# Justification from Eternity



## JM (Jul 3, 2006)

When I asked about this topic on another Reformed forum, the question was posed, "If God hates the wicked, how can He also love everyone at the same time?"

This is a new topic for me, it's an aspect of Reformed Baptist theology that I've never studied before and thought I'd bring it up.

Quote: *"...how is it that God can love men? He HATES the wicked. Yet He loves the Righteous. Well what about those saints before the cross of Christ? How was God able to demonstrate His love for them if they had not already been justified. The answer is He could not unless of course He already saw them as justified in Christ (righteous) from before the foundation of the world. God loves all of His people because He's always viewed them in Christ (timely speaking)."*

Well, what do you think? Is there much on the net about this topic?

Peace and thank you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2006)

Jason,
You need to qualify your terminology. Justification is an act of God, that takes place in history, for every one of God's elect. It is, if you will, a "moment of salvation" for each one of them, when God "passes judgment on them." So-called "eternal justification" is a misnomer, and has proved to be a problematic concept when applied.

And it is not necessary to use it. God loved his elect who lived before Christ's historical death, on the basis of what he intended to accomplish for them, not because he had already justified each and every one of them already. This is also true for his elect who live after the cross. We are not (probably most of us) born into the world justified--with due allowance for those who are "called" from their mother's womb. But even those persons are justified in time and history, not before they exist.

God loves his people not because they are justified, or sanctifed, or anything else. He loves them because "he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy." He loves them for no reason outside himself and his internal counsels. He has loved them from before the foundation of the world.

So, was he ever wrathful towrd his elect, prior to their salvation? Yes, because by nature we are all children of wrath. His wrath is oriented toward all sinners, and their direction is toward hell. And then some hearts are changed, and they turn away from sin. They begin to love the Lord their God. And feel the love of God toward them. So who changed? Did God change? Did he suddenly start loving these elect people? No, the individuals changed (or rather were changed).

The change in God's aspect toward the elect, upon their conversion, is based upon the regeneration of their heart. See, his wrath toward sin (and sinners) is always the same, permanent reaction the holy God has toward sin. The difference in the elect is that wrath is not a permanent judicial sentence and everlasting attitude against them. Even when they sin after conversion, the wrath against their sin is unchanged from before, but they are aware that this is a "Fatherly displeasure," and discipline, not a product of his implacable hostility to the wicked. They are restored and brought back to a place where they feel the Father's love once again.

When this has never happened before (prior to their conversion) they have no _experience_ as of yet of that saving, merciful love. They are in the same *starting condition* as that of the wicked non-elect who never leave it. Having no electing or covenant-love promised to them in Christ, they show that they are not loved in the way the elect are loved.

[Edited on 7-3-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 3, 2006)

to Pastor Bruce. I have studied this topic a bit, and am willing to say that eternal justification (such as that of John Gill et. al.) damages, if not destroys altogether sola fide in the reformed sense of the term. According to the doctrine of "eternal justification", faith is no longer the instrument God uses to justify a person, but merely for a person to _realize_ their justification from eternity. This is not the reformed position. The bible speaks clearly of an actual justification by free grace, but BY FAITH. 

The Westminster Confession addresses this very idea:

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI
Of Justification
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.  [13]

11. Rom. 8:29, 30; Gal. 3:8; I Peter 1:2, 19-20
12. Gal. 4:4; I Tim. 2:6; Rom. 4:25
13. Eph. 2:3; Titus 3:3-7; Gal. 2:16; cf. Col. 1:21-22


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> *Well what about those saints before the cross of Christ? How was God able to demonstrate His love for them if they had not already been justified. The answer is He could not unless of course He already saw them as justified in Christ (righteous) from before the foundation of the world."*



In addition to what Bruce explained about the matter eternal justification as it relates to the issue of God's _love_ for His elect in general, the question above seems to indicate confusion on the relationship between those saints who lived prior to Christ's temporal coming and those who lived after it. If eternal justification would have been necessary to demonstrate God's love for Old Testament believers, then it would have been equally necessary for New Testament believers; but as it is not in fact necessary for New Testament believers, it is likewise no more necessary for Old Testament believers. For, as biblically demonstrated by Abraham, Old Testament believers were saved in the same gracious way as New Testament believers, and exercised faith in the same Messiah.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> According to the doctrine of "eternal justification", faith is no longer the instrument God uses to justify a person, but merely for a person to _realize_ their justification from eternity. This is not the reformed position.



Indeed - and furthermore, your noted point here illustrates that under the eternal justification scheme, faith and works would actually possess and play a largely identical nature and role, respectively; for, since we believe that works themselves do in fact serve to further aid a person to _realize_ their already-accomplished justification (WCF XVI.2; XVIII), holding the doctrine of eternal justification would force one to logically limit faith to that same purpose, thereby giving it an essentially identical function as works.


----------



## VanVos (Jul 3, 2006)

I agree whole heartily that eternal justification is totally erroneous, but as to the elect being *under* God wrath prior to justification I'm not biblical sure of as yet. If the elect have their sins expiated in Christ, how can they be said to *under* the wrath of God? Yes all the elect sins deserve just punishment, but God from eternity pass has decreed for that wrath to be satisfied in a substitute. Prior to salvation, like eph 2:3 says, we are all by nature children of wrath, but this is from our perspective. In other words, our sinful behavior warranted wrath, we were by nature suitable for eternal punishment. May be I'm splitting hairs, but this could cast a shadow upon God's immutability. Thoughts??

VanVos

[Edited on 7-3-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2006)

Johnathan,
What are we saved from? The wrath to come. The wages of sin? Death. I already referenced the vital text, Eph. 2:2-3. I don't think that one can simply say with that verse "that's just our perspective on the issue." And later in the same chapter: Eph. 2:12 "remember that *you were* at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and *without God* in the world." Our divine relation is in one state or the other. The wonder of salvation and the love of God is that we were loved despite our evil natures.

Simply put, we were subject to judgment until such time as we were translated, Col. 1:13 "He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son."

Until we are historically entered into the covenant of grace, we are still under the covenant of works, condemned in Adam. Gal 3:10 "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.'"


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 3, 2006)

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 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, 3 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. (Eph 2:1-3)

It doesn't get any clearer than that.


----------



## VanVos (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Johnathan,
> What are we saved from? The wrath to come. The wages of sin? Death. I already referenced the vital text, Eph. 2:2-3. I don't think that one can simply say with that verse "that's just our perspective on the issue." And later in the same chapter: Eph. 2:12 "remember that *you were* at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and *without God* in the world." Our divine relation is in one state or the other. The wonder of salvation and the love of God is that we were loved despite our evil natures.
> 
> ...



I do not disagree with any of the above, that´s why I carefully qualified what I was saying. Is it good for us, when systematizing our theology, to speak of the elect as *under* the wrath of God prior to justification, do the elect of God in space and time have the wrath God abiding upon them? There is a difference between experiencing the effects of sin and God's judicial position towards someone. Remember cursed is He who hangs upon a tree. I hope I'm not irritating anyone with this but I do think there's room for discussion here.



[Edited on 7-3-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## JM (Jul 3, 2006)

I'm in deep water... 

Joh 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." 

So, until we believe we are under wrath and God hates us?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 3, 2006)

God hates us in Adam, but loves us in Christ.
Ponder that based on God's immutability for a while.

Two non-contradictory senses are in play.

Christ's work, though, covers the judgment that would have enslaved us to hell for all eternity.

The Reformers/Puritans called it virtual justification (from eternity) and actual justification (acutally in time).

If you own the works of Thomas goodwin, he has some really good things to say on it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2006)

I'm not irritated (I don't think Fred is either). I think we're just content with a face-value reading of Eph. 2:3, and so we're disagreeing with what you seemed to say, and saying: no, even the elect first pass under the sentence of death (Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn 3:14), before being redeemed. If death reigns over us at any point, It seems that defintionally we are "under his wrath and curse" (as the WSC 19 puts it).

