# Justification -- How your view affects sanctification



## JBaldwin (Feb 8, 2009)

We are going through the Westminister Confession in Sunday school along with the elder nominees for our church. Today we discussed Chapter 11 --Justification. It was the first paragraph that got my attention:

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: *not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;* not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

One of the key points of our discussion was the difference between "infusion" of righteousness vs. "accounting" of righteousness. The confession cleary states that we are not infused with righteousness, but are accounted righteous because of the work of Christ and for sake alone. 

As I thought about this, I realized that most of my struggle with sanctification over the years has been wrapped up in a misunderstanding of justification. To be infused with righteousness would mean that God actually made us righteous to one degree or another (I was taught that we were actually now completely sinless, but that we had an old nature that we still remembered, like an old habit). To be accounted righteous (as the confession confirms the Scriptures to teach) means that we are still just as sinful, and therefore, we must rely on the work of Christ for everything. 

What a difference this makes in sanctification! If we believe we are infused with righteousness, we will always trust in our own works for sanctification rather than in the work of Christ. If we understand our sinful condition, we are forced to run to Christ for every need. 

I am sharing this, because sanctification was such a struggle for me. I didn't realize the root of my problems was my view of justification. I realized as I've thought back on my years in the church, that even in reformed circles, the confessional view of justification is rarely taught in a clear manner. It seems to me that this is vital. 

I would like to continue this discussion and perhaps follow this idea further. 

How do different views of justification affect the way you live your Christian life, i.e. your sanctification?


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2009)

It should be noted that the Confession only says that justification does not consist in, or is based on, the infusion of righteousness. Both the Confession and Catechisms speak of sanctification in terms of the Spirit's infusion of gracious qualities which He enables the believer to personally exercise and subsequently can be qualitatively discerned in terms of actual obedience to the commandments of God.


----------



## Herald (Feb 8, 2009)

Interesting that you should should share this today. This morning I taught on the 1689 LBC Chapter 11 "Of Justification." Same topic.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Feb 8, 2009)

Good post.

You may find it encouraging to read how Paul describes the relationship between justification and sanctification in Titus 3:4-8. That text has really helped me in the faith.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 8, 2009)

> CHAPTER XIII.
> Of Sanctification.
> I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
> 
> ...



Is this the same as infusion?


----------



## Herald (Feb 8, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> > CHAPTER XIII.
> > Of Sanctification.
> > I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
> >
> ...



Not really. Infusion of righteousness is a decidedly Roman doctrine. Rome teaches that we are _made _righteous, not declared righteous. Infusion is not a term reformed believers would use in any positive sense regarding justification or sanctification.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 8, 2009)

Herald said:


> Interesting that you should should share this today. This morning I taught on the 1689 LBC Chapter 11 "Of Justification." Same topic.



How does the 1689 LBC describe it?


----------



## Herald (Feb 8, 2009)

1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

2. This sanctification is throughout the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed them.


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2009)

Herald said:


> Infusion is not a term reformed believers would use in any positive sense regarding justification or sanctification.



Larger Catechism, answer 77: "in sanctification His Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof."


----------



## Herald (Feb 8, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Infusion is not a term reformed believers would use in any positive sense regarding justification or sanctification.
> ...



I stand corrected. I should have stopped at justification.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 8, 2009)

> Question 77: Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
> 
> Answer: Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, *in that God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ;in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enables to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued*:the one does equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.



It seems the idea of infusion of grace is completely different than the infusion of righteousness, and this seems to explain it better.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Feb 8, 2009)

When understood, infusion of righteousness by the Spirit in sanctification is a very comforting thing. The Lord is working in us both to will and do of his good pleasure (Phil 2:13). However, the imputation of Christ's righteousness remains the sole basis of our justification.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 8, 2009)

I find this really important, because in the first infusion of righteousness would leave you to your own devices in sanctification, whereas the infusion of grace leaves you to the work of the Holy Spirit for sanctification.


----------



## Herald (Feb 8, 2009)

It makes sense. Grace is not imputed, it is imparted (infused).


