the judgment of that open court which God hath set up in his word, and according to the proceedings of his word (which is the rule he professeth to judge men by, and therein he keeps to the rules of his word, as Christ says, I judge no man, but the word I speak shall judge you, John xii. 47, 48), God doth judge, and pronounceth his elect ungodly and unjustified, till they believe ; yea, and by the Spirit of bondage he testifies to their consciences, that before faith they are ungodly, unjustified, and children of wrath. If it were not a real truth, the Spirit of truth would not evidence this to them: so, therefore, when we are said to be justified by faith, it implies more than a justification in our consciences, and causing us to apprehend our justification ; for upon believing there is an act passeth from God which makes a real change in our estates, from a state of ungodliness to an estate of justification; which is a real moral change, as truly and as really as sanctification is a physical change, and that not only in our apprehension and judging of our selves, but in the course of God s proceedings of judgment upon us; that whereas before, he, by the rules of his word, which he keeps to, would and must have proceeded with us as persons ungodly, out of Christ, now according to those rules he doth pronounce us just, and we come actually to have a real claim, title, and interest, according to course of law, as we say, in justification, which till now we were debarred of. 

But the question may be put, How could they be said to be justified afore, both from eternity and in Christ, if they may be truly said even in God's judgment to be justified but now, and that they were till now unjustified ? 

The answer is, That these seeming contradictions, in divers respects, are both true. 

1. That before God, according to the rules of his word, which are the rules of his proceedings before men, being God s revealed will, they are as yet unjustified ; but according to those secret passages of his secret will transacted with Christ, and to which he is privy, they are justified persons before him. 

2. Though the person abstractly considered is always justified before God, yet the person concretely taken, as invested with, and remaining in an estate of unbelief, is in relation to that estate, according to the rules of his word, unjustified ; so as the change is first and primarily in regard of the state of the person from unbelief to faith, and then it looks towards the person himself. 

3. Their justification before faith, _coram Deo_, in the sight of God, is of them not as actually existing in themselves, but only as they were represented in their head ; for their persons, as considered as represented in Christ, did in him, as their head, receive justification, and all blessings else, but not in themselves do they receive them actually as existing until faith ; as we are said then to be condemned and corrupted in the first Adam, when he sinned, as representing us, but we are in our own persons not actually corrupted till we exist and are born from him. So as to conclude this, they are said before faith to be justified in Christ by representation only, and not as in themselves. They are said to be in themselves actually justified through Christ after faith, but they cannot be said to be justified of themselves without Christ, neither before nor after faith. At the closure of these three advancements and passings forth of our justification, take these two observations concerning them all. 

Obs. 1. That each of these being in and through Jesus Christ, who is our righteousness, and so they all depend upon him, therefore these three progresses of God going on to justify us, depend upon three several acts of Jesus Christ, which as he puts forth, so doth God also answerably put forth a new step in this work. 

(1.) When Christ did but undertake for us, and took by covenant our sins off from us, and indented with and entered into bond to God for our debts, God then discharged us in his secret purpose; and knowing Christ able and faithful, expected all from him. 

(2.) When in the fulness of time he had performed what he under took, as Christ did a new act, so did God also therein justify both him and us. 

(3.) When Christ by his Spirit knits us to him, and works faith in us, to look towards that satisfaction and justification wrought for us, then doth God put forth another act (and it is the last act, and the accomplishment of all), and pronounceth us righteous in ourselves through him. 

Obs. 2. All these acts of justification, as they depend upon Christ, so upon our being one with Christ ; and look what kind of union there is, answerable is the act of justification passed forthwith. From all eternity we were one with Christ by stipulation, he by a secret covenant undertaking for us ; and answerably that act of God s justifying us was but as we were considered in his undertaking. When Christ died and rose again, we were in him by representation, as performing it for us, and no otherwise ; but as so considered we were justified. But now when we come in our per sons, by our own consent, to be made one with him actually, then we come in our persons through him to be personally and in ourselves justified, and receive the atonement by faith.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 13, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > In another thread, I wrote:
> ...



I'll certainly take a look...

but his presence at the Assembly, again, doesnt' mean that what he wrote on justification, in all its particulars, is consistent with the WCF. He could very well have held doctrine that does not agree with the teachings in the WCF - so after looking at what you have quoted, it could very well be that what he's teaching there is out of accord. 

As an example, he was an independent. Hence his ecclesiology is out of accord with the WCF. The fact that he was a commissioner is irrelevant to whether all that he taught is acceptably confessional. (I think I'm sounding like a broken record, but this point has had to be made several times now in different cases. Not every view of every Westminster Assembly commissioner is acceptable in light of the final documents the Assembly put together. They don't get a special dispensation simply because they were there.)


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 14, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> I'll certainly take a look...



 Let me know when you have mate, it's worth the effort.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 25, 2007)

**bump**


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 25, 2007)

I guess my quick take on it (work is VERY busy, and with the newborn at home, life is equally busy at home) is Goodwin confuses election with justification, and puts an aspect of justification where you really can't - in eternity past. But in making this conflation, he can speak of a justification before time (which we'd view as election before time - those people he calls eternally justified we'd only regard as eternally elected - or as "the elect", but as-yet-unregenerated). His view, though, from the brief reading you offer, isn't consistent with the WCF's teaching on justification. It adds an aspect to justification that is absolutely not confessional . I'm not sure what you're looking for, but his view is not confessional - that much is clear. I won't attempt to judge the orthodoxy of his position, though I am doubtful of it since justification is really not ever spoken of in the light in which he seems to want to cast it, but I can't see how he justifies this view - no pun intended - Scripturally. People who come to be justified by faith are regarded prior to their justification as enemies of God. How can such be considered by God to be just? They are elect, certainly, and therefore will at some point exercise the gift of faith that God grants them and be justified... but they are sinners, broken off from fellowship with God. Such people cannot be regarded by God as just. Why the confessional terminology that is effectively "elect before time, justified in time" isn't good enough for Goodwin, I don't know. My 14 cents.


