# When were Gods elect Justified?



## The Lamb (Mar 10, 2005)

I have been led to do a study on the topic of Justification; when and How are Gods Elect Justified. Until recently I was unaware of the distinct perspectives even within reformers themselves. SInce I believe Paul received the full and final revelation from Christ, I have concentrated my efforts in his writings. Paul claims 5 aspects that need to be understood:

1) By Faith
2) By the faith of Christ
3) By His blood
4) By His Death
5) By His Grace

Taking these all into consideration, as well as the belief in:

1) Eternal Justification
2) Justification at the poin t of believing
3) Justification at the cross
4) Justification at the judgment

I am wondering if all these have some truth, but which one is scripturally supported the most. 

And also what is the relationship of faith to our justification.

*Text* 

Please respond with any input please you may have

*Joseph*


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Firstly, welcome, Joseph!



Thank you Joshua, and may God Bless you


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 10, 2005)

WCF 11.4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect;(1) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: (2) nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.(3) 

(1)Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 1:2,19,20; Rom. 8:30. 
(2)Gal. 4:4; Rom. 4:25. 
(3)Col. 1:21,22; Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:4-7.

[Edited on 3-11-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> WCF 11.4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect;(1) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: (2) nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.(3)
> 
> (1)Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 1:2,19,20; Rom. 8:30.
> ...



Thank you Ben.

I am well aware of what the WCF says. But what concerns me is although they do not make faith the cause of justification, they make it the condition for justification. Why would some say that Christ redeemed sinners at the cross but God did not justify them there? Would it not be foreign to scripture to conclude that Christ our savior dies in our stead, but yet the application of the benefits of His death are not applied until one believes? Does this 3 fold understanding of Justification take our focus off the cross? 

Before I continue, I would like ya'll to know that I am not comfortable expressing these thoughts because of the history of those blessed teachers of ours who penned our confessions. I do not consider the Doctrine of Justification to be a trivial matter. I can only pray that where we all may need more light, that God grants us the wisdom to push forward, and repentance of any false conclusions.


In His Love


Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Joseph, what does Paul mean in these passages? (Not a loaded question...rather, a sincere inquiry)
> 
> Romans 4:22 That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness." 23But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, 24but for ours also. It *will be* counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
> ...




I will attempt a valid response Joshua since I am plagued by these questions. AS of right now, I have not reached a definitive conclusion on a subject so grand as Justification. On the surfvace it appears that Romans 4:24 has God justifying the person on his act of believing. But again, does this not lead to believing being a work? I do not know for sure. I have studied the original and it reads as follows, 

"œBut also on account of us, to whom it applies (present, active tense), to those who are believing (present tense) on Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." What applies? The same righteousness of Christ that was imputed to Abraham (Romans 3:23) APPLIES to each of the Lord´s redeemed.

So In my limited understanding, Romans 4:24 simply addresses those to whom the Lord has already granted faith and believe, as did Abraham. They share the same ground of justification as He did, the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith then becomes the evidence and not the cause.

Again, after some original studies of Romans 5, and with the help of some more scholarly in Greek than I will ever be. The comma should come after justified and not faith. "œTherefore," refers back to the preceding verse in Romans 4:25- "œWho was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Romans 5:1 should then read, "œTherefore being, or having been declared just, (based on the redeeming work of Christ alone), by or, out of faith, we have peace with God"¦" The peace of God enjoyed by the justified sinner comes by God-given faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 


In His Love

Joseph


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 10, 2005)

The traditional understanding of faith is not that it is a work, but that it is the _instrumental_ means, which God provides to the sinner in his effectual calling, to unite him to Christ and appropriate His benefits.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> The traditional understanding of faith is not that it is a work, but that it is the _instrumental_ means, which God provides to the sinner in his effectual calling, to unite him to Christ and appropriate His benefits.




Hello Patrick.

Yes, this is the traditional understanding. WHat continues to chisel at me is on one hand it says faith is not a work of ours, but we are justified at the point of having faith. AS if God puts our justification on hold. Perhaps I am reading something into the traditional understanding that is not intended.

Again, When Paul speaks of Justification before God, are the phrases he uses synonomous? ie: faith, grace, blood, Christs faith, his death?


In His Grace

Joseph


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 11, 2005)

You have to make a distinction between virutal justification and actual justification.

Virtual justification is based on God's decree.

Actual justification is based on the application of Christ's work on us in time.

Virtual justification happened in the decree and on the cross as the means, and actual justification happned at a specific time. 

We are creating a timeline, but to God it is instantaneous in both respects and coexstensive.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> You have to make a distinction between virutal justification and actual justification.
> 
> Virtual justification is based on God's decree.
> ...




Hello Matthew.

Thank you for the explination of the distinctions that have to be made. After reading some sources, ie: GIll, Brine on eternal Justification, I found shreds of truth but to my limited understanding that postion leads to making the cross of Christ a "not needed" event.

Then according to the traditional understanding, it seems to make justification a 3 or four fold event. Another reason I am not 100% Scripturally satusfied.

I understand justification as God imputing the righteousness of Christ to His sheep. And Paul speaks of this as not dependant upon any means other than His death in scripture. 

Can this be a one time final securing and applying event? And we only realize it once we come to faith?

Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Joseph, I think you may be making this more complicated than it is. Our justification (i.e. imputed righteousness of Christ) was decreed beforehand, accomplished and secured by Christ's purchase on the cross, and is then realized/applied at conversion.




Yes Joshua. I guess I am confused if this is the correct understanding, than what role does faith play in our justification before God? Compared to before ourself.

Thank you all for the kind explinations thus far and not screaming heretic at me.


Joseph


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 11, 2005)

I think we all agree that justification is the act of Christ's righteousness being imputed to the sinner. The question that needs to be asked at this point is HOW this takes place?

Does this imputation happen IMMEDIATELY (apart from any means)?

Does this imputation happen MEDIATELY (using means)?

In the same way that God regenerates a person only by means of the gospel, God only justifies a person by means of faith. Even this faith is a gift of God, and therefore is not a "prerequisite work" that man must accomplish before he can receive justification, for as Jonathan Edwards says, faith is the receiving itself. This faith is a faith that points to the work that EARNED our justification (INCLUDING the means of faith!). In fact, this faith is in Christ's work ALONE (see WCF on Saving Faith).


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I think we all agree that justification is the act of Christ's righteousness being imputed to the sinner. The question that needs to be asked at this point is HOW this takes place?
> 
> Does this imputation happen IMMEDIATELY (apart from any means)?
> ...




Hello Jeff:

Perhaps my mild contention is that I also do not believe in Gospel Regeneration. So because of my presuppositions that God creates without means other than His divine will, and since election is without means, and the effectual call is without means, than can justification be without means before God? 



In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## Robin (Mar 11, 2005)

Romans 8.28-30 says,

And we know that all things work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose, because, those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son in order that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover those whom he predestined, these he also called, those whom he called these he also justified, those whom he justified, these he also glorified. 

Because of the way they link one part of salvation with another, these verses have been called "the golden chain." These verses speak of God's eternal, pre-creational, decisions. We're all familiar with vs.28. Notice, however, that those for whom all things work out, are those whom God has "called". He explains that the group of everyone called is the same group as those whom God foreknew. Everyone he "foreknew" belongs to the same group of those who have been "predestined". This is the same group as those who are "justified" (i.e., declared to be righteous before God). The same group about whom all these other things are said, is the same group whom God will glorify. In each verse it is God who is the subject of the verse, the person doing the action, and those whom he is saving are the objects of God's gracious acts.