Granted, you say you are agreeing with the substance of what I've laid down in my posts so far, so it seems that you are just uncomfortable/unsure about the terminology "under," is that it? Rather than introduce another category of "lost" people, or try to conceptualize a difference in "attitude" from God toward elect-unsaved as opposed to nonelect, I think we're better off just saying: until salvation all men are in the same stew.


----------



## JM (Jul 3, 2006)

> The Reformers/Puritans called it virtual justification (from eternity) and actual justification (acutally in time).



Is it a matter of how we understand time? If God is outside of time or not affected by time, then the actual justification doesn't really matter...  sorry for being so dense...it's an interesting topic and I would have used the same words quoted to describe justification.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 3, 2006)

For what it's worth, a Calvinistic Baptist pastor I know once said that "eternal justification" is the often the root of three errors:

1. Hyper-Calvinism
2. Antinomianism
3. Failure to evangelize (not sure if this is exactly the third one he mentioned, but he definitely said the first two and this one would seem to follow)


----------



## VanVos (Jul 3, 2006)

Thanks for your comments Matthew. I'll be sure to check out the works of Thomas Goodwin for further insight.

Bruce, good comments also. I agree that all that are born in Adam receive the curse of Adam in this life. Maybe Thomas Goodwin work might help alleviate the tension between the two positions.

VanVos


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2006)

Jason,
Note the distinct terms "virtual" and "actual". In eternity past, God "justifies" the Son, in that, covenantaly God undertakes to do the work of redemption. This is before the world, the creation, sin, the fall, anything. This promise and intention of God is in no way contingent or less sure than if it had already taken place, for none can divert the divine will. But this "preliminary" action is of one whole piece with the whole work of redemption. And in the resurrection, Christ is justified in History, the revelation of his triumph.

And in him (Christ), we are elected in love, even in eternity past. However, there is (as Goodwin puts it) something "inchoate" about this benefit for us as individuals, though it be real. "They are in this respect justified from all eternity." There is something "virtual" about it, due to our election "in him" before the world began. But you can't even begin to speak about this sort of "virtual" justification without comprehending the Trinitarian relation, and the Father's declaration of the Son, and then recognizing that those who are elect in him have the inceptive work of promise accorded their name (or identity).

However, this isn't "actual" justification. Both in terms of eternity past, and in connection with the resurrection of Christ, the justification accorded to us is prospective or promisorry. To quote Goodwin again, "But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God; and though they concern us, and are _toward us,_ yet are not acts of God _upon us,_ they being performed towards us, not as actually existing in ourselves, but only as existing in our Head, who covenanted for us, and represented us."

Do you see what he's saying?


----------



## JM (Jul 3, 2006)

Yes I understand Rev. Buchanan, thank you. I'm going to sleep on it and re-read it tomorrow.



> For what it's worth, a Calvinistic Baptist pastor I know once said that "eternal justification" is the often the root of three errors:
> 
> 1. Hyper-Calvinism
> 2. Antinomianism
> 3. Failure to evangelize (not sure if this is exactly the third one he mentioned, but he definitely said the first two and this one would seem to follow)



I've heard the above three reasons given for plain ol' 5 point Calvinism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 3, 2006)

Just for the sake of lightening things up... Haven't you all been in a relationship where you hated someone and loved them at the same time? That is how messed up I can be.


----------



## JM (Jul 3, 2006)

John Nelson Darby wrote: "The truth is, Christ is said to love the church, never the world. That is a love of special relationship. God is never said to love the church, but the world. This is divine goodness, what is in the nature of God (not His purpose), and His glory is the real end of all. But I do not dwell on this, only pointing out the confusion of propitiation and substitution as necessarily making confusion in the gospel, enfeebling the address to the world, or weakening the security of the believer, and in every respect giving uncertainty to the announcement of the truth. I believe earnestness after souls, and preaching Christ with love to Him, will be blessed where there is little clearness, and is more important than great exactitude of statement. Still it is a comfort to the preacher to have it clear, even if not thinking about it at the moment; and, when building up afterwards, the solidness of the foundation is of the greatest moment."

sorry, my background is dispensationalism. :bigsmile:


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 3, 2006)

About God's love for the world -- I would understand His creative love to be distinct from His special redeeming love? For instance that His love for the world is more related to His work and His relationship as the Creator (His tender mercies are over all His works), and to all men as not only the works of His hands but in common grace, still retaining an imprint of His image? So that He desires not the death of the wicked, as their Maker. & We are to love the sinner as well, being ourselves in God's image: Christ, the true human, loved sinners: he wept over their judgment. I would also understand the love for the world to be in the sense of God loving His creation too much to allow it to be destroyed. He is going to recreate all things: in this sense too, His love extends to 'the world'?

As far as justification/time and eternity -- I was wondering if a view of eternal justification could/has led to legalism as well as antinomianism, given Chris's point about faith and works as a 'realization' above?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Just for the sake of lightening things up... Haven't you all been in a relationship where you hated someone and loved them at the same time? That is how messed up I can be.



Indeed, brother.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> Yes I understand Rev. Buchanan, thank you. I'm going to sleep on it and re-read it tomorrow.
> 
> 
> ...



True. But I'd think it's more prevalent with those holding such views.


----------



## MW (Jul 3, 2006)

Speaking of taking texts at face value, Eph. 1:6 is important for this discussion. Assuming the apostle is still speaking about before the foundation of the world, this text provides a solid basis for "virtual" justification from eternity.

If I remember correctly, Thomas Goodwin provides a threefold distinction here. 1. By stipulation from eternity. 2. By representation in Christ's work. 3. Personally upon believing.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 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, 3 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. (Eph 2:1-3)
> 
> It doesn't get any clearer than that.



Crystal! 

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> As far as justification/time and eternity -- I was wondering if a view of eternal justification could/has led to legalism as well as antinomianism, given Chris's point about faith and works as a 'realization' above?



It could. That 's why we need to understand a couple of points of background before diving into justification so specifically defined.

In other words, if we don't understand how "we" exist to God, then dealing with virtual and actual as terms will be confusing.

We exist as a thought in God's mind. How, then, does progression/immutability or time/eternity differe for the manner in which He experiences being and how we do?

This applies heavily.

On the other hand, Paul simply wants us to understand in Romans that justification happened at a CERTAIN TIME. We were not justified, and then, by grace through faith, we are then justified. It is impossible, without simply throwing out the text in both Romans and Galatians, to avoid his point. Its an issue of redemption, not God's immutability, or eternality in those passages.


----------



## P.F. (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> I'm in deep water...
> 
> Joh 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
> ...



I prefer to think of God's wrath as his revealed displeasure.
Prior to Justification => Only God's displeasure is revealed against us, on account of our sins - we are children of wrath, under wrath, and wrath is abiding on us
Post Justification, but prior to Glorification => God's displeasure with and love of us is revealed in the instrumentality of discipline - like Moses, God may be wroth with us from time to time, but he loves us and chastises us.
Post Glorification => Only God's love is revealed toward us


----------



## JM (Jul 8, 2006)

Just to add...



> The main objective amongst some calvinists (not the banner of truth / evangelical calvinists) is this vital doctrine eliminates the need for the cross of Christ. But that is absolutely untrue because God justifies His people from eternity with a VIEW to the cross of Christ as if it has already happened. Remember that eternity is not an extension of time, but that it is all encompassing. Many people who object to Justification from Eternity have a faulty understanding of time and eternity, and therefore they are unable to comprehend this doctrine. Please before you begin to try and understand this doctrine, go and study the scriptures that teach about eternity and God's omniscience and omnipresence.