----------



## MW (Sep 25, 2007)

Todd, is Goodwin's view unconfessional? Doesn't election itself require "virtual" justification? Justification is a legal status. Election expresses God's thoughts about the person, and those are thoughts of love. Although by nature under the wrath of God judicially, the elect are loved with an everlasting love, and therefore drawn with lovingkindness.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 25, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Todd, is Goodwin's view unconfessional? Doesn't election itself require "virtual" justification? Justification is a legal status. Election expresses God's thoughts about the person, and those are thoughts of love. Although by nature under the wrath of God judicially, the elect are loved with an everlasting love, and therefore drawn with lovingkindness.



It just seems to me that the WCF doesn't leave much room for any sense of "justification" that is eternal - and this is what Goodwin pleads for. I'm not sure election requires any kind of 'virtual' justification, really. Yes, it is foreordained, but as I read the Scriptures it's just as "future tense" as regeneration is, and God certainly intends to and knows he will bring forth both justification and regeneration - but both are borne in the believer through the gracious work of His spirit, *in time*. I don't see any need to go beyond the "elect, but not yet regenerate" model - "elect, but not yet justified" seems a reasonable place for the unbelieving elect person, until such a time as God's spirit brings forth faith in him. I don't see God needing to regard us as any way justified until such a time as it is actually brought to be. 

I'm not saying I've thought enough about this, but when I look at what Goodwin writes on this point, and compare it to the WCF, I don't see agreement. The confessional language seems to put justification and regeneration (as an example for comparison) in the same sort of category as acts that are in time (and in time only) and aren't to be considered in an "eternal" sense (except through God's foreknowledge, and eternal counsel - but I don't think that's all Goodwin is saying).


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2007)

Todd, I take WCF 11:4 to teach "virtual" justification, and the comment about the Holy Spirit's applcation of Christ to the elect must be referring to "actual" justification. God's love is eternal and unchangeable, so that actual justification cannot be understood as indicating a change in God; it can only be referring to the elect's changed status with respect to the law and covenant of God.

It is well known that Samuel Rutherford was opposed to eternal justification, and particularly refutes Crisp in Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners. However, on p. 9 of Covenant of Life Opened, he shows that "The Elect non-converted are not under Law-wrath." He explains:



> Whether the Elect unconverted be under wrath is a doubt to many. It is true, they are servants of sin, Rom. 6. 17. Blind, and under the power of Satan as Reprobates are, Acts 26.18. By nature children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2.3. Ans. Their sins committed before their Conversion, are according to the Covenant of Works, such as deserve everlasting condemnation, and they are jure and in relation to that Covenant, heirs of wrath, as well as others. 2. But we must distinguish between a state of election and everlasting, though unseen love, that they are under, as touching their persons: and a state of a sinfull way that they are born in, and walk in as others do, untill they be converted. As to the former state, it is true which is said, Ier. 31.3. I have loved thee with an everlasting love. See also, Rom. 9. 12,13. Eph. 1.4. so that God never hates their persons.


----------



## JM (Sep 26, 2007)

Just to add, "I must confess, I never, considered justification from eternity, any other than a Sublapsarian doctrine, proceeding upon the suretyship engagements of Christ, and his future satisfaction and righteousness; upon which foot the Old-Testament-saints were openly justified, and went to heaven long before the satisfaction was really made, or the justifying righteousness brought in; and indeed, if the objects of justification are the ungodly, as the scripture represents them to be, they must be considered as fallen creatures ." John Gill

Truth Defended


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Todd, I take WCF 11:4 to teach "virtual" justification, and the comment about the Holy Spirit's applcation of Christ to the elect must be referring to "actual" justification. God's love is eternal and unchangeable, so that actual justification cannot be understood as indicating a change in God; it can only be referring to the elect's changed status with respect to the law and covenant of God.



Rev. Winzer -

I'm not sure I really get the value of 'virtual justification', since one can (and I daresay, must) view other graces as well in the same light - i.e. 'virtual regeneration', 'virtual sanctification', 'virtual glorification' - since God has foreordained all things whatsoever which shall come to pass, and all those glorious benefits are ours in Christ Jesus as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. All those things are in that sense, of course, ours - though we have not possession of them. The things that Rutherford points out (and the same Scriptures are pointed to by Dickson in Truth's Victory over Error) do speak quite clearly to the doctrine we all uphold, that proper justification is a time-bound thing (and Goodwin seems to have this in mind as well). But everlasting love, the love of God to the elect from all eternity, though, is not justification (and I think Rutherford is actively working against such an idea in what you've quoted), but rather a condescending love and pity to the sinner. The elect are, though, in time NOT truly regarded as just by God until belief; this isn't indicative of any kind of change in God. Part of our difficulty, I think, is in the whole notion of God's acts in time, vs. God's being a person not bound to time. We can err in viewing ourselves in light of eternity (and then not concern ourselves with actual in-time events such as coming to faith, etc.) but we can equally badly err in viewing ourselves only in time (and not trust in God's working out all things according to His eternal counsel). 

I have to think more about what Goodwin's position actually is - but I can't see one calling election (or everlasting love) and God's foreordained (but not yet accomplished) justification a "virtual justification" any more than I would speak of "virtual regeneration" or "virtual glorification". I guess I'm taking a less nuanced view of WCF 11:4 than you are. To decree justification in eternity past isn't to accomplish it and bring it to be in the present, and prior to its being brought about, the elect ought to be regarded as "to be justified later" rather than in any sense "justified". The WCF authors seem to be very careful to keep the scope of the word "justification" limited to actual time and history, and leave eternal acts at the level of decrees of God.


----------



## MW (Sep 27, 2007)

I think the reason why we can speak of "virtual" justification as distinct from regeneration, etc., is because justification is a reckoning, whilst the other elements of the ordo salutis require a doing. We might even trace it back to something more fundamental than justification, namely, union with Christ. There never was a time that the elect were outside of Christ, since they were chosen in Him, Eph. 1:4. Nevertheless, justification, strictly speaking, is declarative, which does not actually take place until a man believes, at which point he passes from death to life. The problem with the doctrine of eternal justification is its emphasis on justification in time being only manifestative. This makes faith and works to function in the same manner.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I think the reason why we can speak of "virtual" justification as distinct from regeneration, etc., is because justification is a reckoning, whilst the other elements of the ordo salutis require a doing. We might even trace it back to something more fundamental than justification, namely, union with Christ. There never was a time that the elect were outside of Christ, since they were chosen in Him, Eph. 1:4. Nevertheless, justification, strictly speaking, is declarative, which does not actually take place until a man believes, at which point he passes from death to life. The problem with the doctrine of eternal justification is its emphasis on justification in time being only manifestative. This makes faith and works to function in the same manner.