Salvation is from God from beginning to end. By definition, grace excludes human effort. Grace rescues a drowning man unable to save himself. Grace is raises the dead to life by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Bible calls Christians the "elect". The noun "elect" (that is, "the chosen ones") occurs 25 times in the New Testament.43 Using the word "elect" or "chosen" only makes sense in the context of God's sovereign predestinating grace. Believers are elect because we have been chosen by God, not because they have helped God to be a Saviour. In Ephesians 1.1-15 Paul explains how, when and why God decided to save us. How is "*in Christ*". In vv.3,4,10 Paul says that we (believers) were chosen "in Christ",

before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and blameless before Him, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will.44 

According to God's Word, those who believe were chosen by God before the world was created so that he would glorified (Ephesians 1.6). How? "Having predestined us...". God in His grace chose us, even though were worthy of destruction. We believe because God predestined us to believe. Why? Because it is "according to the good pleasure of His will."

It could be said that God uses human history as the "means" to accomplish glorifying His Name (via the story of Redemption).

God uses means to create - "matter" as CS Lewis put it. The means He uses are as mundane and earthy as: a virgin giving birth; words on paper that are empowered with His Spirit to bring about His desired actions; human speech & hearing of His Words; bread and wine; flesh and blood...these earthy "means" are what He uses....

Of course, God doesn't need to use anything else to create (as Scripture says) but, He does, nonetheless. Stand back and notice the big picture...He is using tangible "means" - human history, to accomplish His story - for His own purposes.

 Joseph.....and keep pondering the deep things of God!

Robin


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 11, 2005)

Thank you Robin for the wonderful words. Words that are certainly dear to my heart. This subject is one that is filled with comfort and joy for Gods elect. And that is why it deserves my utmost. 

I do not enjoy looking at those divines that have gone before us and say they may have understood it wrong or incomplete. But when I read some of their writings, I cannot help to feel that some have either put and overemphasis on the decree in eternity, and others who have emphasised the role of faith in our justification. Jeff hit the nail on the head for me in his response. And I am inclined to poll for his first quesion. That God regenerates and justifies immediately by imputing the righteousness of Christ to his elect based on His death with no external means. And thus faith and repentance becomes the fruit of our justification, calling and election. I know some here may say I am out of line, or who am I, this infantile believer to question the authority of those divines in our past, but my only intent is to be a faithful witness to the Scriptures and Christ. 

The best definition of the justification is that found in Scripture itself, not any creed or confession.

Romans 3:24 "œBeing justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" 
Romans 5:9 "œMuch more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."


Therefore being justified, it is by faith (the gift of faith to believe) that redeemed and justified sinners come to realize their redemption, justification, and forgiveness of sins and enter into the peace with God in their very being. However, it is not then that God imputes the righteousness of Christ. That was already done on their behalf at the cross 2 Corinthians 5:21


In His Grace


Joe


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 11, 2005)

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 

Galatians 3:11
But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."

Galatians 3:24
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Joe, I have actually studied eternal justification before and had the same questions you did. While not a common doctrine, giants of the faith John Gill and Herman Hoeksema contended adamently for it.

One of the questions that caused me to reject the doctrine is "In what sense are we justified BY faith?" as stated in the above verses. I don't believe it does justice to these scriptures to say "We come to a REALIZATION of our justification when we come to faith."

In what sense would you say that we ARE justified by faith?


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Romans 3:28
> Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
> 
> ...



I agree Jeff. And have studied it also from the same men you mentioned. I would not break fellowship over it, but find it lacking in scriptural support. 

I believe that Romans 1:17 sheds some light on the issue for me. That our justification is REVEALED by faith. Reveals the Gospel to us. That is certainly the sense of Romans 3:28 where faith is used in opposition to the "˜law of works.´



Joseph


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I understand your point of view. However, do you believe that interpretation does justice to the texts I provided? That would mean that there is NO sense in which we are justified BY faith. 

Eternal justification says that faith merely REVEALS the fact that we ARE justified. No doubt most Calvinists would agree with Romans 1:17, that when a person comes to faith, the righteousness of God is revealed to them. But is this all that happens? More texts supplied above seem to say that there is much more that happens. They all say we are justified by faith. That is the means that God uses to justify us. 

As for these happening IMMEDIATELY, I would point you to Romans 1:16



> For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."



The gospel is the "power of God TO SALVATION!" The words of scripture have power. The words of scripture are in fact Christ himself! It is no coincidence that the phrase "Word of God" is used equally for the Bible and for Christ himself. Look to Genesis 1 to see that God "spoke" creation into existence. This is the same re-creating word that gives new life to us in regeneration. This is the same word that goes forth in the call of the gospel and justifies God's elect.

I'm rambling on a bit. But the thrust of all this is to challenge you to answer "In what sense are we justified by faith?"

I think that after contemplating the positions, eternal justification cannot do justice in answering this question.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



Jeff, I have a meeting to attend, but I wil leave you with this. I am not a 100% proponent of eternal justification. What I believe is we are justified immediately at the cross. Not in the decree before the foundation of the world. Then faith is given to us as a gift.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 11, 2005)

If we are justified immediately and actually AT the cross then why do we have to believe?

What purpose does conversion serve if we are already declared right before God?

Phillip


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 11, 2005)

We were saved 2,000 years ago on the Cross at Calvary, saved when the Holy Spirit regenerated us, saved when we took heed to sound doctrine, and we will be saved when we are raised in glorification. I say yesterday, today, and tomorrow we're saved. That was a minor theme underlying my first sermon on the _ordo salutis_. Read _Redemption Accomplished and Applied_ by John Murray. 

I was elected by God the Father before time immemorial, redeemed by the crosswork of the Son, and made alive by the Holy Spirit.


[Edited on 3-11-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> If we are justified immediately and actually AT the cross then why do we have to believe?
> 
> What purpose does conversion serve if we are already declared right before God?
> ...




Excellent questions Phillip. Thank you kindly for asking. I will answe in due time, but as of now I need to busy myself with some family responsibilities.


Joseph

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 11, 2005)

> _posted by Puritanhead_
> We were saved 2,000 years ago on the Cross at Calvary, saved when the Holy Spirit regenerated us, saved when we took heed to sound doctrine, and we will be saved when we are raised in glorification. I say yesterday, today, and tomorrow we're saved. That was a minor theme underlying my first sermon on the ordo salutis. Read Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray.
> 
> I was elected by God the Father before time immemorial, redeemed by the crosswork of the Son, and made alive by the Holy Spirit.



yes, but......

We need to be clear especially in the context of this question that before faith you and I were children of wrath, needed to hear the gospel, repent and believe, and when the Spirit called us to life and gave us repentance and faith, then we were justified.

You cannot be justified before God without faith.

The other issue that comes up, which is why I posted the questions I did (and good follow up Josh!), was that there are some in reformed circles who believe in eternal justification and as a result preach and teach that we need not be converted, need not have the gospel preached to us, and need not, indeed should not, preach the gospel to others.

I knew one preacher who said he did not believe in conversion. You either were elect or you were not and that settled it. So he told people, literally, that they were either elect or not, that it was God's choice, that they were commanded to live a "Christian" life, but that in the end would not know if they were elect or not until they entered heaven or hell! No conversion, no assurance, no motivation for holy living, and no true understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in converting us!