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> It seems the idea of infusion of grace is completely different than the infusion of righteousness, and this seems to explain it better.



How could the infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit be anything other than "righteous?"

Compare with Larger Catechism answer 75 and Shorter Catechism answer 35 -- the infusion of grace enables the believer to die to sin and "live to righteousness," as per Rom. 6.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 8, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> I am sharing this, because sanctification was such a struggle for me. I didn't realize the root of my problems was my view of justification. I realized as I've thought back on my years in the church, that even in reformed circles, the confessional view of justification is rarely taught in a clear manner. It seems to me that this is vital.
> 
> I would like to continue this discussion and perhaps follow this idea further.
> 
> How do different views of justification affect the way you live your Christian life, i.e. your sanctification?



Sounds as if we had somewhat similar experiences in the past. I think that sanctification tends to blossom better when we look outward to Christ in full assurance of our justification, than it does when we look inward at ourselves from a platform of justificational doubt, evaluating how much progress God has made in us with regard to sanctification. I think that God wants us to take him at his word with regard to us being justified by faith while we are ungodly. That justification promotes assurance, comfort, and joy. And, from that platform, the fruits of sanctification blossom best. Walter Marshall speaks to much of this in his book, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. Ruben inspired me to read this, and so I did. It was worth every penny! 1589600630: The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification by Walter Marshall (Used, New, Out-of-Print) - Alibris UK

Blessings!


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 8, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > It seems the idea of infusion of grace is completely different than the infusion of righteousness, and this seems to explain it better.
> ...





> Larger Catechism Question 75: What is sanctification?
> 
> Answer: Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.





> Shorter Catechism Q. 35. What is sanctification?
> A. Sanctification is the work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.



I am not arguing that the infusion of grace is not righteous. I'm saying that it is not the same as the accounting of Christ's righteousness to us. No where that I see does it say that Christ's righteousness is infused, but rather these are applied to the believer and the other saving graces put into their hearts. 

Maybe we need to define what the Catechism means by "saving graces"


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> I am not arguing that the infusion of grace is not righteous. I'm saying that it is not the same as the accounting of Christ's righteousness to us. No where that I see does it say that Christ's righteousness is infused, but rather these are applied to the believer and the other saving graces put into their hearts.



This amounts to the difference between justification -- being accounted righteous, and sanctification -- being made righteous. But one should not speak of sanctification as if it were nothing more than being _accounted_ righteous, else you end up with no actual new man created in righteousness and true holiness which the believer has put on, Eph. 4:24.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 8, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> Is this the same as infusion?



If you read WLC question 77, the one is an imputing of righteousness, the other infusing of grace.

This is a new nature within the regenerate is what gives us the ability to do good, to please God, to love God, and to move to that which we are called. Yet in this life, it is not without taint in all parts. 

The WLC asks the question


> What is sanctification?
> 
> Sanctification is a work of God’ s grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.



Before you get too tied up with what the confession says, it helps to understand what is meant by the term. Justification is imputation of righteousness. You are legally declared righteous. Sanctification is the working out of that legal declaration so that the declaration is not just a sham. But there are two things to be careful of, both contained in two verses: 


> So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (NASB phil 2:12,13).


 In these two verses, we are to work out our salvation (we are responsible to do what God commands) and it is God that works in us (God alone is sovereign and ordains what comes to pass).

We really and truly do *walk* by faith.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 8, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > I am not arguing that the infusion of grace is not righteous. I'm saying that it is not the same as the accounting of Christ's righteousness to us. No where that I see does it say that Christ's righteousness is infused, but rather these are applied to the believer and the other saving graces put into their hearts.
> ...



I would agree with you. I hope that is not what I was conveying. What I have been trying to say is that without an understanding of our accounting of Christ's righteousness to us in _justification_, it will throw us off when it comes to trying to understand sanctification. All of it is a work of Christ, not a work that we do, even the imparting of God's graces to us in sanctification is His work.