> Christ is said to be the lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). Now do I believe that Christ was "œphysically" slain in eternity? Absolutely not. Christ, the physical man was crucified in time on the cross. He was slain in time. That is how we see and understand things "“ in time. But Oh what sweet joy it brings to my soul to know that from all eternity the Father looked upon Christ as slain for the justification of His people! The Lord has always constituted His people as righteous in Christ from all eternity. His people were never constituted as wicked sinners as Christ was their mediator from before the foundations of the world.
> 
> God´s people have been given all spiritual blessings in Christ from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:3-4). One of these spiritual blessings is the imputed righteousness of Christ. There was never a moment in God´s mind that the elect were hated and despised. He has always viewed them as being in Christ.


http://gospelmissionbooks.com/product_reviews_info.php?products_id=3388&reviews_id=2


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 9, 2006)

Jason,

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Brandon Kraft or not, but he is a well known hyper-calvinist in the internet world. He goes off the deep end in trying to defend God's sovereignty, but without warrant. There is a balance that is needed, that does not comprimise God's love from eternity, but also does not comprimise justification by faith in time. This is how we should look at the two....one (God's love from eternity) existing in the decree of God...and the other (justification by faith in time) existing in providence. The same works for "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." He was "virtually" slain from all eternity and "actually" slain in time. The two are not contradictory, but co-exist.


----------



## MW (Jul 9, 2006)

Here is a thought worth pursuing if you are inclined towards actual eternal justification: was Christ justified from eternity? If so, and if the eternal justification proponent believes that the work of Christ is somehow involved in the process, then how? How could Christ have been justified at the point he was bearing the sins of the elect and bearing the wrath of God for them?


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2006)

Pastor Winzer makes an excellent point. 

Although held by a few notables, eternal justification has always been a minority position.


----------



## srhoades (Jul 9, 2006)

I just finished a chapter in John Gerstner's <i>Theology in Dialogue</i> in which he addresses this issue. He makes the distinction that it is undeserved love - hence mercy and therefore not contradictory of God's hateful wrath. If it was meritorious love, ie the person exhibited something that deserved God's love, then it would be inconsistent with his divine wrath. God can choose to love someone that deserves his wrath but He can not owe love to someone that deserves his wrath.

Prior to regeneration, God loves because he chooses to, an after regeneration he loves because he see's the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer. 

I always understand these things in my head better than I can convey them in writing so I hope that make sense.

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by srhoades]


----------



## JM (Jul 10, 2006)

Does God not view all time from eternity? Our unregenerate state and our imputed righteousness of Christ, are they not seen as one by God or is God affected by time?

For the record: I'm not trying to promote this doctrine, I just find it interesting and wanted to bounce a few ideas around and see what kind of answers I would be given. Thanks for the give and take.

It has been suggested by someone who believers in Justification from Eternity that I pick up a copy of Thomas Goodwin's Act and Object of Justifying Faith. Was Goodwin into J from E?

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Hard Knox]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 10, 2006)

Justification from eternity, though well intentioned, errs by conflating the decree with its administration.

The decree is essential to the administration of the ordo salutis (the logical order of salvation) but it is not the the same thing. 

Scripture seems to be quite clear about the importance of HISTORY and TIME in the administration of salvation, hence the gospel call is not "wake up and realize that you are already justified from eternity" but "repent and believe and you shall be justified."

The former is essentially the Barthian message which, ironically because they have complained for decades that the orthodox did it, conflates the decree with its administration.

rsc


----------



## Peter (Jul 10, 2006)

I remember the question was touched upon at this thread http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=18927


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Justification from eternity, though well intentioned, errs by conflating the decree with its administration.
> 
> The decree is essential to the administration of the ordo salutis (the logical order of salvation) but it is not the the same thing.
> ...



This hits the nail on the head.


----------



## JM (Jul 23, 2006)

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/akjust2.htm

I believe Abraham Kuyper said it better.


----------



## MW (Jul 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JM_
> It has been suggested by someone who believers in Justification from Eternity that I pick up a copy of Thomas Goodwin's Act and Object of Justifying Faith. Was Goodwin into J from E?



For Goodwin justification is an individual act involving three steps of union with Christ: stipulation from eternity, representation in the saving work of Christ, and personal appropriation upon believing. Works 8:134-139. Not until one believes in Christ is a person actually justified.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 23, 2006)

Confusing the decree with its administration, that´s very helpful. Does this also play out in how the pastor gives Christ or the Gospel in preaching? Because I´ve run into this on two extremes that ironically seem similar. On the Arminian side they always think the Gospel is simply an offer awaiting the will of man to act upon. This at length tortures true Christians and feeds false saints. But then again on the extreme hyper Calvinistic side there is this unspoken fear that one cannot really just GIVE Christ but still has to kind of wait for something, some kind of "œsign" or fruit so to speak before the gift is given. The result is the same times 100. Is not the administration, from our finite position, just that, both an offer and a giving or application of the Gospel itself, not a carrot on a stick never to be obtained? Are we not called to give Christ (this presumes a correct preaching of a killing law first) without condition? This is the irony of arminians and hyper-Calvinist, both seem to NEVER give Christ, it is the one common ground they seem to hold.

Narrative example: A Gospel preacher is found pouring into the mouth of a dead body the Gospel which is the power unto salvation, life. An Arminian preacher comes by and says, "œWhy are you being so foolish? You need to dangle that Gospel in front of but at a distance from that dead body so if it wills it may respond and take it so as to have life. Why do you pour it vainly into its mouth?" The Gospel preacher responds, "œBecause God says that this is the power unto life and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ. The law can never give what it demands. That´s all I know I am to do and the rest is up to God hidden to me." Later along comes a hyper-Calvinist who says, "œWhy are you being so foolish? You can´t give that Gospel comfort to a man until he shows signs of life whereby he has been secretly elected. Why are you risking him being so deceived?" The Gospel preacher responds, "œBecause God says that this is the power unto life and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ. The law can never give what it demands. That´s all I know I am to do and the rest is up to God hidden to me." 

The Gospel seems to be both a free offer and application of that offer, not just an offer awaiting the will of man and not just a thing given once sufficient fruit is proved. If the dead remain dead I´ve done all I can do.

Ldh


----------



## MW (Jul 23, 2006)

> This is the irony of arminians and hyper-Calvinist, both seem to NEVER give Christ, it is the one common ground they seem to hold.



Good point. Both hold to the fallacy that command implies ability. The Arminian takes it positively and concludes sinners have an ability to believe in Christ. The hyper-Calvinist takes it negatively and denies faith is a duty.


----------



## JM (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > This is the irony of arminians and hyper-Calvinist, both seem to NEVER give Christ, it is the one common ground they seem to hold.
> ...



The ability is found in the regenerated person to respond, "...for this is the work of God that you believe on me whom He sent."

 AMEN


----------



## JM (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Confusing the decree with its administration, that´s very helpful. Does this also play out in how the pastor gives Christ or the Gospel in preaching? Because I´ve run into this on two extremes that ironically seem similar. On the Arminian side they always think the Gospel is simply an offer awaiting the will of man to act upon. This at length tortures true Christians and feeds false saints. But then again on the extreme hyper Calvinistic side there is this unspoken fear that one cannot really just GIVE Christ but still has to kind of wait for something, some kind of "œsign" or fruit so to speak before the gift is given. The result is the same times 100. Is not the administration, from our finite position, just that, both an offer and a giving or application of the Gospel itself, not a carrot on a stick never to be obtained? Are we not called to give Christ (this presumes a correct preaching of a killing law first) without condition? This is the irony of arminians and hyper-Calvinist, both seem to NEVER give Christ, it is the one common ground they seem to hold.
> 
> Narrative example: A Gospel preacher is found pouring into the mouth of a dead body the Gospel which is the power unto salvation, life. An Arminian preacher comes by and says, "œWhy are you being so foolish? You need to dangle that Gospel in front of but at a distance from that dead body so if it wills it may respond and take it so as to have life. Why do you pour it vainly into its mouth?" The Gospel preacher responds, "œBecause God says that this is the power unto life and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ. The law can never give what it demands. That´s all I know I am to do and the rest is up to God hidden to me." Later along comes a hyper-Calvinist who says, "œWhy are you being so foolish? You can´t give that Gospel comfort to a man until he shows signs of life whereby he has been secretly elected. Why are you risking him being so deceived?" The Gospel preacher responds, "œBecause God says that this is the power unto life and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ. The law can never give what it demands. That´s all I know I am to do and the rest is up to God hidden to me."
> ...