The possible implications of the idea of eternal justification completely removes the responsibility of sinners to obey the gospel (repentance and faith) and it removes conversion from the ordo salutis altogether.

Obviously then, this doctrine is usually (not always, but most of the time)held by those who either are or are leaning hyper-Calvinistic. The examples given thus far of Gill and Hoeksema are illustrations of this point as both men have been shown to be to some degree hyper-Calvinists. Even Spurgeon said of Gill that he was a "high" Calvinist.

So we need to examine the doctrine of justification and all the while keep an eye on where our conclusions will drive the practical application and living out of our theology.

Phillip

[Edited on 3-12-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _posted by Puritanhead_
> ...





I can only amen your _You cannot be justified before God without faith_ statement... which i perceive as a construtive criticism of my statement. for want of brevity, i didn't elucidate with much clarity earlier. I believe I hit the nail on the head in my half-hour sermon on Hebrews 12:2! I covered doctrine from predestination to glorification. I was attentive at my fous on the doctrine of justification. I got a lot of compliments. 

Those that persevere until the end are Christ's children.

I'd be happy to provide a transcript of my sermon for any learned Reformed pastors to critique it. I want to take heed to sound doctrine, and grow in sanctification as well as my understanding of the Word.

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## TimV (Mar 11, 2005)

> So we need to examine the doctrine of justification and all the while keep an eye on where our conclusions will drive the practical application and living out of our theology.



Nice. We are saved from the foundations of the world, but we are also saved at a particular place and time. Just like God can be hungry and God can't be hungry.

There comes a point where we can't carry logical points farther than the limits given in Scripture.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 11, 2005)

Ryan, 

Your post was good, and actually made a good opportunity for me to post what I had been thinking about the implications of believing "eternal justification" - so I was not critiquing as much as using your post for a foundation off which to leap!

Phillip 


[Edited on 3-12-05 by pastorway]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 11, 2005)

Another error to beware of, by the Way, is that of the Federal Vision crowd, who say that justification is future, at the time of the judgment. Looking at it as eschatological justification they can then try to get away with telling people that they are elected to the covenant instead of elected to salvation. That way you can be elect and damned!


----------



## andreas (Mar 12, 2005)

May i add, that before faith comes grace?"the God of all grace", 1 Pet. 5:10 ,justifies the ungodly. It is "the God of all grace" who saves His people, asking for nothing,and giving them everything. We are, "being justified freely by His grace", Rom. 3:24,
andreas.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 12, 2005)

I heard RC Sproul explain this in a way that made a lot of sense at a conference here in WA. He said that the faith we exercise is in fact our own but we can only exercise it after the Holy Spirit has quickened us and taken out our heart of stone and given us a heart of flesh and that our desire is now turned toward God instead of against him thus we willingly in this state of regeneration can exercise faith now that the bonds of sin and death have been removed. So that we can truly say that we put our faith in him but of course only after being "born again" or being made alive etc etc. I hope this is making sense.






[Edited on 3-12-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> May i add, that before faith comes grace?"the God of all grace", 1 Pet. 5:10 ,justifies the ungodly. It is "the God of all grace" who saves His people, asking for nothing,and giving them everything. We are, "being justified freely by His grace", Rom. 3:24,
> andreas.




Excellent point. And one you spoke before I was able. This clearly shows that justification precedes faith. For those who have faith or believe are not the ungodly. Faith becomes the fruit of justification. 

In regards to Romans 3:34. Can we not conclude without destroying the text, that His grace justifies us without any means, through the redemption in Christ Jesus, ie; His death?

Then our faith Lays hold of the promise of forgiveness and reconcilitaion and the pure Joy of God justifying the ungodly man we are.

To say we are Justified by faith before God means we have tthe fullness of His Gospel revealed to our beings and lay hold on this precious pearl of great price. 

Paul uses many words that would seem to be synonomous. 

faith.grace.redemption.death.blood.Christs faith. My question is why has "by Faith" been elevated above the rest? When reading all the others, I am led to believe they all point to His death.



In His Grace,

Joseph

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Excellent point. And one you spoke before I was able. This clearly shows that justification precedes faith. For those who have faith or believe are not the ungodly. Faith becomes the fruit of justification.
> [Edited on 3-12-2005 by The Lamb]



I contend that this does not show that justification precedes faith. Because justification is merely of grace, does not exclude means. Grace is merely (undeserved favor). Does a fallen wretch like myself deserve the gift of faith from God? Absolutely not. However, even that gift of faith was given "merely of grace." 



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> faith.grace.redemption.death.blood.Christs faith. My question is why has "by Faith" been elevated above the rest? When reading all the others, I am led to believe they all point to His death.



Amen. Faith must not be elevated above the rest. In fact, our act of faith could not earn, merit or give us salvation, were in not the fact that God deemed to use those means. When faith is given to big a place in salvation, it destroys the gospel (i.e. Arminian). That being said, the Calvinist position aleviates making salvation a meritorious work on our part. Instead, faith now becomes a meritorious work that Christ earned for us 2000 years ago.

The Classical position is that faith in and of itself cannot justify. However, with faith, God applies the righteousness of Christ to a person, and because of his righteousness, we are justified. 

I like to think of it this way. If a person has overdosed on drugs, and their heart has stopped beating, they are officially dead. Sometimes a shot of Adreniline to the heart is used to "raise them from the dead" (so to speak). What saved them? Was it the man that gave the shot? Was it the needle that contained the life giving medicine? Was it the Adreniline itself? I like to compare the Adreniline to the righteousness of Christ....it ACTUALLY saves you. The needle is comparative to our faith. It is the means that is used to GIVE us the rightousness of Christ. The needle in an of itself can do nothing. But the righteousness of Christ has the power of life. (BTW, this analogy breaks down real fast, so don't take it too far )

I believe this shows how justification can be "merely of grace" and yet include the means of faith.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 12, 2005)

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 12, 2005)

> I contend that this does not show that justification precedes faith. Because justification is merely of grace, does not exclude means. Grace is merely (undeserved favor). Does a fallen wretch like myself deserve the gift of faith from God? Absolutely not. However, even that gift of faith was given "merely of grace."




Jeff, It doesn't? Can the ungodly have faith? The scripture says He justifies the ungodly, this is what is causing me some tension here brother. 



> Amen. Faith must not be elevated above the rest. In fact, our act of faith could not earn, merit or give us salvation, were in not the fact that God deemed to use those means. When faith is given to big a place in salvation, it destroys the gospel (i.e. Arminian). That being said, the Calvinist position alleviates making salvation a meritorious work on our part. Instead, faith now becomes a meritorious work that Christ earned for us 2000 years ago.



The position I see does not make faith a condition in and of itself either. 

Is there a difference in saying we are justified by His impute righteousness, vs justified by faith?




> The Classical position is that faith in and of itself cannot justify. However, with faith, God applies the righteousness of Christ to a person, and because of his righteousness, we are justified.



Yes this is the classic position. But does God impute waiting for Himself to give us the gift of faith? Or does He impute then gives us the gift of faith, which lays hold of the promises Christ. I am leaning towards the latter. 


Can faith be both a means and a gift?


Jeff, I will thank you again for demonstrating charity in this discussion.

In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## pastorway (Mar 12, 2005)

We are not in any way justified before God if there is an absence of faith. Faith is necessary and required in order for justification to be applied to us. One cannot be declared right with God if he has not believed in Christ.