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> I would agree with you. I hope that is not what I was conveying. What I have been trying to say is that without an understanding of our accounting of Christ's righteousness to us in _justification_, it will throw us off when it comes to trying to understand sanctification. All of it is a work of Christ, not a work that we do, even the imparting of God's graces to us in sanctification is His work.



Yes, there is a definitive sanctification by means of our participation in Christ, as per the first half of Rom. 6; but then there is also a progressive sanctification which includes the believer's effort, for which the Holy Spirit makes him able, as per the latter half of Rom. 6. This effort is vividly portrayed under the figures of fighting the good fight, running the race set before us, entering the strait gate, etc. These are things in which the believer is actively involved and towards which he is exhorted to put forth strenuous "renewed" effort.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 9, 2009)

If I understand you correctly, JBaldwin, you are affirming the importance of understand justification's part in sanctification. What Matthew is trying to get at here is that justification's part in sanctification is distinct from the structure of sanctification itself. The structure of justification is imputation. The structure of sanctification is infusion. Take the analogy of two books: Christ's life and my life. In justification the book cover of Christ's book is exchanged with the book cover native to my own book such that when God looks at my book, it has Christ's book cover on it. That's justification. In sanctification, God proceeds to rewrite the inside of the book to make it look more like the cover. We are certainly not passive in progressive sanctification, however much we are dependent on the grace of God for sanctification! Philippians 2 is vitally important to remember here. The formula of sanctification is this: work out your salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to work His good pleasure. Quote either part of that statement in isolation, and you have a drastically misunderstood picture of sanctification.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 9, 2009)

Herald said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > > CHAPTER XIII.
> ...



The Book, _What is Reformed Theology?_ by Dr R.C. Sproul may be helpful on this point.

The Roman doctrine also assumes in "infusion" that one can lose it. Since it is not based on Christ's righteousness alone but rather, in that incorrect application ("infusion"), good works and sacraments, both measured and controlled by the visible (not even the "invisible") church, must be added to keep the "infusion" going.

This "infusion" notion (Roman) wrongly presupposes that Christ's righteousness alone is not sufficient, and misapprehends the eternal, immutable nature of our God. It also implies an authority not given to a representation of men (i.e. the "visible" church).

By imputation, as I understand it, we mean a full (and eternal) declaration that Christ's righteousness alone is sufficient and faith in that is the basis for salvation.

Salvation, broadly viewed involves election, effectual calling, justification, adoption...sanctification.

So, God does the first four completely, and saving faith necessarily flows.

Rightly understanding that frees us so we begin, by God's grace, to overcome the struggle between the "old nature," which is dead now and the "new nature," which is implanted and aided by the sanctifying Holy Spirit.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 12, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Rightly understanding that frees us so we begin, by God's grace, to overcome the struggle between the "old nature," which is dead now and the "new nature," which is implanted and aided by the sanctifying Holy Spirit.



Blessings to you Scott! I always love your posts, as they edify me quite often! I wonder how you piece together in your mind that we struggle with something that is "dead". It seems to me like there should be no struggle at all with something that is dead. In my mind, I have it worked out in a way that fits, but I wonder what your take on this is.

Blessings and fellowship!


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 12, 2009)

Good thread! This is closely related to what I was searching out here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/input-imputation-42609/

THANKS!


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 12, 2009)

moral necessity said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rightly understanding that frees us so we begin, by God's grace, to overcome the struggle between the "old nature," which is dead now and the "new nature," which is implanted and aided by the sanctifying Holy Spirit.
> ...



Romans 6:6-14 comes to mind:
_6We know that(K) our old self[a](L) was crucified with him in order that(M) the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For(N) one who has died(O) has been set free* from sin. 8Now(P) if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that(Q) Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again;(R) death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin,(S) once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves(T) dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Let not(U) sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13(V) Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but(W) present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For(X) sin(Y) will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.*_*

We are to consider ourselves dead to sin. It doesn't mean we are sinless or that we won't sin, but rather that we have a position in Christ that gives us power over sin, so that we can live righteously. If our sin nature was actually dead, Paul would not have written chapter 7 of Romans.*


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 12, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 12, 2009)

moral necessity said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > moral necessity said:
> ...