I appreciate the back-and-forth, brother. This is good sharpening. 

I've conceived of this in a slightly different manner... because justification, too, while it is a reckoning, to be sure, is a reckoning that occurs after a doing - that is, God has done something, namely engendered faith in the elect person, who then is properly justified in time. Justification is surely rooted in the union of the believer with Christ, as Owen points out in his masterful volume, but is something that, as you say, only comes to be at a point in time. 

Now union with Christ as something that is eternal... that seems to me difficult to see in anything but a virtual sense as well. Is Union not inseparably tied to effectual calling? (WLC 66, e.g.?) Certainly Christ agreed in covenant with the Father to answer for the elect - but this isn't a union in eternity to my understanding. I know John Brown in his systematic talks of union with Christ as definitively beginning at the Spirit's work of the effectual call - and this is the way I've understood things... but would like to hear your perspective. Are you intending this union to be virtual in the same sense as you have referred to virtual justification?

Todd


----------



## MW (Sep 27, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Are you intending this union to be virtual in the same sense as you have referred to virtual justification?



Todd, thanks also for the sharpening iron. Yes, I would maintain our union with Christ from eternity was virtual, otherwise there would be no sense in which Christ could speak of those whom the Father had given Him as He went about to fulfil His meditaorial work. There are three unions on which our salvation depends; John 14:20, "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father [consubstantiality], and ye in me [covenantally then hypostatically], and I in you [spiritually]." The second union I would call a virtual union. The third union is that which takes place when the Spirit unites us to Christ in our effectual calling.


----------



## JM (Sep 28, 2007)

Who throughout history has held to J from E? We have Goodwin, Gill, Brine, Kuyper and Hoeskema. Who else?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 28, 2007)

Just to add something for consideration, see David Dickson, _Truth's Victory Over Error_ on Justification:



> Quest. V. "Are the elect justified, until the Holy Spirit, in due time, actually apply Christ to them?"
> 
> No; Col. 1.21,22. Titus 3.4-7.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 28, 2007)

JM said:


> Who throughout history has held to J from E? We have Goodwin, Gill, Brine, Kuyper and Hoeskema. Who else?



William Twisse and Herman Witsius (if memory serves me correctly)


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 28, 2007)

JM said:


> Who throughout history has held to J from E? We have Goodwin, Gill, Brine, Kuyper and Hoeskema. Who else?



There is a subtle yet great difference in JIE (justification IN Eternity) vs JFE (Justification FROM Eternity)

I agree somewhat with JFE, but not JIE. There are different aspects of Justification in the writ. I have recently been moved to believe our actual Justification happened at the Cross.


----------



## JM (Sep 28, 2007)

> William Twisse and Herman Witsius (if memory serves me correctly)



The way Gill quotes them I'd say yes they did but I'd like to read more from them, link master, do you have any links to there works?  Ames is also quote by Gill a lot. 



> There is a subtle yet great difference in JIE (justification IN Eternity) vs JFE (Justification FROM Eternity)



Yes, I agree.



> I agree somewhat with JFE, but not JIE.



We agree again. Gill and Kuyper do a good job at explaining this doctrine. The other day I sat reading Gill's Body of Divinity for so long the sentences were blending together and I couldn't focus, his work is engaging and worth picking up. Just don't get the single vol. doctrinal and practical, it's way too heavy. I know Gill is often sited as a hyper but I don't really see it, I know he was ultra high on the chart but I don't think he would enter the modern debate at all, like he did in "Truth Defended" I could see him agreeing with both sides of the debate and also pointing out the errors made by both sides.

I could be wrong and often am.

j


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 28, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > Who throughout history has held to J from E? We have Goodwin, Gill, Brine, Kuyper and Hoeskema. Who else?
> ...



Well I hope you keep on moving forward in time ... actual justification can't any better be said to occur at the Cross than in Eternity past. The same arguments that show Justification In Eternity to be false show Justification at the Cross to be false as well.

Todd


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 28, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > JM said:
> ...





Todd, I actually started at the point of faith. But I cant for some reason believe that at the point and time my debt was paid and satisfied, that I still had to wait to become justified again upon the condition of faith. Perhaps another thread? Even the WCF speaks of Justification in three aspects right?


If I said to you Todd, I paid the mortgage on your house in full. But you have to wait 20 years to get the deed, what would you say? This is exactly what Justification at the point of faith says....



2 verses that convinced me are:

2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

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.

How can one be reconciled without being considered justified? I have tried Todd, but I just cant get past this. Reconciled means exactly what it means.



I know I am at odds with many, and I humbly pray about this all the time. But id rather be upfront with no contempt at all. I guess you would call me a "Crispian" for lack of a better label..


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 28, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



I don't think so at all, not if you're speaking of real, actual, justification of the believer by God. Read WCF section 11:4 and see what you think about it.
Actual and proper justification is placed at the point of faith very
clearly. Conditionality vs instrumentality needs to be discussed carefully (but we've been over this ground repeatedly in another thread. 



> If I said to you Todd, I paid the mortgage on your house in full. But you have to wait 20 years to get the deed, what would you say? This is exactly what Justification at the point of faith says....



I would say your analogy isn't particularly good, 
in part because whether I had the deed in my hands 
or not, I'd own the house from the moment you paid it.



> 2 verses that convinced me are:
> 
> 2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
> 
> 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.



When Paul is writing 2 Cor 5, to whom is he speaking? Who was reconciled?
Is he not talking to believers, there? How about Romans 5:10? Is it not the case
that Paul writes to an audience who are already all past the point of coming to faith?
I don't think you can go from here to say that the past tense there 'reconciled' 
means all the elect are reconciled to God, having been justified in actuality as of 30AD at Christ's death... to be reconciled by the death of Christ, or to be reconciled by Jesus Christ, indicates the ground of reconciliation, not the date. This is off the cuff, certainly - but I think there's strong reason NOT to accept what you've come to believe on actual justification. David Dickson's quotation that Andrew posted earlier is dealing exactly with this point - and you might want to check there, including the Scripture references that are pointed to.



> How can one be reconciled without being considered justified? I have tried Todd, but I just cant get past this. Reconciled means exactly what it means.