Nice illustration, and like all illustration, they don´t prove your case but illustration what you´re trying to convey. 

I agree with you, the hyper-Calvinist is in error, I´m not a hyper-Calvinist, I believe the Gospel needs to be preached to all and do so, going door to door and cold stopping people in the street to invite them out to church. How can a person show fruit if he´s never heard the Gospel? They can't as you pointed out, and to quote Kuyper, "œThere is undoubtedly a moment in our life when for the first time justification is published to our consciousness; but let us be careful to distinguish justification itself from its publication. Our Christian name was selected for and applied to us long before we, with clear consciousness, knew it as our name; and although there was a moment in which it became a living reality to us and was called out for the first time in the ear of our consciousness, yet no man will be so foolish as to imagine that it was then that he actually received that name." 

Is this not the root of covenantal thinking?

"And so it is here. There is a certain moment wherein that justification becomes to our consciousness a living fact; but in order to become a living fact, it must have existed before. It does not spring from our consciousness, but it is mirrored in it, and hence must have being and stature in itself. Even an elect infant which dies in the cradle is declared just, though the knowledge or consciousness of its justification never penetrated its soul. And elect persons, converted, like the thief on the cross, with their last breath, can scarcely be sensible of their justification, and yet enter eternal life exclusively on the ground of their justification. Taking an analogy from daily life, a man condemned during his absence in foreign lands was granted pardon through the intercession of his friends, wholly without his knowledge. Does this pardon take effect when long afterward the good news reaches him, or when the king signs his pardon? Of course the latter. Even so does the justification of God's children take effect, not on the day when for the first time it is published to their consciousness, but at the moment that God in His holy judgment-seat declares them just.

But-and this should not be overlooked-this publishing in the consciousness of the person himself must necessarily follow, and this brings us back again to the special work of the Holy Spirit. For if in God's judiciary it is more particularly the Father who justifies the ungodly, and in the preparing of salvation more particularly"

If anything, those who deny that our justification exists in time, when we consciously make the choice, has more in common with the Arminian who will agree on the consciousness of that choice.

Peace,

jm
PS: I'm not a hyper-Calvinist!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 24, 2006)

Jason,

The point is is that what is offered in the Gospel is also to be given. That's all your called to do. You do not dangle the carrot as an arminian, nor stand aloof like a hyper-Calvinist thinking, "I wonder if he's regenerate, let me rake over his fruit". If you want conversion Christ must simply be given and if you want fruit again Christ must simply be given, thus it is the power, that is the Gospel as Paul says. The arminian makes a man rest in his own decission for assurance and the hyper-Calvinist makes him rest in "fruits" as locally defined usually. Both are scared to death to just give Christ, simply give Him and preach Him. When I came from rank atheism I NEVER, in my green early days, EVER thought the last place I'd hear again of Christ was His own church. But many many many churches later I've found, until now, that to be the case. I heard of Christ MORE when I was an unbeliever than I did post conversion in churches that ranged from rank arminian baptist churches to "calvinistic" churches of the same cut.

When one raise "regeneration" so high that Christ is lost, regeneration itself is lost. Paul did not say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of regeneration, but of Christ. Rebirth, the secret work of the Holy Spirit, is not the work of man to do. Man is to give Christ and the Holy Spirit works where HE wills, not you and not me.

In one sense it sickens me that so many fools play loose with souls of men, they will, being teachers, one day answer for their folly. In another sense it simply makes me sad for the same.

The suffering of death will, however, clear up everyone's doctrine sooner or later.

Ldh

[Edited on 7-25-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## JM (Jul 25, 2006)

> When one raise "regeneration" so high that Christ is lost, regeneration itself is lost.



Now this I understand.  I need to re-think things through.


----------



## Magma2 (Jul 25, 2006)

> The Gospel seems to be both a free offer and application of that offer, not just an offer awaiting the will of man and not just a thing given once sufficient fruit is proved. If the dead remain dead I´ve done all I can do.
> 
> Ldh
> 
> ...




Abraham Kuyper the antinomian hyper-calvinist. 

I really appreciated Kuyper on this point and it's been a long time since I've read that piece. However, unless I'm missing something, has the original question; "how can [God] also love everyone at the same time?" been answered?

For what it's worth I strongly recommend Rev. Winzer piece; "Murray on the Free Offer: A Review" at http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Murray-Free-Offer-Review.htm since it certainly touches on this question.

I'm pretty sure Rev. Winzer isn't a hyper-calvinist either, but I'm sure he has been smeared as such -- and probably worse -- because of this piece. One of the best critiques of Murray/Stonehouse I've ever read. 

:bigsmile:


----------



## MW (Jul 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I'm pretty sure Rev. Winzer isn't a hyper-calvinist either, but I'm sure he has been smeared as such -- and probably worse -- because of this piece. One of the best critiques of Murray/Stonehouse I've ever read.



Regrettably, that is the case. Within the body of that work I fully affirm a free offer of the gospel, while at the same time I assert what is the main contention of the review, namely, that God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception:

"There are a multitude of deliverances given in the Scriptures with regard to this subject. Commissions to preach the gospel to all without exception as well as commandments to believe on the name of Jesus Christ and to repent. There are promises to the effect that whosoever will may come, that he who thirsts may drink of the water of life freely, that they who are weary and heavy laden are invited to come to Christ that He might give them rest. We even have examples of the preaching both of the Lord Himself and of His apostles. Surely, if there were such a desire in God with regard to the salvation of all men without exception, that desire would be expressed in those places which have more particularly to do with the gospel offer! Such a desire, however, is not so much as insinuated by those places."


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 25, 2006)

You know, we have to be honest here, in one sense we are all arminian and hyper-Calvinist, we still have the flesh, it is the religion of the flesh and we are simultaneously just and sinner. So, in that sense, the most honest response of even myself is that I too harber these thoughts, it wasn't just John Wesley or John Gill.



> "œthat God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception"


, that destroys more faith than 10,000 atheist could ever dream of. That´s not the communication of the Gospel but the reality unknown in eternity. You cannot in one breath say, "œThe Good News is Christ has died for your sins and given you His righteousness, and by the way God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception." Why? Because every believer is at the end of the day an individual conscience, and the believer´s faith will be killed because it is the believer that will say, so terrorized by the Law, "œthat must be me perhaps I should hang myself or eat a bullet". As a pastor you need to learn how distinguish Law and Gospel better than that and recognize the terrorized soul, which will likely in this day and age be so terrorized as to be afraid to approach you. Because if you give the Gospel first then fling the Law at them like that, that´s taking away with the left hand what the right hand has given. In the end it´s no different than an alter call or some inane "œhave you given all your heart"¦"

Though this is true from eternity and the secret council of God, in accordance with the free giving of the Gospel this kind of statement is dangerous. Even John Calvin warned of this very thing as destructive to the believer´s faith, John Calvin considered himself to be an assurrer of men´s souls more than anything, he and Luther were at one on this. One has to ask ones self as a pastor is my desire truly for the faith of men to be so, or would I rather seek to destroy it with my fumbling. A statement like this is not dangerous to hypocrite but to the REAL Christian it is poison if the Gospel not be prime. Satan is not going to attack the hypocrite but the believer. As far as we know, man to man, it is to all without exception. I can even destroy your faith by making you doubt your election, just how do you know! Give me your works and they will all fall short, as do mine, there´s not one that cannot be destroyed, even post conversion by the holy Law, none stand before it. If all one does is offer and does not give the gift, then one has not given Christ, stop fooling ones self.