So justification never precedes faith.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> We are not in any way justified before God if there is an absence of faith. Faith is necessary and required in order for justification to be applied to us. One cannot be declared right with God if he has not believed in Christ.
> 
> So justification never precedes faith.
> ...



Amen


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, the ungodly can have faith. The _ordo salutis_ is very helpful here:

Election--> Regeneration --> Faith/Repentance --> Justification/Adoption --> Sanctification --> Glorification

Regeneration is the work of the Spirit. It produces faith and repentance both the gifts of God. Faith is the necessary instrument for receiving righteousness. That is why Paul says that Abraham believed, and it was accounted to him as righteousness, and that he was justified as ungodly:

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works (Rom. 4:5)

Repentance is a gracious gift of God (in humility correcting those who are in opposition, *if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth*) that is a necessary concomittant of faith:

Although repentance be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, (Ezek. 36:31"“32, Ezek. 16:61"“63) which is the act of God´s free grace in Christ; (Hos. 14:2,4, Rom. 3:24, Eph. 1:7) yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. (Luke 13:3,5, Acts 17:30"“31) (WCF 15.3)

Faith is the means by which the righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21, among other passages) is imputed to us:

for Christ´s sake alone; nor 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, (Rom. 4:5"“8, 2 Cor. 5:19,21, Rom. 3:22,24"“25,27"“28, Tit. 3:5,7, Eph. 1:7, Jer. 23:6, 1 Cor. 1:30"“31, Rom. 5:17"“19) they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God. (Acts 10:44, Gal. 2:16, Phil. 3:9, Acts 13:38"“39, Eph. 2:7"“8) (WCF 11.1)




> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_
> ...



Yes. We are justified by faith _instrumentally_, that is, there is no merit whatsoever in the faith itself. WCF 11.1 makes that perfectly clear. So does the "reckoned" language of Romans 4. Faith is the antithesis of a work. If faith as a substance justified us, it would be a work. It is not. It would also be unjust of God to ignore sin. Faith does not atone for sin. Faith merely allows us access to the atonement. We are justified on the grounds of the atoning work of Christ. Faith is the conduit to that righteousness and sin-bearer.




> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_
> ...



God does not impute faith. He imputes the righteousness of Christ to us, and our sin to Christ. That is why we are not justified eternally. We are decreed to justification, but we can in no sense be justified, because faith does not provide the grounds of justification. Christ's merit does. The most helpful means to think about is the Covenant of Work/Grace paradigm. Christ provided atonement and righteousness, but that does not actually justify any, until the work is applied (imputed) to the sinner. God gives us faith, but that does not justify. We are justified when the work of Christ is applied to us upon believing (faith).

Another way to think about this is in Trinitarian terms. (Here Owen is priceless, perhaps the most thoroughly Trinitarian theologian ever - with only Calvin perhaps as a rival)

If we were justified eternally, that would mean that the work of the Son and Spirit was secondary. That is, it would be enough that the Father decree. If we were justified at the cross, then that would make the work of the Spirit secondary; that is, the application of the work by faith (a work of the Spirit and His means, the Word; cf. WSC 24: "Question: How Doth Christ Execute the Office of a Prophet? Answer: Christ Executeth the Office of a Prophet, in Revealing to Us, by His Word and Spirit, the Will of God for Our Salvation")

It would also be helpful to review Owen's comments in Vol 3 on the Holy Spirit and regeneration.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> We are not in any way justified before God if there is an absence of faith. Faith is necessary and required in order for justification to be applied to us. One cannot be declared right with God if he has not believed in Christ.
> 
> So justification never precedes faith.
> ...




You do make the exception for infants I assume though? All I am trying to do is extend that belief to cover all whom are justified. In this way there is no exception Phillip. 

And I believe Scripture warrants where I am leaning. I am not taking faith out of the salvation and life of the elect, I am believing that it is the result of justification


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



I misunderstood. I agree Lamb.

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## andreas (Mar 12, 2005)

***You do make the exception for infants ***


"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. 

Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; 

Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely." Psalm 58:3-5

I do not think that there are any exceptions.

andreas.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***You do make the exception for infants ***
> 
> 
> ...




I agree andreas, we cannot make any exceptions ok. That is why I believe the Scriupture warrants believing that Justification preceedes faith.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 12, 2005)

If faith is a gift of God's grace given to us, then what prevents Him from giving faith to an infant?

There is no exception.

Without and before faith no one is justified.

If you don't believe me, re-read Fred's and Joshua's excellent posts. They leave no room for doubt and give no reason at all to hold on the false notion that any one of God's elect is justified without or before faith.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by andreas_
> ...



Scripture makes no such warrant. You are taking an exceptional and Biblically unclear case and wreaking havoc with the work of the Holy Spirit. In essence, you make Him superfluous, since application of redemption is not necessary to salvation.

Any infants that are saved are saved by the grace of God, through the granting of faith. We do not know what form that faith takes. The Bible does not tell us. It is vain and dangerous to speculate as such. You have taken a extrabiblical extrapolation and used it to throw out the otherwise clear testimony of Scripture, and the unanimous position of the Reformational creeds.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



Scott,

This is not the position of the Reformers, or the Bible. I don't think it is your position either, if you think about it. You've made many posts on this subject. Do you not agree with the following:

1. Infants are not saved apart from faith
2. The faith of infants is the gift of God
3. We cannot precisely determine exactly what such faith looks like in comparison to that of adults.
4. All elect infants are saved by God through faith, not all infants regardless of elect status.

Correct?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 12, 2005)

Fred,
Correct. I misunderstood.
The exception I make is that elect infants dying in infancy, the Lord goes to and regenerates and justifies.

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12



[Edited on 3-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 12, 2005)

Fred,
Not to hijack the thread, but I did appreciate this statement!

"Yes, the ungodly can have faith."


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> Correct. I misunderstood.
> The exception I make is that elect infants dying in infancy, the Lord goes to and regenerates and justifies.
> ...



Thanks!!

I knew we were in the same place. I just wanted to make it plain for everyone.

Joseph, hopefully you see this now. Again, I suggest that before you think about this any more, you read Owen's Volume 3-4 on the Holy Spirit and Calvin on the Holy Spirit and the nature of regeneration in his Institutes.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 12, 2005)

Ditto to Fred.

The ordo salutis is the unbreakable chain. 

What some do is mix the decree of God (virtual justification) with the outworking of the means and instrument (actual justification). It is important NOT to do that.

Ditto to Fred again.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> How 'bout some Dittos for the common man!



Gotta earn them dittos, boy!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 12, 2005)

Ditto to Joshua. 

Ready:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 12, 2005)

Josh,
You did an excellent job in this thread, if I do say so myself.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Hey, who said that!?!


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 13, 2005)

Is this becoming a puritan head pep rally? 

All of you have been quite charitable towards me and this delima of understanding I am having. Only by Gods grace can this happen. 


I am not done having this dialogue thpugh, but since our daughter has 5 frends spending the night, and they are up at 5;30 am, I am wanting for time to prepare my comments.


In His Grace


Joseph

[Edited on 3-13-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...




I have read Calvin on the subject as well as Owen. I guess I am also influence by Kuyper.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...




Joshua, I was injecting humor myself. I am not your typical stereotypical starched reformer.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> If faith is a gift of God's grace given to us, then what prevents Him from giving faith to an infant?
> 
> There is no exception.
> ...




