# How Would Primitive Baptists Interpret Romans 3-5?



## Alexander (Aug 7, 2017)

How would a Primitive Baptist understand Romans 3-5 in the discussion of justification by faith alone. Also, maybe even Ephesians 2:8 Thanks !


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2017)

Alexander said:


> How would a Primitive Baptist understand Romans 3-5 in the discussion of justification by faith alone. Also, maybe even Ephesians 2:8 Thanks !


Primitive Baptists {edited from _PM_} see God already has eternally justified His elect in Christ, so to them, when obe receives Jesus through faith in this life, will experience the blessings of those now saved, but they also see all elect as being given eternal life in heaven, regardless if receiving Jesus in this lifetime.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> PM see God already has eternally justified His elect in Christ, so to them, when obe receives Jesus through faith in this life, will experience the blessings of those now saved, but they also see all elect as being given eternal life in heaven, regardless if receiving Jesus in this lifetime.


That sounds a little like the doctrine of eternal justification which many of us here deny.
*[Moderator]
Please note that, in accordance with the board rules, this is not a place to advocate eternal justification, as it is out of accord with the governing standards of the PB. While we certainly do not want to stifle conversation on the topic, the standards clearly state that a person is not actually justified until believing: this is incompatible with a collapse of the distinction between the decree of justification and justification itself, and also with a notion that faith merely realizes justification already possessed. In the Westminster Formulae there is an actual, declarative justification in time.
[Moderator]*


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 9, 2017)

The question is: What do the *Primitive Baptists* believe on this passage?

You may not be able to explain what they believe without expressing the idea of Eternal Justification.

Expressing the view isn't the same as advocating the view.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2017)

I was not advocating for their position of eternal Justification, as was just answering the question on what their theology and beliefs are regarding this topic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The question is: What do the Primitive Baptists believe on this passage?
> 
> You may not be able to explain what they believe without expressing the idea of Eternal Justification.
> 
> Expressing the view isn't the same as advocating the view.


Yes, as I was just answering the question on how they view Justification from their perspective.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 10, 2017)

My experience is; that most Primitive Baptist Elders do not have any formal theological training. Most will respond to questions about justification by giving the answer John Gill gave.


----------



## jw (Aug 10, 2017)

Primitively.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 10, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I was not advocating for their position of eternal Justification, as was just answering the question on what their theology and beliefs are regarding this topic.


Thanks brother. I actually forgot about Primitive Baptists. I do have a few of those Churches around here in Indy. They called me a door knocker and associated me with being like Whitefield. I took it as a compliment. I found out quickly it wasn't intended to be.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thanks brother. I actually forgot about Primitive Baptists. I do have a few of those Churches around here in Indy. They called me a door knocker and associated me with being like Whitefield. I took it as a compliment. I found out quickly it wasn't intended to be.


My first experience with them was when visiting a church, and asked the pastor why no missionaries supported on their money board, and his rely was that they were not needed, as God will save His own without any help from us.


----------



## Joseph Noah Gagliardi (Aug 10, 2017)

Pardon my ignorance, but what could eternal justification possibly mean? We are eternally being justified, as if it is an ongoing process? And in opposition to a once being declared just? Because if so that is outright heresy, and no better than the lies of Rome. We should be without hope.


----------



## jw (Aug 10, 2017)

Joseph Noah Gagliardi said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what could eternal justification possibly mean? We are eternally being justified, as if it is an ongoing process? And in opposition to a once being declared just? Because if so that is outright heresy, and no better than the lies of Rome. We should be without hope.


Historically, it is understanding that God justified men in eternity, not in time; ergo, this led to a denial of duty-faith, etc. (i.e. the elect are saved regardless if they ever exercise faith or not).


----------



## Joseph Noah Gagliardi (Aug 10, 2017)

So, how would one argue that sinners, though "elect", could possibly be received by Christ in Heaven, without being first justified? "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand" Romans 5:1,2. Moreover, from reading the comments, am I remiss in understanding that Primitive Baptists hold to such a view of justification?


----------



## jw (Aug 10, 2017)

Joseph Noah Gagliardi said:


> So, how would one argue that sinners, though "elect", could possibly be received by Christ in Heaven, without being first justified?


I could not tell you. I find the position biblically so untenable that I have not spent time reading their reasons.


----------



## Joseph Noah Gagliardi (Aug 10, 2017)

Joshua said:


> I could not tell you. I find the position biblically so untenable that I have not spent time reading their reasons.


Fair enough. Untenable it is indeed. I was just curious, as I had never heard such a thing. I am not a scholar of Baptist theology, much less Primitive Baptist theology.
By the way, I see RPCGA, and DFW, both familiar to me. Do you attend CCRPC? Haha, yes, I just noticed the CCRPC _right next_ to RPCGA.