SO when, prior to your faith, you were as Scripture teaches, 
child of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins, and an enemy of
God, you were actually in point of fact  justified, 
and actually, in point of fact reconciled to him? Is
Scripture wrong then in what it teaches about the believer 
prior to his coming to faith?


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

Thomas Goodwin and Herman Witsius did not hold to eternal justification. Goodwin specifically says that actual justification takes place upon believing. Keep to the virtual and actual paradigm, and all's well. I'll post an excellent section from a Scots worthy a little later.


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

John Colquhoun, Sermons, pp. 152-156.



> IV. Under the fourth general head, I was to consider the manner of a sinner's justification. The elect were justified,
> 
> 1. Intentionally, or in the absolute purpose and decree of God. It is called "the justification of life." It is legal life, in opposition to legal death under the condemning sentence of the violated law, and as such is a constituent part of eternal life. Now, we are told that eternal life was promised and given to the elect in Christ, or to Christ as Representative of the elect, before the world began. "In hope of eternal life, that God who cannot lie promised before the world began." "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." Hence justification, as a fundamental part of that life, was according to the purpose and grace of God, promised and given to the elect in Christ, before the world began. It was promised to Christ their Representative, in their name, upon condition of his fulfilling all righteousness for them in time. Thus on the ground of their federal union with their adorable Surety, they were justified according to the purpose and grace of God, even from eternity. Hence is this cheering declaration, "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all," Isa. liii. 6. The Father, in making the covenant of grace, laid the guilt of the iniquities of all the elect upon him, and that from everlasting. But this load of guilt could not be considered as transferred to him, without being in some sense transferred from them. The same delightful truth is hinted in the first promise, Gen. iii. 15. There the elect are comprehended under the seed of the woman; and are represented in Christ their Head, as the enemies and conquerors of Satan. Now this presupposes the suretiship of Christ, and the guilt of their iniquities already laid on him. It implies that in the decree of God they are set free from the guilt of sin; otherwise they could not be represented as delivered from the dominion either of sin or of Satan. That promise implied a declaration, that on account of the suretiship of Jesus Christ, God never intended to execute the sentence of the broken law upon any of his chosen. Whenever a surety is admitted, the principal debtor is understood, intentionally at least, to be free from obligation to advance the debt.
> 
> ...


----------



## JM (Sep 28, 2007)

Nice post Pastor, thank you. It reminded me of this:



> But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God's predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time. Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, "Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification?" My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity. He went further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds.
> 
> Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it. However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity. For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God's everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness.
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

JM said:


> Nice post Pastor, thank you. It reminded me of this:
> 
> 
> 
> > while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time, From: C.H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 7, Page 180, 81



Very good, JM. That Spurgeon statement is a keeper.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 28, 2007)

JM said:


> So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled—in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec;
> 
> But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually* passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time,*—so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other.
> 
> From: C.H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 7, Page 180, 81



THis is what I am attemtping to convey. I do not believe Crisp is saying anything different and others who speak of Justified in our conscious upon the gift of faith worked in us. That is why I speak of a triune justification. All 3 in the Godhead MUST be part of this grand truth. And again there is in effect a justification prior to faith proven by scriptures, yet Crisp and others were castrated for this and I cannot see why.

Matthew, I do have an issue with Colquhoun, he does not include the cross. I am afraid he missed the most important event in history..


Todd, you said 


todd said:


> I would say your analogy isn't particularly good,
> in part because whether I had the deed in my hands
> or not, I'd own the house from the moment you paid it.



This is exactly my point. I could not have said it better. The deed equals faith in Christ who justified me by His death. Therefore the elect own this justification prior to having it brought to our conscious by/through faith....

you also asked:


todd said:


> SO when, prior to your faith, you were as Scripture teaches,
> child of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins, and an enemy of
> God, you were actually in point of fact justified,
> and actually, in point of fact reconciled to him? Is
> ...



With all due respect Todd, I have given this tremendous amount of time and prayer, so please do not be so condescending and patronizing. If you are willing to dialogue I will be humble enough to talk together. 

That said, i will not attempt to answer your question... First off scripture is never wrong, we always are, Let God be true and the rest be liars. 

May I understand you mean Ephesians2:

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3Among 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. 


And Romans 5:10

"While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Romans 5:10). 



Lets look at Ephesians 2 Todd. First Paul is speaking about a time when the elect were unregenerate. There was no work of the Holy Spirit on their persons. Now the 3 important words are the last 3. EVEN AS OTHERS. These others are whom? Well it can mean others who walked according to the flesh prior to being born anew, or others who walk according to the flesh, but reprobates who will remain in the flesh. The elect prior to regeneration have no workign of the Spirit in them. They are in the flesh. Dead.....But, and there is always a but, children of wrath in no way means God's wrath at all. The verse does not mean we were under God's wrath, in fear of eternal damnation. For this would mean God hated the elect, not just their actions of which still rise up as a stench to Him even after regeneration, but the actual person. And we know this cannot be true. the elect were NEVER under the judicial eternal wrath of God. So what do I take this to mean? Well when we look at the word Paul used [orgē]. The reason this word is used instead of [parorgizo}, which is used in Ephesians 6, is becasue orge has a meaning regarding anger according to the persons nature. Their natural disposition prior to regeneration. The HC Q & A # 5 answers this exactly as Paul:

Q. 5.

Canst thou keep all these things perfectly?

A.

In no wise; (a)

*for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbour*.(b)

(a) Rom.3:10,20,23; 1 John 1:8,10. (b) Rom.8:7; Eph.2:3; Tit.3:3;

Gen.6:5; Gen.8:21; Jer.17:9; Rom.7:23.

This is a Godward expression Paul uses. Our natural disposition is one of anger and hatred towards God. Now to show the everlasting Love God has for His sheep, even in their natural state, dead in their sins, strangers to Him, what does He do? Paul answers in 4,5,6. I used to, like you stop short of these verses.