Nothing prevents him from giving faith to an infant, but what definition of faith is given? Does the infant believe? Scripture does not allow us to become dogmtic about infant salvation since there is no biblical warrant that I can find where an infant is said to have faith or believe. I believe they are saved exactly like an adult. By the blood of Christ.



In His grace


Joseph


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



The same definition of the faith given you or I is the faith gven the infant. According to scripture, all heavenbound individuals, this to include the elect infant MUST believe, and by Gods grace, they will. The scriptural warrant is there; Unless of course you are prepared to rule out every infant dying in infancy.




[Edited on 3-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...




Actually I have looked for it Scott. This is why I believe scripture alloows for one to be justified before faith. I am ruling nothing out. I am not agreeing with Calvin and some that all infants are saved, nor am I agreeing with the "All infants of elect parents" are saved. Where and when do the believe? Anyway, I do not want to digress into infant salvation here, but when and where do they believe? Is it after death? The issue at hand is Justifiaction before God. 

I recently read of something called subjective justification at the cross and objective justification by faith. I need to digest it further.

In His Grace



Joseph


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 13, 2005)

Why do you believe an infant can't believe? To be specific, it is 'Elect infants dying in infancy...' The neccesary inference is there in the scriptures. We know God elects. Assuredly he elects infants (even). We cannot conclude that since an infant cannot believe like we would expect, or according to what we undrerstand _belief_ to be, that all infants then, perish. God comes to the elect infant, regenerates them, gives them faith and justifies them accordingly and in that, the requirement to believe is accomplished and fulfilled.

Also, you state that since it is not clearly drawn out in scripture, you are having a hard time assimilating the doctrine in regard to the elect infant. However, in the same light, there has been ample support presented in this thread to rightfully prove that justification does not precede faith and yet you still are undecided. It seems as if it really does not matter if scripture is presented or not presented at this point.



[Edited on 3-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Why do you believe an infant can't believe? To be specific, it is 'Elect infants dying in infancy...' The neccesary inference is there in the scriptures. We know God elects. Assuredly he elects infants (even). We cannot conclude that since an infant cannot believe like we would expect, or according to what we undrerstand _belief_ to be, that all infants then, perish. God comes to the elect infant, regenerates them, gives them faith and justifies them accordingly and in that, the requirement to believe is accomplished and fulfilled.
> 
> Also, you state that since it is not clearly drawn out in scripture, you are having a hard time assimilating the doctrine in regard to the elect infant. However, in the same light, there has been ample support presented in this thread to rightfully prove that justification does not precede faith and yet you still are undecided. It seems as if it really does not matter if scripture is presented or not presented at this point.
> ...




Hello Scott:

It absolutely does matter. I am not fully denying the traditional understading of JBF. I am looking fully at its understanding. Please do not get frustrated with me because I do not take this lightly.

The scriptures presented by all are extremely helpful to me. WHat causes me to rethink the traditional understanding is when Paul states we are also justified by grace, his blood, and his death

I also know that infant salvation is a tremendous revelation of Gods grace. 

I just do not think Scripture warrants a dogmatic understanding of that issue. 


I also am concerned because Christ died for us while we were still His enemies, and would His enemies have faith in Him? Or have His faith? Am I worng to conclude that Him dying for us while we were emnity against Him, His enemies, that this is pure grace and justification? 


In His Grace


Joseph

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 14, 2005)

Joseph,
Perhaps it would help you to understand Christ's role as surety. Heb. 7:21-23. 

He takes our place before the Father, and garantees our justification to come. But we are not actually justified until we actually stand before God in faith, and are counted as righteous in His sight for the righteousness of Christ imputed. It is one thing to have an inheritance set aside for you. Quite another to actually posess it in your hands. Perhaps that is how you should consider justification. Or another illustration, the judge may know he will declare someone innocent because some one came to take the mans place, maybe even weeks in advance, but until the court assembles and the acccused stands before him personally, he doesn't issue the ruling. Some feeble illustrations, but I think you may get the point. You must exist to be justified. And it is always the point of transition from death to life, from wrath to grace. This is the role of the Spirit, to work this transition and bring us personally before the bar of God to have our sentence declared. 

As for infants having faith, God may work faith in the womb if he wishes. David trusted upon the Lord at his mothers breast. John the Baptist leaped in the presence of Christ. Only a mustard seed is required.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> As for infants having faith, God may work faith in the womb if he wishes. David trusted upon the Lord at his mothers breast. John the Baptist leaped in the presence of Christ. Only a mustard seed is required.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 14, 2005)

> I also know that infant salvation is a tremendous revelation of Gods grace.
> 
> I just do not think Scripture warrants a dogmatic understanding of that issue.



But you are being dogmatic to the point that you are _changing_ the truth that we know about justification to try to make it fit the case of infants, when you have no Scriptural warrant to do so.

You _are abandoning_ the truth of justification by faith if you make exceptions!

Either we are justified before we have faith or after, but it can't be both or we have 2 gospels to preach. And many have already demonmstrated that justification follows faith.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> Either we are justified before we have faith or after, but it can't be both or we have 2 gospels to preach. And many have already demonmstrated that justification follows faith.
> 
> Phillip



While I agree with the thrust of Phillip's post, I think it is more accurate to speak of the necessity of faith as _the sole instrument_ of justfication, rather than the _antecedent_ justifictaion. Not because faith can come _after_ justification, but because faith as the sole instrument implies BOTH an antecedent nature and an instrumental nature.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



I believe that Phillip meant that faith preceeds justification logically, not chronologically. Faith and Justification happen at the same time, but one must logically precede the other.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > I also know that infant salvation is a tremendous revelation of Gods grace.
> ...



I was only using infants as a possible example Phillip. I am also aware of the traditional understanding and the scriptures to support it. 

I have sat in the realm of eternal justification for some time now, but am being moved in another direction. I can only pray that the Holy Spirit leads me to the truth on the matter. And while I am moving that direction, I only can ask for Gods grace and Spirit. I am having an issue with these different times of justification as presented here in in our tradition. It smells like a romish understanding with a differnt color. 

Justification to me is a once and for all declaration. This securing, or waiting, or 3 fold justification, does not, In my humble opinion clearly identify this.


In His Grace

Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

Fred:

Thank you for your gracious responses in this thread. One question I have is how can the ungodly have faith? How can enemies of Christ have faith? WHen Scripture says He died for us while we were enemies, or He came to save sinners, THere is nothign that says, awakened or faithful sinners. Or repentant sinners. It clearly says enemies and just sinners. 

"When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly;" "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," according to "his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses 
and sins."

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, BEING NOW JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from wrath through him (Rom 5:8-9).

And, having MADE PEACE THROUGH THE BLOOD OF HIS CROSS, by him to RECONCILE all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now HATH HE RECONCILED in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight (Col 1:20-22).


Cannot reconciliation mean the same as justification? Done at the cross in the Atonement of Chrost for His sheep?


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 14, 2005)

Lamb, 

At this point I would like you to comment on the following verses (individually) and hear your interpretation of them:

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 

Galatians 3:11
But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."

Galatians 3:24
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature _children of wrath_, just as the others.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 14, 2005)

Fred and Jeff have clarified what I mean to be saying!

Thanks Fred. Thanks Jeff.

Phillip


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Maybe you would like to address the plethora of passages I've posted thus far. It's as if my posts aren't visible.




They are visible Joshua. I am aware of them in Scripture. I will do just that and then you all can do the same for me. That would be fair.


In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...