Saving faith is not an obedience in an "œif/then" construction, but to trust into passively, THAT´S the obedience. But it is the obedience unto a gift ALREADY GIVEN, not an if/then to gain the gift, that would be false faith. When the call comes to repent it is to repent, change your mind from the world´s way of "œdoing" ANYTHING to garner life. It is a repentance ending the if/thens. When Jesus commanded "œbelieve" it was not in order to gain the gift, it was "œHERE is the gift, receive it", that´s the "œbelieve" part.

The one who glories in regeneration and election so nakedly - is dangerously close to the Pharisee´s prayer if not in fact another version of it (and this is mainly in a modern context), "œLord I am glad I am not like these unregenerate folks over here, being regenerate I now believe and I obey, giving you the credit with my lips, none the less due to your work I am not like them but better." When the justified man prays, "œLord, I am a completely utterly unprofitable servant, even as a Christian I do not just fail occasionally but constantly, have mercy on me STILL A SINNER." The Christian NEVER ceases in this life from the tax collector´s prayer. As Luther said the Christian´s life is one of repentance as a continual mode, not one time and place or staccato type of repentance or active repentance but passive suffering repentance. The Christian is a continuous and constant continuity of passive lamenting repentance (sorrow for self and trust in another) as he/she sees NONE of his/her works worthy of a brag, not even a "œLord in your power I´ve done these things" which is nothing less than hidden self righteousness. That´s just a hidden Pharisee´s prayer giving lip service to God. You must SEE that that is what was even behind the Pharisee´s prayer, he didn´t nakedly consider himself righteous but with the assistance of God´s via the light of Law (Romans 2)! One can even mingle a kind of false "œgrace" this way, "œby your grace I am not like this sinner and tax collector over here."

The one who sees himself obedient even if he states it is because he is "œregenerate" is in danger because he thinks he obeys unlike the unregenerate. The danger is he thinks he obeys at ALL in any sense of that word, even post conversion, rather than understanding that he STILL does not obey in the least or under a false perceived power of grace, but is under a declarative grace and thus his disobedience, both virtuous and vice like sins, are now acceptable/forgiven by the same blood of the Cross. The only real difference between the lost sinner and the saved sinner is the cross. Because "œvirtues", obediences, and even a kind of "œfaith" can arise outwardly by the power of the fallen will, which means they are worthless and not of God. There´s a difference in receiving grace and attaching the action of the will to the Words of God and thinking it is the work of grace or God.

When we say that we believe only because we have been born again that simply means the fact that you can passively believe/trust in Christ alone FOR YOU at all means you´ve been recreated alive to God, and NOT an "œexertion" of an active faith, but a faith that passively receives. There´s an eternal difference in these two "œfaiths" though both attach to the grace of God in words. 

Thus, the regenerate man does not glory in his rebirth as to "œobedience" or faith but glories in the cross. He who glories in being regenerate is glorying in himself and is really the flesh and is really dead. But he who glories in the cross of Christ and disdains his works is the regeneracy showing itself. He who glories in being reborn is glorying in himself and is really the flesh and is dead. But he who glories in the cross of Christ is the life of the rebirth showing itself. He who talks about his faith is talking about himself and is flesh and is dead. But he who talks about the cross of Christ is real saving faith showing itself. Faith from rebirth shows itself by never mentioning itself but Christ. Faith that issues forth true good works OF faith, never considers the works themselves but Christ alone.

True saving faith is like the captain of a ship steering in the stormy night sea who has fixed and steeled his gaze (faith/trust) upon the north star (Christ crucified and risen alone) and disdains ALL disruption from within and without (cries for good works, emphasis on other doctrines so as to divorce them from the central cross). When the agitators (blinded gropers of both faith and good works who know neither in spite of their much talk) from without come to him saying, "œAre you not going to do something!" (crying out for fruit and good works) He tosses their asinine distraction aside and often in anger rebukes them harshly. For his gazed is fixed (faith) upon salvation (Christ, the things of God in mind). Yet, for all the vain blubbering of the crew (crying for good works) about him wondering if the captain "œwill do something", they miss and are absolutely themselves blinded to the very fact that this very seemingly worthless brazen fixation upon the north star (the scandal and foolishness of the cross) while all hell is breaking loose - is involuntarily and unconsciously producing its true fruits. For the ship is and will be delivered and the captain is staying the course, the works are arising from the fixation, but the fixation does not change toward the arising works (true good works) it produces and the fixation NEVER goes to do other things (false good works), if it did all is lost. The crew on the other hand is busying themselves much groping for things to do and NONE of it avails (criers much of faith and good works not knowing either one in reality). Should the captain be distracted by the inane babblings of the crew, all will be lost forever.

It is just as Scripture declares, "œhe (Christ Jesus) had no comeliness that we should behold Him" or the scandal of the cross is foolish to the irreligious at heart and a tripping stone to the religious at heart. Yet, good works, even post conversion labeled good works are comely and we behold these. Our too often quick boredom with the cross and quick re-fixation upon ourselves in OUR "œdoings", looking back at me/self, especially as Christians, post rebirth/regeneration, is the real testimony of the real power and deceptiveness of sin and the fallen flesh to glory and love itself"¦it will do so cloaked in otherwise true doctrines: flesh cloaked in post conversion good works/fruit, flesh cloaked in regeneration/rebirth, flesh cloaked in election, flesh cloaked in predestination, flesh cloaked in a kind of faith, flesh cloaked with a kind of grace, etc"¦

Ldh


----------



## MW (Jul 25, 2006)

Whence does the cross derive its efficacy? From the eternal purpose of God, 1 Pet. 1:20. To glory in the cross is to glory in the eternal purpose of God -- including election.


----------



## MW (Jul 25, 2006)

Calvin on Eph. 1:4.

"For had not St. Paul added that which we now see, it might have been surmised that God's grace is common to all men and that he offers it and presents it to all without exception, and, consequently, that it is in every man's power to receive it according to his own free will, by which means there would be some merit in us."

Sermons on Ephesians, p. 22.


----------



## JM (Jul 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Whence does the cross derive its efficacy? From the eternal purpose of God, 1 Pet. 1:20. To glory in the cross is to glory in the eternal purpose of God -- including election.





Nice way of wording it...still sorting it out though.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 26, 2006)

> Whence does the cross derive its efficacy? From the eternal purpose of God, 1 Pet. 1:20. To glory in the cross is to glory in the eternal purpose of God -- including election.



Here we do not disagree but agree whole heartedly. This is exactly what I´m saying. But note well what you yourself just said, "œto glory IN THE CROSS is to glory in the eternal purpose of God". Not divorced from the cross but through the centrality of the Cross. This is exactly what Calvin supported and consequently warned against in seeking out election "œnakedly". That´s the difference in a hyper-Calvinist who makes the centrality election, which we cannot see, which Calvin warned against and the one who makes the Cross central so as to enjoy the election that is to say the true Christian. This is why Calvin called the cross "œa mirror as it were", because without the mirror, which is another way of saying "œcentrality of the cross", one has made election an idol, divorced it and is viewing it in a way that is not viewable to finite man. Christ alone is the revelation of all of Scripture and its doctrines. So, we don´t disagree here.

This is exactly what I meant when I said,



> Thus, the regenerate man does not glory in his rebirth as to "œobedience" or faith but glories in the cross. He who glories in being regenerate is glorying in himself and is really the flesh and is really dead. But he who glories in the cross of Christ and disdains his works is the regeneracy showing itself. He who glories in being reborn is glorying in himself and is really the flesh and is dead. But he who glories in the cross of Christ is the life of the rebirth showing itself. He who talks about his faith is talking about himself and is flesh and is dead. But he who talks about the cross of Christ is real saving faith showing itself. Faith from rebirth shows itself by never mentioning itself but Christ. Faith that issues forth true good works OF faith, never considers the works themselves but Christ alone.