----------



## jw (Aug 10, 2017)

Joseph Noah Gagliardi said:


> Fair enough. Untenable it is indeed. I was just curious, as I had never heard such a thing. I am not a scholar of Baptist theology, much less Primitive Baptist theology.
> By the way, I see RPCGA, and DFW, both familiar to me. Do you attend CCRPC? Haha, yes, I just noticed the CCRPC _right next_ to RPCGA.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 10, 2017)

Eternal justification is commonly held by most hyper-Calvinists.

https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2004/eternal-justification/
https://www.the-highway.com/eternal-justification_Berkhof.html

Better that these folks grasped the distinctions related to justification. From _Sermons_, John Colquhoun (pp. 152-156):
Thus the elect are justified. — They were justified in the day of eternity, before the world began; in the day of the Redeemer's resurrection; in the day of believing; and in the last day. — In the day of eternity, they were justified intentionally; in the day of the Saviour's resurrection, virtually, or fundamentally; in the day of believing, actually, or declaratively; and at the last day, publicly and solemnly. In the day of eternity, their justification was actually secured; in the day of Christ's resurrection, it was actually merited; in the day of believing, it is actually applied to the conscience; and in the day of judgment it shall be actually declared in the most public and solemn manner. From eternity, they were justified in the purpose of God; at Christ's resurrection, they were justified in the Son of God as their representative; at the time of their beginning to believe, they are justified in the court of God, the court of heaven, and the court of conscience; and in the last day, they shall be justified publicly at Christ's august tribunal.​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Joseph Noah Gagliardi (Aug 10, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Eternal justification is commonly held by most hyper-Calvinists.
> 
> https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2004/eternal-justification/
> https://www.the-highway.com/eternal-justification_Berkhof.html
> ...


Thank you sir, that is most helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 11, 2017)

Joseph Noah Gagliardi said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what could eternal justification possibly mean? We are eternally being justified, as if it is an ongoing process? And in opposition to a once being declared just? Because if so that is outright heresy, and no better than the lies of Rome. We should be without hope.


Primitive Baptists hold that we are born already reconciled back to God as being his Elect in Christ, so the difference to them is do we experience salvation blessings here, or just in heaven, depending on if we receive Jesus through faith here?


----------



## timfost (Aug 11, 2017)

Joseph Noah Gagliardi said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what could eternal justification possibly mean? We are eternally being justified, as if it is an ongoing process? And in opposition to a once being declared just? Because if so that is outright heresy, and no better than the lies of Rome. We should be without hope.



John Gill:

"To which it may be answered, that as God’s decree and will to elect men to everlasting life and salvation, is his election of them; and his will not to impute sin to them, is the non-imputation of it; and his will to impute the righteousness of Christ unto them, is the imputation of it to them; so his decree, or will to justify them, is the justiﬁcation of them, as that is an immanent act in God; which has its complete essence in his will, as election has; is entirely within himself, and not transient on an external subject, producing any real, physical, inherent change in it, as sanctiﬁcation is and does; and therefore the case is not alike: it is one thing for God to will to act an act of grace concerning men, another thing to will to work a work of grace in them; in the former case, the will of God is his act of justiﬁcation; in the latter it is not his act of sanctiﬁcation; wherefore, though the will of God to justify, is justiﬁcation itself, that being a complete act in is eternal mind, without men; yet his will to sanctify, is not sanctiﬁcation, because that is a work wrought in men, and not only requires the actual existence of them, but an exertion of powerful and efﬁcacious grace upon them: was justiﬁcation, as the papists say, by an infusion of inherent righteousness in men, there would be some strength in the objection; but this is not the case, and therefore there is none in it."

I guess since creation was an "immanent act of God" we have an eternally created world, right Gill? 

Obviously, the reasoning is absurd.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 12, 2017)

timfost said:


> John Gill:
> 
> "To which it may be answered, that as God’s decree and will to elect men to everlasting life and salvation, is his election of them; and his will not to impute sin to them, is the non-imputation of it; and his will to impute the righteousness of Christ unto them, is the imputation of it to them; so his decree, or will to justify them, is the justiﬁcation of them, as that is an immanent act in God; which has its complete essence in his will, as election has; is entirely within himself, and not transient on an external subject, producing any real, physical, inherent change in it, as sanctiﬁcation is and does; and therefore the case is not alike: it is one thing for God to will to act an act of grace concerning men, another thing to will to work a work of grace in them; in the former case, the will of God is his act of justiﬁcation; in the latter it is not his act of sanctiﬁcation; wherefore, though the will of God to justify, is justiﬁcation itself, that being a complete act in is eternal mind, without men; yet his will to sanctify, is not sanctiﬁcation, because that is a work wrought in men, and not only requires the actual existence of them, but an exertion of powerful and efﬁcacious grace upon them: was justiﬁcation, as the papists say, by an infusion of inherent righteousness in men, there would be some strength in the objection; but this is not the case, and therefore there is none in it."
> 
> ...


It seems that he is stating here that God will and has already saved the elect, apart from act that they might do, even placing faith into Jesus.


----------