----------



## turmeric (Feb 12, 2009)

That's always puzzled me - Christ was _never "alive to sin" in the way people describe us._


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 12, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> Good thread! This is closely related to what I was searching out here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/input-imputation-42609/
> 
> THANKS!



Thanks for the link. I missed that thread. It raises some interesting questions.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 12, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> Thanks, could you elaborate further?



Well, here is some of what Haldane had to say:

Verse 10 - For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.

"_In that_ - or with respect to that - _He died, He died unto sin_ - Here we have the same declaration concerning our Lord and Savior as in the 2d verse concerning believers, of whom the Apostle says that they are dead to sin. Whatever, then, the expression signifies in the one case, it must also be understood in the other. But those who attach a wrong interpretation to the phrase in the first occurance, are necessitated to attribute to it a different in the second. Accordingly, Calvin remarks on this 10th verse, - 'The very form of expression, as applied to Christ, shows that He did not, like us, die to sin for the purpose of ceasing to commit it.' Here are two misinterpretations, - first, of the 2d verse, and next, as a natural consequence, of this 10th. A similar difference of interpretation will be found in the other commentators. Having mistaken the meaning of the one, they are compelled to vary it in the other. In the first, they introduce the idea of death to the _power_ of sin, but in the last this is impossible. Our Lord never felt the power of sin, and therefore could not die to it. But, He died to the _guilt_ of sin - to the guilt of His people's sins, which He had taken upon Him; and they, dying with Him, as is above declared, die to sin precisely in the same sense in which He died to it. This declaration, then, that Christ _died to sin_, explains in the clearest manner the meaning of the expression 'dead to sin,' verse 2d, proving that it signifies exclusively dying to the guilt of sin; for in no other sense could our Lord Jesus Christ die to sin"

"...Having been delivered from its guilt, - dead to it, or justified from it, verse 7th, - they are in consequence delivered from its power. But to include the idea of power in the expression, 'dead to sin,' verse 2d, entirely confuses and misrepresents his meaning. Jesus Christ suffered the penalty of sin, and ceased to bear it. Till His death He had sin upon Him; and therefore, though it was not committed by Him personally, yet it was His own, inasmuch as He had taken it upon Him. When He took it upon Him, so as to free His people from its guilt, it became His own debt as truly as if it had been contracted by Him. When, therefore, He died on account of sin, He died to it, as He was now for ever justified from it. He was not justified from it till His resurrection; but from that moment He was dead to it. When He shall appear the second time, it will be 'without sin,' Heb. 9:28."

"...From verse 11, believers are here commanded to reckon themselves to be really and effectually dead to sin - dead to its guilt - and alive unto God in Jesus Christ, as it ought to be rendered. The obligation thus enjoined follows from all that the Apostle had been inculcating respecting their blessed state as partakers with Christ, both in His death and in His life. As this is their real condition, he here commands them to maintain a full sense and conviction of it. The duties of the Christian life, flowing from their union with Jesus Christ and acceptance with God, he immediately proceeds to enforce. But here it is the obligation to maintain the conviction of their state that he exclusively presses upon them. To note this is of great importance. Unless we keep in mind that we are dead to sin, and alive unto God in Jesus Christ our Lord, we cannot serve Him as we ought; we shall otherwise be serving in the oldness of the letter, and not in newness of spirit. But when the believer's state of reconciliation with God, and his death to sin, from which he is delivered, is steadily kept in view, then he cultivates the spirit of adoption - then he strives to walk worthy of his calling.......he has peace in his conscience, his heart is enlarged, and he runs the way of God's commandments."