4*But 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

6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: *

Paul says, yes, your natural disposition is one of wrath, you were children of wrath, anger, hatred towards God. BUT... Paul uses that great 3 letter word too. BUT, let me tell you the solution... But people, even in this condition, even in this disposition of wrath, God loved you and quickened you why? *for his great love wherewith he loved us,* What a grand humbling truth that brings tears to my eyes. He Loved us while we were haters of Him. He did not hate us. We were not under His wrath of eternal damnation, for how could He change? Paul now goes on to say in verse 13,16:

13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are *made nigh by the blood of Christ.*

14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15*Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,* even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 


Where does it say this enmity was abolished? In His flesh!!!! On the cross. His blood. Verse 16 shows that this reconciliation took place at the cross. The enmity Paul says was slain is the enmity spoken of in verse 3. 


Now Romans 5:10 cannot be any clearer. 

"While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through/by the death of His Son"

It does not say were were reconciled upon faith. That Christ paid the penalty in full for those whom the Father gave Him, yet He still hated us after the penalty was paid. That would be a terrible injustice on the part of God. To accept the wages of sin by His son, then still hold it against us until we are given faith. 


Pauls comparison of Adam and Christ settles for me again. 

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22).

Were we born sinners, or only when faith was given to us to recognize that we were? If that is wrong then so is attributing our justification upon faith. If we were In Adam when He sinned, therefore born sinners, then we were in Christ on the Cross , justified prior to faith also..


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Matthew, I do have an issue with Colquhoun, he does not include the cross. I am afraid he missed the most important event in history.



Christ is our righteousness, not the cross. The four gospels present us with the correct view, pointing us to the person and work of Jesus from beginning to end. Modern Christians distort the gospel by focussing on "the passion" as if it were the all in all. Jesus Christ is all in all.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 29, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Thomas Goodwin...did not hold to eternal justification. Goodwin specifically says that actual justification takes place upon believing.



He held to eternal justification as understood by the orthodox which allows for an "actual justification takes place upon believing" hence he differentiated between our justification _in Christ_ and our justification _in our own person_. Hence he wrote:

But the question may be put, How could they be said to be justified afore, both from eternity and in Christ, if they may be truly said even in God's judgment to be justified but now, and that they were till now unjustified ? 

The answer is, That these seeming contradictions, in divers respects, are both true. 

*1.* That before God, according to the rules of his word, which are the rules of his proceedings before men, being God s revealed will, they are as yet unjustified ; but according to those secret passages of his secret will transacted with Christ, and to which he is privy, they are justified persons before him. 

*2.* Though the person abstractly considered is always justified before God, yet the person concretely taken, as invested with, and remaining in an estate of unbelief, is in relation to that estate, according to the rules of his word, unjustified; so as the change is first and primarily in regard of the state of the person from unbelief to faith, and then it looks towards the person himself. 

*3. *Their justification before faith, _coram Deo_, in the sight of God, is of them not as actually existing in themselves, but only as they were represented in their head ; for their persons, as considered as represented in Christ, did in him, as their head, receive justification, and all blessings else, but not in themselves do they receive them actually as existing until faith; as we are said then to be condemned and corrupted in the first Adam, when he sinned, as representing us, but we are in our own persons not actually corrupted till we exist and are born from him. So as to conclude this, they are said before faith to be justified in Christ by representation only, and not as in themselves. They are said to be in themselves actually justified through Christ after faith, but they cannot be said to be justified of themselves without Christ, neither before nor after faith. At the closure of these three advancements and passings forth of our justification, take these two observations concerning them all.​


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 29, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> I do not believe Crisp is saying anything different and others who speak of Justified in our conscious upon the gift of faith worked in us.



So justification in time, an action that comes about through faith,
is merely a subjective feeling on our part? 

In the rest of the post below, you are clearly advocating for a 
position of actual justification being the true possession of the
elect prior to their birth. That is, they are born truly justified.
For you, it seems, justification by faith is merely a subjective gloss
on one's life. The action of faith is objectively meaningless. Am
I reading you correctly? I mean no offense, so I hope you do not
take any. Your direction with regard to this, though, seems quite
clear. If we are justified at the Cross - then we are justified before
we are born, and all faith can do is give us eyes to see that. It
has no instrumentality at all otherwise. Again, correct me if I'm
wrong, but that's what I hear you to be saying.


----------



## JM (Sep 29, 2007)

Are the following statements orthodox or heterodox?



> In God’s 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 God’s mind of the righteous for the unrighteous and from His perspective all of salvation was accomplished. We must conclude that this is as true for Old Testament saints as it is for those in the New Testament because God’s 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.





> 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.





> 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.





> The act of justification which is to be understood as the act of Christ dying for His people did not take 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 even the Holy Spirit after the cross because it was completed in Christ. All of the work was finished. Done - Complete – Finito! I don’t think Scott Price or any of the parties involved with this important discussion would disagree with me on this. At least I hope not! We should all be able to say that it was in view of Christ’s finished work that God’s people were accounted as righteous (past tense), and this work of Christ was a timely event.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 29, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe Crisp is saying anything different and others who speak of Justified in our conscious upon the gift of faith worked in us.
> ...



Well I would not say objectively meaningless. The gift of faith gives us eyes to see and ears to hear what the Lord did for us by His life, death, and resurrection. We walk in blindness and deaf prior to rebirth. But these are the fruits of Justification as far as I can see in the writ.

I would be more apt to say that we are justified judicially upon being born, in Christ. Becasue of what He had done for us. The subjective aspect HAS to follow Todd. God would not leave His children blind. The darkness we walk in is to show the elect what they deserve, eternal death. That according to our natural disposition becasue of Adam, we are dead. But raised with Christ as our representative. So this in no way belittles the gift of Godward faith. Without it, we would be blind and hate God. But in His love and mercy, he opens our eyes and says "Look what I have done for you through my Son." Repent of your sins and commune with me.. And we cry Abba Father. 

My wife explains it like this. I went away on a business trip for a week. 2 rooms were in depserate need of being painted. I kept procrastinating, then I said, well I have this week to do it.(Ticked her off, I was deserving of her anger) Then I HAD to go on this trip. The day I left, she painted the rooms.(paid my debt) I was totally unaware of this.(unregenerate) When I got home, I turned the light on and my eyes were opened to see what she HAD done for me. (Regeneration, faith) So now in my conscious their was guilt, recognition of grace, then full gratitude. 

I know human examples are weak at best, but that is how she attemtped to explain Justification at the cross to her womans group.