Jeff,
Not to nit pic, but if one precedes the other than they do not happen at the sqme time.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 14, 2005)

The instant you belive in Christ Jesus you are justified before God. 

Phillip


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I would contend with that statement. To quote A.W. Pink on the releationship between regeneration and faith (from the Sovereignty of God - Chapter on the Sovereignty of God in Salvation):



> "The entrance of Thy word giveth light" (Psa. 119:130), but before it can enter the darkened human heart the Spirit of God must operate upon it.*
> 
> * The priority contended for above is rather in order of nature than of time, just as the effect must ever be preceded by the cause. A blind man must have his eyes opened before he can see, and yet there is no interval of time between the one and the other. As soon as his eyes are opened, he sees. So a man must be born again before he can "see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Seeing the Son is necessary to believing in Him. Unbelief is attributed to spiritual blindness-those who believed not the "report" of the Gospel "saw no beauty" in Christ that they should desire Him. The work of the Spirit in "quickening" the one dead in sins, precedes faith in Christ, just as cause ever precedes effect. But no sooner is the heart turned toward Christ by the Spirit, than the Saviour is embraced by the sinner.



Or a quote from A.H Strong from his systematic theology:



> Under this head we treat of Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion, (embracing Repentance and Faith), and Justification. Much confusion and error have arisen from conceiving these as occurring in chronological order. The order is logical, not chronological. As it is only "in Christ" that man is "a new creature" (2 Cor. 5:17) or is "justified" (Acts 13:39), union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification; and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact, although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God turns him.



To say that faith happens before justification _chronologically_ is to say that there is a moment in time when a person possesses saving faith, but not justification. Saving faith carries justification with it, therefore they cannot be seperated by time.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2005)

Jeff,
The Golden Chain in Romans shows that there are segments to the ordo. Segments require time. Infants that are regenerated in the womb, whom God decrees to come to faith and live a normal aged life, will naturally have to sit under the hearing of the word to become converted. 

Pink is wrong. Was John regenerated in the womb? When was he converted?



[Edited on 3-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> To say that faith happens before justification _chronologically_ is to say that there is a moment in time when a person possesses saving faith, but not justification. Saving faith carries justification with it, therefore they cannot be seperated by time.



This appears to be in line with what I have contended for. Except I believe because we were His enelies when He died for us and sinners, we ned to be justified, made right with God, before He gives us the gift of faith.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> Pink is wrong. Was John regenerated in the womb? When was he converted?




Scott, Isnt is free to say this about those who have gone before us and lived and died studying these topics?


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

I agree He is more than able. But where is it shown that He does? Can anyone please show me where it is Scripturally explicit where it is said that an infant has saving faith and believes. GOd is more than able to save all Phillip, but does He? That is why if justification, being right with God prior to faith or believing makes more sense In my humble opinion.

[original post quoted herein was edited]

[Edited on 3-15-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > Pink is wrong. Was John regenerated in the womb? When was he converted?
> ...



Lamb,
From everything I have studied, what I believe is the orthodox view. Edwards believed it. Van Mastricht believed it. Calvin Believed it. Elect infants that die in infancy are regenerated, given faith and converted. Infants that are regenerated in the womb, i.e. John, Jeremiah, Samson, are later preached to, and converted under the preaching of Gods word.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> I agree He is more than able. But where is it shown that He does? Can anyone please show me where it is Scripturally explicit where it is said that an infant has saving faith and believes. GOd is more than able to save all Phillip, but does He? That is why if justification, being right with God prior to faith or believing makes more sense In my humble opinion.



Lamb,
Again I ask, do you believe that there are no _elect_ infants whom die in infancy?

[original quote posted herein was edited]



[Edited on 3-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...




Scott, everything I read says the same thing. Except some have errored in saying all infants are saved. And Calvin and others treaded on the error of those infants of elect parents are saved. 

But they are only concluding where scripture does not shed light.

I cannot find any evidence of an infant having saving faith or believing. If there is any out there I would enjoy reading it. IF there is any scripture pointing to an infant dying that believes please show me.

Anyway, I am trying hard to not have this digress into infant salvation dialogue.



In His Name


Joseph


----------



## pastorway (Mar 14, 2005)

Sorry Lamb, but your position is then that no infant who dies can be saved. Because to be saved we must have faith and you say an infant cannot have faith.

It is the same with your arguments about justification. You are contradicting what the Bible says about the order and necessity of things.

Faith is necessary for salvation. One cannot be saved without it. And as the Scriptures posted in this thread demonstrate, one cannot be justified before they have believed in Christ.

I am afraid that in your posts you are dismantling salvation bit by bit.

Phillip


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



Of course there are Scott. Perhaps a multitude we cannot number. 

I see where you are going with this. Now you will say well then they must believe and be converted. I say they do not. And why do I say that? Because Scripture is silent. So now what do I do with infants to remain consistant? They are saved exactly like we are, by the blood of Christ.


In His grace


Joseph


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2005)

> Scott, everything I read says the same thing. Except some have errored in saying all infants are saved. And Calvin and others treaded on the error of those infants of elect parents are saved.



Where did Calvin say this? I believe Calvin believed that _elect_ infants dying in infancy are saved. Can you cite your source? 



> But they are only concluding where scripture does not shed light.
> 
> I cannot find any evidence of an infant having saving faith or believing. If there is any out there I would enjoy reading it. IF there is any scripture pointing to an infant dying that believes please show me.
> 
> Anyway, I am trying hard to not have this digress into infant salvation dialogue.



Joe,
Can anyone be saved unless they believe? Unless they repent? Unless they accept, receive?

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeff,
> The Golden Chain in Romans shows that there are segments to the ordo. Segments require time. Infants that are regenerated in the womb, whom God decrees to come to faith and live a normal aged life, will naturally have to sit under the hearing of the word to become converted.
> 
> ...



The Ordo is the logical (and sometimes chronological) order of salvation. If you have ever studied infralapsarianism vs. supralapsariansim, you will understand that order doesn't always deal with time.

I believe that Pink was correct in this fact. I do affirm that infants can be regenerate in the womb (i.e. David and John the Baptist). However, I believe that many today do not give infants enough credit. Some dismiss the idea that they can have faith merely from their "observation." Does scripture support this idea? In my opinion, the regenerate infant may very well have the ability to believe the gospel and be saved. If you have some support for this claim, I would like to see it.

Thanks,


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2005)

> In my opinion, the regenerate infant may very well have the ability to believe the gospel and be saved. If you have some support for this claim, I would like to see it.
> 
> Thanks,



Jeff,
I agree. As I have asked Joe, can a man or infant be saved yet they believe?


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Sorry Lamb, but your position is then that no infant who dies can be saved. Because to be saved we must have faith and you say an infant cannot have faith.
> 
> It is the same with your arguments about justification. You are contradicting what the Bible says about the order and necessity of things.
> ...



Well then I am in good company because the same was said in regards to Gill, Philpot, Beebe, Brine, and others Pastor. My posts are in no way dismantling salvation. In fact, they elevate the grace of God and His Sovereignty in Salvation. Now if I stated as some Primitive Baptists so, that some elect will not come to faith in afdult hood and be saved, I would be in error. But I have in no way said anything heretical, or anything that has not been believed by many before me. What Order? Romans 8? I am in no way destroying that. Some here have added faith and repentance, which are not written there. I have not taken anything away , nor added anything.

Please do not accuse me of doing something that only disagrees with what you understand to be truth. I have been honest from the beginning about my search here on this issue. 