"...Of their high privileges and state of acceptance with God, believers are ever reminded in Scripture; and it is not till a man has the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I Pet. 3:21, and a sense of being justified from sin, _having his conscience purged from dead works_ by the blood of Christ, that he can serve the living God, Heb. 9:14. How important, then, is this admonition of the Apostle, _Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin_, though often much obscured by false glosses turning it away from its true and appropriate meaning! By many it would be accounted presumptuous in Christians to take it home to themselves. Hence they are not aware of the obligations they are under to labour to maintain the _assurance_ of their union with Christ, and of their participation with Him in His death and resurrection. But we see that the Apostle, after he had fully developed the blessed state of believers, and declared the foundation on which it rests, with which their continuing to live in sin is incompatible, _expressly enjoins_ this as a positive duty on those whom he addresses, and consequently on all Christians, thus reminding them that what he had said was not to be viewed in the light of abstract truth, but ought to be practially and individually brought home to their own bosoms. How seldom is this use made of the text before us! How seldom, if ever, is the duty it enforces urged upon Christians!..."

"...In consulting a multitude of commentators, I found no satisfactory solution. Most of them explain the expression 'dead to sin,' in the 2d verse, as importing death not only to the guilt, but also, as has been remarked, to the power of sin, - a proof that the assertion of the Apostle is misunderstood. But when it is perceivd that the guilt of sin only is included, a clear light is thrown on this highly important part of the Epistle......'True spiritual mortification does not consist in sin not being in thee, nor in its being put upon the cross daily, nor yet in its being kept upon it. There must be something more to establish perfect peace in thy conscience; and that is the testimony of God concerning the body of sin. He has provided for thy perfect deliverance from it in Christ....Thy sins were crucified with Him, and nailed to the cross. They were put to death when He died: for He was thy covenant head, and thou wast legally represented by Him, and art indeed dead to sin by His dying to sin once. The law has now no more right to condemn thee, a believer, than it has to condemn Him. Justice is bound to deal with thee, as it has with thy risen and ascended Savior....No sin can be crucified either in heart or life, unless it be first pardoned in conscience; because there will be want of faith to receive the strength of Jesus, by whom alone it can be crucified. If it be not mortified in its guilt, it cannot be subdued in its power. If the believer does not see his perfect deadness to sin in Jesus, he will open a wide door to unbelief; and if he be not persuaded of his completeness in Christ, he gives room for the attacks of self-righteous and legal tempers. If Christ be not all in all, self must still be looked upon as something great, and there will be food left for the pride of self-importance and self-sufficiency; so that he cannot grow into the death of Christ in sensible experience, further than he believes himself to be dead to sin in Christ...'"


----------



## tdowns (Feb 12, 2009)

*Great thread...*

Thanks!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2009)

The discussion has been very good.

Remember that faith, alone, lays hold of Christ and His righteousness and that our righteousness is not the grounds for our justification, ever. God justifies the ungodly.

Yet, we also know that faith is the gift of God and is preceded by His grace whereby, in election, we are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Those are certain to occur because God has made us alive.

When we believe, we are united to Christ in His death and resurrection and our sanctification (being made like Him) is certain even as the faith which rests in Him is certain because it is produced by the same Spirit working through the Word. Thus, God is pleased to sanctify those whom He has justified. We must be sanctified and perfected by that same Spirit and the promises of that are signified and sealed to us in our baptism.

Thus, for us, we strive toward holiness because Christ is at work in us to will and do His good pleasure. We know we are righteous in Him and are being made righteous in Him and we ought to be able to see that work in our desires and attitudes and growth in grace. We are, in fact, warned to look for that and continually cast ourselves on Christ for the grace that we daily need from Him. Christianity is not a life of "got the decision card" but a life of trust in the Gospel and what the means of grace (Word, Sacrament, prayer, fellowship) do toward the end of our glorification. We must avail ourselves of them and fall on them as a beggar falls on bread and as a son who is constantly in need of his Father's care and provision.


----------



## Curt (Feb 12, 2009)

Excellent discussion. Lots of good reading.This is the kind of thing for which I joined PB. Many thanks, all.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 12, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The discussion has been very good.
> 
> Remember that faith, alone, lays hold of Christ and His righteousness and that our righteousness is not the grounds for our justification, ever. God justifies the ungodly.
> 
> ...



AMEN! Thanks


----------