Todd, the instrumentality of faith is very very important in the plan of God for His children. Without it, it is impossible to please Him. Everything that is not of it (faith) is sin. But like you said earlier, of which I could not say it any better: *because whether I had the deed in my hands or not, I'd own the house from the moment you paid it*

So the elect are justified when our debt was paid, and that was at the Cross. They just do not realize it until their eyes are opened and the Spirit tells us...(when they receive the deed paid in full by faith) Without this gift, their would be no gratitude, no bowing down to Christ. And God will not have His children living in darkness their whole life long.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 29, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



Am I hearing you to be saying that faith is a fruit of justification?



> I would be more apt to say that we are justified judicially upon being born, in Christ. Becasue of what He had done for us. The subjective aspect HAS to follow Todd.



Do you mean by the above that the subjective must follow the objective? I
just want to clarify your words.




> God would not leave His children blind. The darkness we walk in is to show the elect what they deserve, eternal death. That according to our natural disposition becasue of Adam, we are dead. But raised with Christ as our representative. So this in no way belittles the gift of Godward faith. Without it, we would be blind and hate God. But in His love and mercy, he opens our eyes and says "Look what I have done for you through my Son." Repent of your sins and commune with me.. And we cry Abba Father.






> Todd, the instrumentality of faith is very very important in the plan of God for His children. Without it, it is impossible to please Him.



Is God pleased with us because our faith has some righteousness attached to
it or attributable to it? Or is he pleased with us because of Christ? When
you speak about the instrumentality of faith, do you mean to say it satisfies
this role - as some kind of evangelical righteousness? This isn't what
the Reformers meant when they spoke of the instrumentality of faith... it is
an actual instrument by which the righteousness of Christ is apprehended - and
not something itself to be rewarded for its own worth.



> Everything that is not of it (faith) is sin. But like you said earlier, of which I could not say it any better: *because whether I had the deed in my hands or not, I'd own the house from the moment you paid it*



I hope you don't think that my explanation of your analogy makes 
your case more sound. The analogy is problematic, regardless of
how well I might have explained what you are thinking. In your 
analogy, I would be full owner and have all the rights thereof with
regard to the house, regardless of whether I ever had the title deed
in my hands or not. I would have every right to dispose of the 
house however I saw fit, it is completely and utterly mine with or
without the deed.

This analogy fails miserably because the same is not true of the
house of God. Do I have the right to consider myself a partner
in the house of God whether or not I exercise faith, whether or
not I have professed Christ? 



> So the elect are justified when our debt was paid, and that was at the Cross. They just do not realize it



So you really are saying that what the Reformers called absolute
and proper justification, and what the BIble teaches about justification
by faith is only subjective... it's just us realizing who we are?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 29, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Am I hearing you to be saying that faith is a fruit of justification?


 Depends on what you mean by fruit. I am more comfortable saying that in a sense the gift of faith that opens the eyes and lays hold of Christ follows the elects judicial justification at the cross. 




toddpedlar said:


> Do you mean by the above that the subjective must follow the objective? I
> just want to clarify your words.



I do not know if I like using these words Todd. Ones subjective thoughts can be as objective as the objective ones.








toddpedlar said:


> Is God pleased with us because our faith has some righteousness attached to
> it or attributable to it? Or is he pleased with us because of Christ? When
> you speak about the instrumentality of faith, do you mean to say it satisfies
> this role - as some kind of evangelical righteousness? This isn't what
> ...



The above is confusing to me, so i will just agree with the last part. Depending on what you mean by apprehend. Justification is not dangling in front of the elect, then grabbed upon the time of Faith thereby judicially aquiting the individual at that time. To apprehend Christ by faith means to lay hold of the benefits His life death and resurrection procured for us. A manifestation to conscious as I explained earlier. One that is most definately needed for our relationalship standing with God. 





toddpedlar said:


> This analogy fails miserably because the same is not true of the
> house of God. Do I have the right to consider myself a partner
> in the house of God whether or not I exercise faith, whether or
> not I have professed Christ?



No, you will not want to Todd. Remember HC Q#5. You hate God and your neighbor. Nothign you do is pleasing to Him. 



toddpedlar said:


> So you really are saying that what the Reformers called absolute
> and proper justification, and what the BIble teaches about justification
> by faith is only subjective... it's just us realizing who we are?



Again, I am not familiar with the terms. There are 4 aspects of Jusitification, yet one justification.

1) Virtual in the decree of God
2) Actual Judicial at the cross Ratifying the Covenant with the elect
3) Manifestation to Conscious By faith which the Holy Spirit point the elect to the cross
4) A vindication aspect of Justification at the judgment


Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

Remember God was in no need of reconciling Himself to man, but reconciling man to Him. 

Romans 5:1, Therefore being justified, by faith we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus.

Notice the above. Being justified first, now by faith we have peace with God. A peace of conscious in our inward being Godward. Not peace for fear of eternal wrath.

God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8)

Does he reconcile, love those whom He chose n Christ and not yet justify them? I cannot fathom this

OK Todd. Thank you. I will love to continue this. You are a gracious man. Now I must venture off for a while to endure a dinner with the inlaws...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> So the elect are justified when our debt was paid, and that was at the Cross. They just do not realize it until their eyes are opened and the Spirit tells us...(when they receive the deed paid in full by faith) Without this gift, their would be no gratitude, no bowing down to Christ. And God will not have His children living in darkness their whole life long.



This practically sounds like Barth but with a twist. This is NOT the Confessional understanding. FULL STOP. Go back and read your Confessions.

Just so everyone remembers. This is a _Confessional_ board.

It means, in contrast, that we don't string together individual theological notions that someone might have said in history and construct a theology that approximates the Confessions.

It is _faith_ that is the instrument that unites us to Christ and procures to us the benefits of His death and resurrection. Yes, God loves His elect in eternity and there is a component of our justification therein but it is not found fully in eternity and it is not nakedly objective. God's decree includes the means and ends and includes that we come to real faith and it is our real faith the unites us and procures for _me_ the satisfaction of Christ's work at the Cross.

This is not up for debate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Again, I am not familiar with the terms. There are 4 aspects of Jusitification, yet one justification.



You have said this same notion in another thread. I'm not sure how you can be familiar with the Confessions and be unfamiliar with things that are being said. Given your relative ignorance of Confessional data I believe you ought to be _learning_ much more here and trying to teach much less. You're consistently finding yourself in hot water here because of that.