In reagrds to denying infants salvation, I have granted them Salvation according to God, not some "plan". All I have asked is where is it written that an infant who dies believes and has saving faith. Where is it written and not concluded. 

Boettner states this :

The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen.

Ronald hanko:

That infants are saved without their knowledge is self-evident. But this means that there is no other way to save an infant than by sovereign grace. He cannot respond to the Gospel, exercise saving faith, make any decision, or do any works, and must, then, be saved solely by the sovereign grace of God. Infant salvation, therefore, is a powerful demonstration of salvation by grace alone. 

What is more, the salvation of infants demonstrates what is true for everyone whom God saves. We must all become like little children if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, we must be saved in the same way that a little child is saved, without our having done anything in order to be saved. 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretinfaithofinfants.htm


Turretin speaks of the seed of faith which i agree with. But also adds this:

XI. The examples of Jeremiah and John the Baptist indeed teach that infants are capable of the Holy Spirit and that he is also given at this age, but it cannot be inferred that they actually believed. Jeremiah is indeed said to have been sanctified from the womb as a prophet of God, and John is said to have leaped in his mother's womb at the presence of Christ, but neither is said to have actually believed. Besides, even if any such thing were ascribed to them, the consequence would not hold good; for this would be singular and extraordinary from which a universal rule ought not to be drawn.
VII. When the apostle says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11:6), he speaks of adults, various examples of whom he in the same place commemorates and whom alone the proposed description of faith suits (Heb. 11:1). Now it is different with infants who please God on account of the satisfacÂ­tion of Christ bestowed upon them and imputed by God to obtain the remission of their sins, even if they themselves do not apprehend it and cannot apprehend it by a defect of age.


Third, they are not capable of hearing and meditating on the word from which faith is conceived: "for faith cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). 


Second, infants are not capable of acts of faith, or of knowledge because intellect does not exist without acÂ­tion; nor are they capable of assent, which ought to be carried to the object known; nor of trust, which is conÂ­cerned with the special application of the promise of grace. Therefore neither are they capable of faith, which consists of these three acts. Nay, it is most absurd (asystaton) that there should be a movement of the inÂ­tellect or of the will without knowledge (which is always supposed for them).

So you seem to be in agreement with Luther who I believed errored on this issue of infants actually possessing saving faith.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 14, 2005)

So an infant can be saved without or outside of faith?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 14, 2005)

Phillip - 




> So an infant can be saved without or outside of faith?



No they can't.

Lamb - you can't see the forest for the trees.

First, Exegetically you want to keep Paul in context in Romans, and then subsequently in the rest of the epistles that follow. Paul is very clear.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified *by faith* apart from the deeds of the law.

Romans 3:30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised *by faith* and the uncircumcised through faith.

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his *faith* is accounted for righteousness,

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his *faith* is accounted for righteousness,

Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been *justified by faith*, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

So when Paul says:

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He *justified*, these He also glorified.

-we know what he means when he says "justified" because he has already qualified this. Justification is by faith.

The legal and forensic work going on here by Christ and imputed to us and how all that works is a covenantal problem that needs to be understood. That is why this question and thread overall is here because of a misunderstanding of "covenant" in general and imputation overall.

Galatians is also the same following the same Greek constructions that Romans does:

Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not *justified* by the works of the law but *by faith* in Jesus Christ,

Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would *justify the Gentiles by faith*, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

Galatians 3:11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for *"the just shall live by faith."*

Also, I would be careful quoting Turretin out of context. Turretin does NOT agree with you, nor does Calvin, Luther, Charnock, Watson, Owen, Reynolds, the entire Westminster Assembly, the WCF, or a hundred other reliable sources that one could quote. To certain extents I will quote Gill, et al. as you did, but they are not as safe as one would like overall (which is why Gill himself is a hyper-Calvinist in his work "The Cause of God and Truth" - he doe snot get this right). I would also beware of quoting Hanko who knows little if nothing about Covenant Theology in general and is also a hyper-Calvinist in most ways. I have critiqued his exceedingly poor understanding of "covenant" in his work "Everlasting Covenant of Grace" which ought to be thrown intot eh fire and burned. Don't rely on him - he is not a safe guide.

Turretin ALSO says that infants have SEED Faith. But you missed that overall. Active faith and seed faith are different theological concepts. Don't be confused. Justification, according to Turretin, et. al. is something that is instrumentally gained by faith. Without faith no one is justified ever, including infants. I would go back and reread, or read for the first time, Turretin. You are not following him in context. he makes a number of differences between kinds of justification, and how they are used in Scripture - something the Puritans did as well as Owen. Even at a basic level Turretin states, "For, in Is. 53:11, where it is said Christ by his knowledge shall justify many; it is manifest that reference is made to the meritorious and instrumental cause of our absolution with God, namely, Christ, *and* the knowledge or belief of him." This is taken objectively " to which justification is everywhere ascribed. The following words show that *no other sense is to be sought*, when it is added, for he shall bear their iniquities, to denote the satisfaction of Christ, which *faith* ought to embrace, in order that we may be justified."

In infants (to which you referenced) Turretin states specifically "It is one thing to have the *principles and seeds* of knowledge in the common notions implanted in us (*which we grant*); another to have actual knowledge (which we deny)." This is the difference between actually exercising faith, and having faith as infants do. The "defect of age" as he says is what hinders them from exercising it. So make a distinction between "actual faith" which is of adults, and "seeds and principles" of faith which infants have. He says, "the seed or root of faith *cannot be denied to them*, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrucÂ­tion being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within." God then reckons them ,as He does with adults, justified based on faith. Whether one actively asserts it or not does not destroy the seed of it by which they can be actually justified.

Also, Turretin, et al. also makes a distinction between regeneration, faith and justification. They are not the same and do not work the same no matter how instantaneously one might think they appear in a given conversion experience. The Reformers and Puritans are quite bound together on this point over the hyper-Calvinism of those you have thus quoted under the guise of "exalting God more highly for His sovereignty."

Personally, I find the the misunderstanding here is a failure to understand the covenant of works and the doctrine of imputation (of all things). That might sound confusing, but its the reality behind the problem understanding all this. But that's for another time.

Here is the strange part to me:

You said, 



> "Turretin speaks of the seed of faith which i agree with."



Which is good. This is what Turretin does not want you to mis. Then you quote "He also says"....yada yada. Whcih means you missed what he said.


Then you said, 



> So you seem to be in agreement with Luther who I believed errored on this issue of infants actually possessing saving faith.



Actually, this is EXACTLY what Turretin just said! They DO possess it, but cannot actually, or actively, exercise it. That does no mean however, that it is not there, or is not the ground and instrument of God's acceptance of them forensically in justification.


[Edited on 3-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 14, 2005)

Matt!

MODERATOR NOTE: For the sake of space and readability, when there's a fairly long post, don't quote the entire thing just to commend it in one word. Indicate such with something like a ditto or by mentioning the person's name.

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 14, 2005)

Exactly Matt.

According to the Scriptures there is no salvation without faith, and no justification before faith. 

These ideas are outside the teaching of Scripture and undo the gospel. It is that simple.

Phillip


----------



## andreas (Mar 14, 2005)

Elect infants can be and are saved by God,

Ps. 139:13, 
Jer. 1:5, 
Lk. 1:15, 
Mk. 10:13-16. 