Which is the same as what you said,



> "¦To glory in the cross is to glory in the eternal purpose of God -- including election.



Thus when a man glories in the cross he is glorying in election, rebirth, faith and etc"¦ But when a man reverses this his danger is glorying in these things sans the cross and something of himself. Those are two different religions.

Calvin´s quote, "For had not St. Paul added that which we now see, it might have been surmised that God's grace is common to all men and that he offers it and presents it to all without exception, and, consequently, that it is in every man's power to receive it according to his own free will, by which means there would be some merit in us.", Is simply a hedge against a faith that is active, that is "œfree will" faith that thinks it can grasp it. In fact Calvin´s statement here destroys all forms of "œactive" faith and sets forth EXACTLY what Luther said faith is, passive, empty hand that receives. In fact this quote supports the fact that Christ is not simply offered but is actually GIVEN when He is "œoffered". The fact that it has to be actually GIVEN to you as opposed to merely "œoffered" to you, destroys ALL free will and will worship. Those who just "œoffer" Christ in reality are appealing to the will of man, they fundamentally are still pelagian/semi pelagian, and it is will worship. Those who give Christ for real and actually, do so because they know the will of man is utterly dead. Again the link between the arminian and the hyper-Calvinist is very similar.

By the way I don´t think you are a hyper-Calvinist, I´m not sure how that got started, I was speaking to real hyper-Calvinist doctrine. I think that got "œread into" the discussion. I wanted to clear that up immediately!

Larry


----------



## Magma2 (Jul 26, 2006)

Larry objects that the proposition, God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception and says it "œdestroys more faith than 10,000 atheist could ever dream of." He adds; "œThat´s not the communication of the Gospel but the reality unknown in eternity."

First, I agree that the proposition that God does not desire the salvation of all men is not the Gospel, but _it is_ a valid inference from the Gospel. If Jesus Christ died for a particular people given to Him by the Father, as the Scriptures teach, then to assert that God desires the salvation of men for whom Christ did not die is a lie. I do realize that this lie is warmly embraced by many calling themselves Reformed and who even believe that perpetuating this lie is actually an aid to "œevangelism," but I fail to see how such deceptions can be an aid to faith or the proclaimation of the gospel? Second, it is not an "œunknown" reality that God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception, but, as already mentioned, is the teaching of Scripture. So, in one sense you are correct and you cannot say "œin one breath . . . [t]he Good News is Christ has died for your sins and given you His righteousness, and by the way God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception." That´s because no preacher should say "œthe Good News is Christ has died for your sins and given you His righteousness" without stressing that the Good News is for those who would believe. There is no good news if Christ died for all and is given to all since many of those for whom He supposedly died go to Hell. Consequently, the first part of your statement is true only with qualification and the second part is true without qualification. 

Further, I couldn´t find your citation from Calvin, but I don´t see how it supports your position? The citation appears to be a denial by Calvin of common grace, but it seems you´re hanging your hat on an equivocation of the sense of the word "œoffer." Therefore, when Calvin says "œhe offers [the gospel] and presents it to all without exception," you infer from this that "œChrist is . . . actually GIVEN" to all He is "œoffered" and from this "œgiving" you infer a desire on God´s part for the salvation of all. Makes sense, but of course none of this follows. 

The word "œoffer" is from the Latin offerre which means "˜to bring to´ for acceptance or rejection. It is in this sense that there is a free offer of the Gospel (which, btw, is a message). We are commanded to proclaim the gospel to all promiscuously, but it doesn´t mean, nor does it follow, that Christ died for all or is given to all indiscriminately as you assert. That´s not to say that you cannot find some passage in Calvin´s massive volumes that appear to support your conclusions, but just realize that I can produce truckloads that clearly refute and counter your claims (see below for starters). 

Finally, I recommend you read; "œThe Three Points in Most Parts Reformed: A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation," by Raymond A. Blacketer (http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html). Blacketer has an excellent section on Calvin and the so-called "œwell meant offer" and what is particularly interesting, especially for those familiar with the rift that occurred years ago among the Dutch Reformed, is that Blacketer is a prof at Calvin Theological Seminary, a CRC seminary. 

Some counter quotes from Calvin:



> Elsewhere he says that will is not taken away by grace, but is changed from evil into good, and helped when it is good. By this he means only that man is not borne along without any motion of the heart, as if by an outside force; rather, he is so affected within that he obeys from the heart. Augustine writes to Boniface that grace is specially and freely given to the elect in this manner: "œWe know that God´s grace is not given to all men. To those to whom it is given it is given neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of the will, but by free grace. To those to whom it is not given we know that it is because of God´s righteous
> judgment that it is not given." Institutes.2.3.14





> Therefore we must keep in mind what we have elsewhere cited from Augustine: in vain, people busy themselves with finding any good of man´s own in his will. For any mixture of the
> power of free will that men strive to mingle with God´s grace is nothing but a corruption of grace. It is just as if one were to dilute wine with muddy, bitter water. Institutes.2.3.16





> Even though he does not excuse the obstinate from blame, he is still content with this reason, that God´s grace is tasteless to men until the Holy Spirit brings its savor. And Christ, quoting Isaiah´s prophecy, "œThey shall all be taught by God" [John 6:45; Isaiah 54:13], means only that the Jews are reprobate and alien to the church because they are unteachable. And He offers no other reason than that God´s promise does not pertain to them. Paul´s statement confirms this: "œChrist... a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called... the power... and wisdom of God" [1 Corinthians 1:23-24]. Institutes.3.24.14





> They [the papists and in our day the Arminian] play with the frivolous argument that, since God is Father of all, it is unjust for him to forsake any but those who by their own guilt previously have deserved this punishment. As if God´s generosity did not extend even to pigs and dogs! But if it is a question of mankind, let them answer why God bound himself to one people, to be their Father; also why he picked a small number out of these, like a flower. But their own passion to speak evil prevents these revilers from considering that "œGod makes his
> sun rise on the good and the evil" [Matthew 5:45 p.], so that the inheritance is entrusted to those few to whom he will sometime say, "œCome, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom" [Matthew 25:34], etc. They also object that God hates nothing he has made. This I concede to them; yet what I teach stands firm: *that the reprobate are hateful to God, and with very good reason. For, deprived of his Spirit, they can bring forth nothing but reason for cursing.* They add that "œthere is no distinction between Jew and Gentile" [Romans 10:12], and that consequently God´s grace is extended to all indiscriminately. Provided, to be sure, that they admit, as Paul states, that "œGod calls men both from the Jews and from the Gentiles according to his good pleasure" [Romans 9:24 p.], so that he is bound to no one. In this way we also dispose of their objection made in another place, that "œGod has shut up all things under sin, that he may have mercy upon all" [Romans 11:32, conflated with Galatians 3:22]; that is to say, because he
> wills that the salvation of all who are saved be ascribed to his own mercy, although this benefit is not common to all. Now when many notions are adduced on both sides, let this be our conclusion: to tremble with Paul at so deep a mystery; but, if froward tongues clamor, not to be ashamed of this exclamation of his: "œWho are you, O man, to argue with God?" [Romans 9:20 p.]. For as Augustine truly contends, they who measure divine justice by the standard of human justice are acting perversely.



[Edited on 7-26-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## MW (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> That´s the difference in a hyper-Calvinist who makes the centrality election, which we cannot see, which Calvin warned against and the one who makes the Cross central so as to enjoy the election that is to say the true Christian.



I prefer to say the hyper-Calvinist errs by giving a different presentation of election than by making election central. E.g., the topic of this thread, eternal justification.

Historical theologians have struggled to come to terms with the history of thought because of this nonsense about the centrality of particular doctrines. What looks to be central for a theologian can be nothing more than the way that theologian focusses his thinking on a given subject.