I have no doubt you've studied much but I'm not convinced that the stuff you've studied has been, in many cases, orthodox material. Either that or you've been confused by some of that material. Somewhere along the way, however, it seems you've missed some basic Confessional building blocks to give you a good foundation. You can _learn_ that here but you will not _teach_ the contrary.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > So the elect are justified when our debt was paid, and that was at the Cross. They just do not realize it until their eyes are opened and the Spirit tells us...(when they receive the deed paid in full by faith) Without this gift, their would be no gratitude, no bowing down to Christ. And God will not have His children living in darkness their whole life long.
> ...





I am not attempting to string various theological thoughts into a new confession Richard. I ask for a little latitude on this disussion. I never said anything about eternal justification equaling actual judicial justification. As Matthew said I view it as virtual. Therefore I am not debating but dialoguing. Your last paragraph is pretty much exactly as I have spoken, yet you are falsely rebuking me. _To apprehend Christ by faith means to lay hold of the benefits His life death and resurrection procured for us. A manifestation to conscious as I explained earlier. One that is most definately needed for our relationalship standing with God._



SemperFideles said:


> You have said this same notion in another thread. I'm not sure how you can be familiar with the Confessions and be unfamiliar with things that are being said. Given your relative ignorance of Confessional data I believe you ought to be learning much more here and trying to teach much less. You're consistently finding yourself in hot water here because of that.



Which confessions are you referring to? I am familiar with the 3FU and this is not just a whim for me. I humbly submit myself to *Scripture alone* and if found wanting will repent of any false notion I have carried. The confessions I have read do not use the terms absolute and proper. And actually the water has been kind of cool, not hot at all to me. Perhaps that is becasue I have found no animosity towards myself and thoughts, and have tried to be humble and fair in my words always seasoned with salt. 



SemperFideles said:


> I have no doubt you've studied much but I'm not convinced that the stuff you've studied has been, in many cases, orthodox material. Either that or you've been confused by some of that material. Somewhere along the way, however, it seems you've missed some basic Confessional building blocks to give you a good foundation. You can learn that here but you will not teach the contrary.



I have studied little compared to others Richard. And probably have been confused. Yet in my feeble attempt to grasp the truth of Justification, I have not taken this lightly. Justification at the Cross has brought me much joy and comfort and I am well within the bounds of scripture, as I believe I have shown. 

One thing that I must ask is what is a confessional board vs a scriptural board? I do not intend to open up a can of worms here, but your mouth has repeatedly stated "Confessional" and no mention of scripture. Now again, as you have stated early, perhaps it is my 'ignorance' 'lack of confessional understanding' 'lack of reading the confessions' which when you speak as such, you are actually meaning scripture. 

As far as your comment about Barth, I have limped through rading him, but not very familiar at all. 

I will leave on this note, and then get back to the dialogue I was so much enjoying. This is obviously not a new innovation on my part Richard. Many before me, way more learned than I have spoken as such and even spoke of eternal justification. So before you or any other bring out the confessional cunsure axe, engage in a dialogue. First off, this is nothing heretical I speak of. 

You say this is a confessional board, and praise God for that, i also hope it also follows the war cry of the reformers of ; 

Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda: 


In His name


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 30, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Which confessions are you referring to?


Hmmm....that would be the Confession that you stated you subscribe to when you joined the board.


> One thing that I must ask is what is a confessional board vs a scriptural board? I do not intend to open up a can of worms here, but your mouth has repeatedly stated "Confessional" and no mention of scripture. Now again, as you have stated early, perhaps it is my 'ignorance' 'lack of confessional understanding' 'lack of reading the confessions' which when you speak as such, you are actually meaning scripture.


Well, when you figure that out then PM me and we'll interact on the board again. For now, it appears you won't really like it here too much.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 30, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Just so everyone remembers. This is a _Confessional_ board.
> 
> It means, in contrast, that we don't string together individual theological notions that someone might have said in history and construct a theology that approximates the Confessions.
> 
> ...



I, for one, would not disagree but I would suggest you read Goodwin in the second post of this thread.

He points out:

Now, for a direction concerning God justifying as the object of your faith, you are to consider all the acts and ways of God justifying, and to direct you to a right conceiving of God as justifying, you must know that there are _tria momenta_, or three stages of motion in this way. I do not say that there are three parts of justification itself, which, as it is applied to us, is _actus individuus_, an individual act; but three several steps, three paces and progresses of God, as I may call them; though, in respect of the materials which justification consisteth of, it is actus totalis, an entire act, a complete discharge from all sin, and a perfect investiture with the whole righteousness of Christ. God pardons not the debt by halves, nor bestows Christ s righteousness by parcels, but entitles us to the whole in every of those moments of justification: yet, in regard of our investiture into this, there are several pauses, or several iterations of this act; as in passing over an estate in land, when the deeds are drawn, written, and sealed, there is a title or interest given into the whole estate; and then again, when possession is further given, it is not an interest into any new parcel, but both convey the whole estate; yet they may be called several acts of conveyance, and of title and admission into it: and such several acts of investiture of us into this whole grace of justification were performed towards us by God, which go to the accomplishment of it.​
These "three stages" are explained by Goodwin as being:

*1. *The first progress or step was at the first covenant-making and striking of the bargain from all eternity. We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ what is said of Christ, that their goings forth are from everlasting. Justified then we were when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head, as he had our persons then given him, and we came to have a being and interest in him. You are in Christ, saith the apostle, and so we had the promise made of all spiritual blessings in him, and he took all the deeds of all in our name; so that in Christ we were blessed with all spiritual blessings, Eph. i. 3; as we are blessed with all other, so with this also, that we were justified then in Christ.​
And;

*2.* There is a farther act of justifying us, which passeth from God towards us in Christ, upon the payment and performance by Christ at his resurrection : for Jesus Christ (who as he was one with us by stipulation before, so then by representation), at the time, the fulness of the time of payment appointed (which the apostle therefore calls the due time, Rom. v. 6), came into the world as our surety, and as representing our persons, as Adam once did; and at several payments, for three and thirty years and upwards, at last finished all at his death, and laid down the last payment when he laid down his life and his body in the grave, sin and the curse all the while holding him in bands as a debtor: but at that instant when he arose, God then performed a farther act of justification towards him, and us in him, admitting him as our advocate, into the actual possession of justification of life, acquitting him from all those sins which he had charged upon him. Therefore we read, that as Christ was made sin in his life and death, so that he was justified also, 1 Tim. iii. 16.​
Finally;