If they can be saved, THEN,they must be saved by "grace through faith",for there is no other way.Eph.2:8
andreas.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 14, 2005)




----------



## The Lamb (Mar 15, 2005)

http://www.sovereign-grace.com/937.htm


Here is somything by Crisp. I believe I may be trying to say what he is saying. But obviously I am not as clear


----------



## pastorway (Mar 15, 2005)

> I came to this assertion, that faith hath not such prevalency of plea to discharge from sin; nay, not so much as to be an instrument to unite a soul unto Christ. I desire, beloved, in this case, to be marked and heeded attentively and spiritually, ingenuously and candidly. The assertion I delivered was this, and the reason why I deliver it again, I will tell you by-and-by; *there is, I say, not such a thing as an uniting, cementing, or knitting power in faith, as that it doth, or should become the instrument to unite a soul unto Christ: for, before believing, a soul is united unto Christ, and it must be before it doth, or can believe*



If he is saying what you are saying then you are both wrong. You are confusing the ordo salutis and mixing up regeneration, conversion, justification, spirit baptism, adoption, etc.

We are not united to Christ until we are justified, for we cannot be united with Him while guilty. So before faith, we are guilty, and not united with Christ. That is why it is necessary for the Spirit to regenerate us and give us faith and repentance, so that we might turn from our sin to Christ in faith, and in so doing be united with Him and sealed with the Spirit.

Giving us this post to help clarify what you believe only serves to demonstrate for us just how badly you are mangling the ordo. What you have posted contradicts every Scripture given by others in response to your questions.

Phillip


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > I came to this assertion, that faith hath not such prevalency of plea to discharge from sin; nay, not so much as to be an instrument to unite a soul unto Christ. I desire, beloved, in this case, to be marked and heeded attentively and spiritually, ingenuously and candidly. The assertion I delivered was this, and the reason why I deliver it again, I will tell you by-and-by; *there is, I say, not such a thing as an uniting, cementing, or knitting power in faith, as that it doth, or should become the instrument to unite a soul unto Christ: for, before believing, a soul is united unto Christ, and it must be before it doth, or can believe*
> ...




So you disagree with Crisp also then? Well then Phillip with all due respect, I am ok with the fact of you disagreeing with me then. I agree with exactly what he says.

Until you address the fact that Christ died for us while we hated Him. ANd how one who is ungodly and a hater of God can have faith, we probably will never agree. He initiated the reconciliation. Then this union with Christ can and only then produce faith. You make the ordo in cement when that was not Pauls intention.

But I thank you for responding in Grace.




In His Grace

Joseph


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 15, 2005)

Joseph, with all due respect, I dealt with that argument earlier. Christ was our surety. That doesn't mean we were united to him. You must exist to be united to something. He garantees to the Father to pay the debt of the believer and when he is brought to faith in his effectual calling, then he is justified personally.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 15, 2005)

Joe,
The ordo is 'cemented'. God cemented it in his word, you will have to argue with Him, not Phillip.

Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." 

Your view is historically unorthodox.

Make your closing remarks as I am closing this thread tonight.

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 15, 2005)

Joseph, I think you also must understand where the scriptures place our union with Christ. This takes place through the baptism of the Spirit. It is the work of the Spirit through our effectual calling which works faith in us and therby unites us to Christ, and thereby we partake of those benefits which He obtained for us on the cross. 

Romans 6
2Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1 Cor. 12
13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 

Gal 3
26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2005)

Joseph,

With respect, you have completely missed the Apostle Paul's connection of faith and justification

The apostle Paul very clearly says that God justifies the ungodly, and that the instrument of their justification is faith:



> Romans 4:1-8 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and *it was accounted to him for righteousness*."



Notice that righteousness comes from/through faith, not before. Abraham's faith was accounted/reckoned/imputed to him as righteousness - because it is the conduit through which the righteousness of Christ comes.




> 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work *but believes on Him* who *justifies the ungodly*, his *faith is accounted for righteousness*



Again here we have Paul saying that God justifies the ungodly. And how are the ungodly justified? By believing (having faith - pisteu,onti)on Him. That faith is reckoned or imputed as righteousness. Now how can one have something that is not possessed or imputed to him already? Why would Paul not have said, according to your scheme: "but to the one who has faith, who has already been justified and reckoned righteous" ?



> 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God *imputes righteousness apart from works*: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."



The phrase "imputes righteousness apart from works" is clearly synonymous with "imputes righteousness in accordance with faith." That is parallel to Paul's statement in Romans 4:4-5. It is also the sum of his statement in Galatians 2:16



> knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but *by faith* (dia. pi,stewj) in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be *justified by faith in Christ* and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.



The language here is clearly instrumental. Faith is not a _result_ of justification (as you would have it) but a means ("by" or "through") of justification. The Greek prepositions are clear.

So Calvin:


> 5. But believes on him, etc. This is a very important sentence, in which he expresses the substance and nature both of faith and of righteousness. He indeed clearly shews that *faith brings us righteousness, not because it is a meritorious act, but because it obtains for us the favor of God*. 1 Nor does he declare only that God is the giver of righteousness, but he also arraigns us of unrighteousness, in order that the bounty of God may come to aid our necessity: in short, no one will seek the righteousness of faith except he who feels that he is ungodly; for this sentence is to be applied to what is said in this passage, -- *that faith adorns us with the righteousness of another, which it seeks as a gift from God*. And here again, God is said to justify us when he freely forgives sinners, and favors those, with whom he might justly be angry, with his love, that is, when his mercy obliterates our unrighteousness.



Frankly, it does not surprise me that you have found a hyper-Calvinist (yes, Crisp is one) who wants faith to be the result of righteousness. It allows him to seek for a work preparatory to faith.

Instead of simply repeating over and over again how you do not think a man can have faith before he is justified, please show a Scripture that says men are justified BEFORE they have faith. I have show you two clear texts (and could find more) that show faith as the instrumental cause (to use an Aristotlean term) of justification. This is the Biblical position, it was Augustine's, it was Luther's, it was Calvin's, it was that of the Reformers. To be honest, it is even the opinion of Arminians. It is your position that is closer to Rome's, for she posits that faith comes from a iudicia proprie (one's own righteousness) that is the gift of God. In all honesty, you are rejecting the foundation of the Reformation, for that was the great cry of Luther and the Reformers (along with Paul), that God justfies the ungodly by faith alone.

[Edited on 3/16/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 15, 2005)

I previously said:

"Also, you state that since it is not clearly drawn out in scripture, you are having a hard time assimilating the doctrine in regard to the elect infant. However, in the same light, there has been ample support presented in this thread to rightfully prove that justification does not precede faith and yet you still are undecided. It seems as if it really does not matter if scripture is presented or not presented at this point."


----------



## pastorway (Mar 16, 2005)

Yep. I am sorry, but it has become cobvious that The Lamb is not here to question and learn but to put forth hypercalvinistic doctrine hoping to make inroads in the Reformed Community. It won't work. I made the point early on in the discussion about the tendency of those who hold to eternal justification being (at at least leaning toward) hypercalvinism and the more we see written to try and prove eternal justification the more we see how this is so true!

We are not united with Christ until we are baptised by the Spirit, and that happens logically and Scripturally AFTER we are declared right with God (justified). We are not adopted, sealed, or baptised by the Spirit until after we have exercised faith. 

To believe otherwise is to confuse the ordo salutis and remove all responsibility from the sinner of repenting and believing - thus it undermines the very gospel itself.

Phillip


----------