But to come to the crux of the matter -- if it is agreed that the cross derives its efficacy from the eternal purpose of God, then there can be no legitimate preaching of the cross that is separated from that purpose (so the apostle in Eph. 3). In which case, it is nonsense to hold out the saving efficacy of the cross to all men unconditionally. You may as well tell them they are all going to heaven irrespective of what they do, which is unconditional universalism.


----------



## JM (Jul 26, 2006)

> But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God's predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time. Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, "Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification?" My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity. He went further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds.
> Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it. However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity. For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God's everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness.
> So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled"”in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec; but I know likewise that justification is described in the Scriptures as passing upon me at the time I believe. "Being justified by faith," I am told "I have peace with God, through Jesus Christ." I think, therefore that adoption and justification, while they have a very great alliance with eternity, and were virtually done then, yet have both of them such a near relation to us in time, and such a bearing upon our own personal standing and character that they have also a part and parcel of themselves actually carried out and performed in time in the heart of every believer. I may be wrong in this exposition; it requires much more time to study this subject than I have been able yet to give to it, seeing that my years are not yet many; I shall no doubt by degrees come to the knowledge more fully of such high and mysterious points of gospel doctrine.
> But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time,"”so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other.
> From: C.H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 7, Page 180, 81



A short critic of Kyper's thought...http://www.the-highway.com/articleAug04.html

[Edited on 7-27-2006 by JM]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 28, 2006)

Rev. Winzer,



> I prefer to say the hyper-Calvinist errs by giving a different presentation of election than by making election central. E.g., the topic of this thread, eternal justification.



I wouldn't argue with this, this may be splitting hairs either way. I would argue centralizing so is declaring a different election because I'm focusing on the earthly view of finite man.



> Historical theologians have struggled to come to terms with the history of thought because of this nonsense about the centrality of particular doctrines. What looks to be central for a theologian can be nothing more than the way that theologian focusses his thinking on a given subject.



You may call it non-sense but the cross of Christ is central to all revelation. Perhaps in ivory towers of academia, but in real life the doctrine is quite practical. We shall both see on the hour of our death what doctrine arises central in our hearts and the devil throw up our life before our eyes as certainly he will for the Christian can expect suffering one way or another. At the end of the day its not for me to convince nor can I do so by simple arguments. Reality has a way of bringing things crystal clear. It is no wonder Paul could glory in suffering in which we other wise fear!



> But to come to the crux of the matter -- if it is agreed that the cross derives its efficacy from the eternal purpose of God, then there can be no legitimate preaching of the cross that is separated from that purpose (so the apostle in Eph. 3).



I really don't know why you keep throwing this up in my face, I have explicitly spoken against, multiple times, divorcing the doctrine one way or the other.



> In which case, it is nonsense to hold out the saving efficacy of the cross to all men unconditionally. You may as well tell them they are all going to heaven irrespective of what they do, which is unconditional universalism.



I'm not declaring universalism, just how the Gospel is given. Secondly, "holding out" the cross is appealling to the will of man by definition. I said give the cross not hold it out, God will bring forth the increase as He sees fit. That's something you apparently are missing grossly for you assume, it appears that it must be effectual that minute, which is a hair's breadth from rank decissional theology. You may give the cross of Christ to an unconverted soul and that day and perhaps decades after that nothing happen. Then one day the Holy Spirit brings that Gospel to his mind effectually. One is still trying to play the part of God by only "holding out the cross". The nature of the Gospel, news, is against mere "holding out". The parable of the sower is against "holding out". Even Peter says in Acts among a crowd whose hearts and election he could not see (e.g. Simon Magnus) GIVES the Gospel promise, he does dangle it as an offer. He gives it, those it effectually calls it does, but that is the Holy Spirit's work. The preacher's job is to proclaim it and proclaim it right, not as he sees fit to re-word it.

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 28, 2006)

> Larry objects that the proposition, God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception and says it "œdestroys more faith than 10,000 atheist could ever dream of." He adds; "œThat´s not the communication of the Gospel but the reality unknown in eternity."



Sean,

You could not have more misrepresented what I was saying if you tried, and you tried. 

This quote, "œthat God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception", I simply said was not the Gospel, and for faith to take place the Gospel must be communicated to communicate this nakedly apart from the cross is to loose both the Gospel and true election. To do so apart from the cross so nakedly done kills faith. And to say that I deny it is incorrect and calling me a liar which you slanderously have done explicitly and publicly in an entirely unfounded way for I also said of it, "œThough this is true from eternity and the secret council of God"¦"

Paul said I preach Christ and Him crucified, I desired to know nothing among you except Christ crucified, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ, How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? Or OT if you rather, "œHow lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation, and says to Zion, "Your God reigns!"
And then I set forth that the duty of man which is to broadly and promiscuously declare the Gospel (never denying election once mind you). To not do so is using rationalizations over and above the Gospel.


> "œIf Jesus Christ died for a particular people given to Him by the Father, as the Scriptures teach, then to assert that God desires the salvation of men for whom Christ did not die is a lie


. This is quite a nice straw man to set up and knock down by which you impugn me as a liar indirectly, but again I´ve never denied and in fact explicitly confirmed the sovereign election of God. 

I´ve never stated that election is untrue, in fact I whole heartedly affirmed it, but what I´m speaking to is the difference in duty and proclamation versus teaching a doctrine that supports that very Gospel in the first place. No where in scripture are you to proclaim the Gospel thus to world, "œThe Good News is Jesus only died for some of you." When the Good News is brought forth it is delivered nakedly as a gift. To do it otherwise is to not give the Gospel and let the Holy Spirit work where HE alone works.

In fact the parable of the sower militates, scripture explicit to the giving of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, entirely against you in the clearest terms possible. In which we see that the Gospel seed is to be promiscuously broadcast. That is the main point of the parable! The Gospel is cast to all four soils and note well that the seed is actually, not potentially, but actually given. That is the gift IS given, thus men stand more condemned who receive it not for it is actually given not potentially or "œoffered" as we use the term today. It is not held off in a seed bag awaiting the soil to grasp it. It is not broadcast only after the seed sower checks the condition of the soil in which it will be cast before it is given. It is given period. Then God ALONE brings forth the increase AS HE SOVEREIGNLY sees fit. Neither you or me are to play the role of God, you are commanded to give the Gospel. If one withholds the Gospel perhaps one really does not have it themselves for they clearly don´t see how it functions.

Those who hold the Gospel as mere offer are will worshippers. Those who give it, are true to election, predestination and the TOTAL depravity of the will of fallen man. Furthermore, it is sheer absurdity to speak of "œoffering NEWS", for such an "œoffer" is offering for a faith that rises only to the second level of the definition of saving faith, that is historical affirmation for which no man is saved. One can easily see the absurdity in this if Dan Rather where to come on to the television on 9/11 and say, "œI offer to you as news"¦". News by its very nature is given. And unless it reaches the level of naked personal trust, which can ONLY happen if it is given, it is not faith and you have not heard the Good News and you are just affirming it as a fact of history. And again this is from the perspective of man whose duty goes no further than to proclaim what God is done, that is man gives it, God brings forth the increase and promises His Word will not go out in vain. News is given not offered, and the parable of the seed sower is crystal clear on this issue such that even a child may understand it.




> Further, I couldn´t find your citation from Calvin,



III.xxiv.5 Institutes of the Christian Religion, J. Calvin.