*3.* But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God; and though they concern us, and are towards us, yet are not acts of God upon its, they being performed towards us, not as actually existing in ourselves, but only as existing in our Head, who covenanted for us, and represented us: so as though by these acts we are estated into a right title to justification, yet the benefit and the possession of that estate we have not without a farther act to be passed upon us, whereby we have not as existing in our head only, as a feoffee in trust for us, as children under age, this excellent grace given us, but are to be in our own persons, though still through Christ, possessed of it, and to have all the deeds and evidences committed to the custody and apprehension of our faith. We are in our own persons made true owners and enjoyers of it, which is then done at that instant when we first believe; which act is the completion and accomplishment of the former, and is that great and famous justification by faith which the Scripture so much inculcates, and almost only mentioneth; yea, and so speaks of it, as if we were not justified at all till then...​
This is in full agreement with the Westminster Standards (and indeed the LBC of 1689) upon which the Savoy Declaration was based and to which both Thomas Goodwin and John Owen assented:

*Westminster Confession:*
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.

*Savoy Declaration:*
"God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fulness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified *personally*, until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them."

For the eagle eyed there is one change of any significance but in my opinion affords greater clarity. This is also taught in the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

"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 *personally*, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them."

Rich, the view of justification from eternity as explained by Thomas Goodwin and to which I adhere is both Scriptural _and_ Confessional. You may disagree, that is your "right", but I have quoted from Confessional documents and two giants of the Reformed faith. Not only that, Jason has quoted C. H. Spurgeon and Rev. Winzer has quoted John Colquhoun.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 30, 2007)

Yes, and what you just quoted from me agrees with what Rev. Winzer stated. The red portion is what some here have fundamentally denied. 

Resolved: Men are not justified personally until the Holy Spirit does, _in due *time*_, actually apply Christ unto them.

That is a non-negotiable here. Full stop.


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas Goodwin...did not hold to eternal justification. Goodwin specifically says that actual justification takes place upon believing.
> ...




This last sentence shows he did not hold to eternal justification, because he is using the word justification in "divers respects;" and he goes on to explain it is only abstractly considered, not concretely, which is as much as to say it is not ACTUAL justification of their persons.​


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> This last sentence shows he did not hold to eternal justification, because he is using the word justification in "divers respects;" and he goes on to explain it is only abstractly considered, not concretely, which is as much as to say it is not ACTUAL justification of their persons.



Define for me "eternal justification"


----------



## MW (Oct 1, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > This last sentence shows he did not hold to eternal justification, because he is using the word justification in "divers respects;" and he goes on to explain it is only abstractly considered, not concretely, which is as much as to say it is not ACTUAL justification of their persons.
> ...



Justification, as explained by Shorter Catechism answer 33, from eternity. That was an easy one.


----------



## jacobiloved (Nov 14, 2007)

What is the relation of faith to justification? Antinomians and hyper-Calvinists answer, Merely that of comfort or assurance. Their theory is that the elect were actually justified by God before the foundation of the world, and all that faith does now is to make this manifest in their conscience. This error was advocated by such men as W. Gadsby, J. Irons, James Wells, J.C. Philpot. That it originated not with these men is clear from the fact that the Puritans refuted it in their day. "By faith alone we obtain and receive the forgiveness of sins; for notwithstanding any antecedent act of God concerning us in and for Christ, we do not actually receive a complete soul-freeing discharge until we believe" (J. Owen). "It is vain to say I am justified only in respect to the court of mine own conscience. The faith that Paul and the other Apostles were justified by, was their believing on Christ that they might be justified (Gal. 2:15, 16), and not a believing they were justified already; and therefore it was not an act of assurance" (T. Goodwin, vol. 8). 


How are we justified by faith? Having given a threefold negative answer: not by faith as a joint cause with works (Romanists), not by faith as an act of grace in us (Arminians), not by faith as it receives the Spirit's witness (Antinomians); we now turn to the positive answer. Faith justifies only as an instrument which God has appointed to the apprehension and application of Christ's righteousness. When we say that faith is the "instrument" of our justification, let it be clearly understood that we do not mean faith is the instrument wherewith God justifies, but the instrument whereby we receive Christ. Christ has merited righteousness for us, and faith in Christ is that which renders it meet in God's sight the purchased blessing be assigned. Faith unites to Christ, and being united to Him we are possessed of all that is in Christ, so far as is consistent with our capacity of receiving and God's appointment in giving. Having been made one with Christ in spirit, God now considers us as one with Him in law. 


A W PINK 


Arthur W. Pink - The Doctrine of Justification - Large Print

(the above portion is taken from chapter 8) RMS


----------



## JM (Nov 14, 2007)

Link is broken.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 14, 2007)

Here is the rest of the chapter....

Arthur W. Pink - The Doctrine of Justification - Large Print



> We are justified by faith, and not for faith; not because of what faith is, but because of what it receives. "It hath no efficacy of itself, but as it is the band of our union with Christ. The whole virtue of cleansing proceeds from Christ the object. We receive the water with our hands, but the cleansing virtue is not in our hands, but in the water, yet the water cannot cleanse us without our receiving it; our receiving it unites the water to us, and is a means whereby we are cleansed. And therefore is it observed that our justification by faith is always expressed in the passive, not in the active: we are justified by faith, not that faith justifies us. The efficacy is in Christ's blood; the reception of it is in our faith" (S. Charnock).
> 
> *Scripture knows no such thing as a justified unbeliever.* There is nothing meritorious about believing, yet it is necessary in order to justification. It is not only the righteousness of Christ as imputed which justifies, but also as received (Rom. 5:11, 17). The righteousness of Christ is not mine until I accept it as the Father's gift. "The believing sinner is `justified by faith' only instrumentally, as he `lives by eating' only instrumentally. Eating is the particular act by which he receives and appropriates food. Strictly speaking, he lives by bread alone, not by eating, or the act of masticating. And, strictly speaking, the sinner is justified by Christ's sacrifice alone, not by his act of believing in it" (W. Shedd). In the application of justification faith is not a builder, but a beholder; not an agent, but an instrument; it has nothing to do, but all to believe; nothing to give, but all to receive.
> 
> ...


----------