"œFirst, if we seek for the paternal mercy and favor of God, we must turn our eyes to Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased (Mt. 3:17). When we seek for salvation, life, and a blessed immortality, to him also must we retake ourselves, since he alone is the fountain of life and the anchor of salvation, and the heir of the kingdom of heaven. Then what is the end of election, but just that, being adopted as sons by the heavenly Father, we may by his favor obtain salvation and immortality? How much so ever you may speculate and discuss you will perceive that in its ultimate object it goes no farther. Hence, those whom God has adopted as sons, he is said to have elected, not in themselves, but in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:4); because he could love them only in him, and only as being previously made partakers with him, honor them with the inheritance of his kingdom. But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life. Moreover, he admitted us to sure communion with himself, when, by the preaching of the gospel, he declared that he was given us by the Father, to be ours with all his blessings (Rom. 8:32). We are said to be clothed with him, to be one with him, that we may live, because he himself lives. The doctrine is often repeated, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," (John 3:16). He who believes in him is said to have passed from death unto life (John 5:24). In this sense he calls himself the bread of life, of which if a man eat, he shall never die (John 6:35). He, I say, was our witness, that all by whom he is received in faith will be regarded by our heavenly Father as sons. If we long for more than to be regarded as sons of God and heirs, we must ascend above Christ. But if this is our final goal, how infatuated is it to seek out of him what we have already obtained in him, and can only find in him? Besides, as he is the Eternal Wisdom, the Immutable Truth, the Determinate Counsel of the Father, there is no room for fear that any thing which he tells us will vary in the minutes degree from that will of the Father after which we inquire. Nay, rather he faithfully discloses it to us as it was from the beginning, and always will be. The practical influence of this doctrine ought also to be exhibited in our prayers. For though a belief of our election animates us to involve God, yet when we frame our prayers, it were preposterous to obtrude it upon God, or to stipulate in this way, "O Lord, if I am elected, hear me." He would have us to rest satisfied with his promises, and not to inquire elsewhere whether or not he is disposed to hear us. We shall thus be disentangled from many snares, if we know how to make a right use of what is rightly written; but let us not inconsiderately wrest it to purposes different from that to which it ought to be confined.

III.xxiv.3 Institutes of the Christian Religion, J. Calvin.

Two errors are here to be avoided. Some make man a fellow-worker with God in such a sense, that man's suffrage ratifies election, so that, according to them, the will of man is superior to the counsel of God. As if Scripture taught that only the power of being able to believe is given us, and not rather faith itself. Others, although they do not so much impair the grace of the Holy Spirit, yet, induced by what means I know not, make election dependent on faith, as if it were doubtful and ineffectual till confirmed by faith. There can be no doubt, indeed, that in regard to us it is so confirmed. Moreover, we have already seen, that the secret counsel of God, which lay concealed, is thus brought to light, by this nothing more being understood than that that which was unknown is proved, and as it were sealed. But it is false to say that election is then only effectual after we have embraced the gospel, and that it thence derives its vigor. It is true that we must there look for its certainty, because, if we attempt to penetrate to the secret ordination of God, we shall be engulfed in that profound abyss. But when the Lord has manifested it to us, we must ascend higher in order that the effect may not bury the cause. For what can be more absurd and unbecoming, than while Scripture teaches that we are illuminated as God has chosen us, our eyes should be so dazzled with the brightness of this light, as to refuse to attend to election? <Meanwhile, I deny not that, in order to be assured of our salvation, we must begin with the word, and that our confidence ought to go no farther than the word when we invoke God the Father. For some to obtain more certainty of the counsel of God (which is nigh us in our mouth, and in our heart, Deut. 30:14), absurdly desire to fly above the clouds. We must, therefore, curb that temerity by the soberness of faith, and be satisfied to have God as the witness of his hidden grace in the external word; provided always that the channel in which the water flows, and out of which we may freely drink, does not prevent us from paying due honor to the fountain.


Now there is the real down to home side of REALLY understanding the Gospel and election. It´s all nice and pretty when we talk about the poor guy outside of us and is this nebulous person elect or not. But it gets home REAL quick when one considers one´s own death. How do you know that YOU are elected? Will you be in the kingdom of heaven?

And the rest of your "œCalvin counter quotes" eludes me, especially since I´ve both denied free will more forcefully and shown where from arise true good works and never denied them.

Ldh



[Edited on 7-29-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## MW (Jul 28, 2006)

> > In which case, it is nonsense to hold out the saving efficacy of the cross to all men unconditionally. You may as well tell them they are all going to heaven irrespective of what they do, which is unconditional universalism.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not declaring universalism, just how the Gospel is given.



You deny that you divorce the efficacy of the cross from the eternal purpose of God. You affirm that in the Gospel the efficacy of the cross of Christ is given to all men. The logical conclusion of these premises can only be that you believe Christ efficaciously died for all men in the eternal purpose of God.



> Secondly, "holding out" the cross is appealling to the will of man by definition. I said give the cross not hold it out, God will bring forth the increase as He sees fit. That's something you apparently are missing grossly for you assume, it appears that it must be effectual that minute, which is a hair's breadth from rank decissional theology.



"Hold forth" and "offer" are traditional Calvinist terms, and they have nothing to do with decisional theology. It is only by positing conditions in the offer, i.e., faith and repentance, that the abominable doctrine of universalism is avoided. If salvation is unconditionally given in the Gospel, then all men shall unconditionally be saved. The Calvinist manner of stating it is that the Holy Spirit enables the elect to fulfil the conditions of the gospel when He effectually calls them. Then is the offer "embraced" and "received," and then the elect sinner is instated in the covenant of grace, and all the benefits of Christ are theirs.


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2006)

Isa 45:21-22 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 

Isaiah 55 1-3 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. 

Is this an offer or merely an exhibition?

Great Sermons:
David Silversides
John Murray


----------



## MW (Jul 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Is this an offer or merely an exhibition?



An offer of everlasting salvation to sinners of mankind upon condition that they believe, i.e., look, come, hear, etc.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 30, 2006)

It is unconditional without fail and it is that which causes faith. Faith is not the condition, the good news causes faith and creates ex nihilo, out of nothing that which did not exist as the Apostle say in the fourth chapter of Romans, calling into being that which does not exist by the Gospel...namely the truster in Christ crucified. Faith arises from the gift given, it is the essence of faith. Seeing Christ crucified as Christ causes its own receptical.

It is a giving, pure and simple just like the sower of the seed, it gives freely, no condition. Which is crystal clear.

"look, come, hear..." are all the means of giving, "look to the serpent of bronze, behold the gift, look to the cross behold the gift." If one looks at their looking, hears to their hearing, comes to their coming, trusts in their trusting, then they are NOT in ANYWAY looking, hearing, coming or believing.

To condition it upon faith is arminianism.

Ldh


----------



## Peter (Jul 30, 2006)

Faith is a gift and a condition Mr. Hughes. God requires all men to have faith to be saved but for the elect he undertakes the condition making them willing and able to believe. It must be remembered that faith is a human action, it is not something God does but it is what we do, that is the response to God's work of regeneration.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 30, 2006)

It is an insturment which God gives us by which we lay hold of Christ.


----------



## MW (Jul 30, 2006)

The Westminster Larger Catechism.

Question 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
Answer. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.


----------



## Magma2 (Jul 31, 2006)

> You could not have more misrepresented what I was saying if you tried, and you tried.
> 
> This quote, "œthat God does not desire the salvation of all men without exception", I simply said was not the Gospel, and for faith to take place the Gospel must be communicated to communicate this nakedly apart from the cross is to loose both the Gospel and true election. To do so apart from the cross so nakedly done kills faith.



Of course, none of this follows. Neither the Gospel or election is lost or damaged in the slightest by the statement that God doesn´t desire the salvation of all men without exception, since it´s a true statement. How can a true statement kill faith, not to mention "œtrue election" and the Gospel? Maybe you don´t think it true, so would you say that God does desire the salvation of all men? That certainly seems to be what you require if the Gospel is to be preached. I know you think I´ve misrepresented you, but it seems that Rev. Winzer has understood you in the same way I have. 




> And to say that I deny it is incorrect and calling me a liar which you slanderously have done explicitly and publicly in an entirely unfounded way for I also said of it, "œThough this is true from eternity and the secret council of God"¦"



I have no idea what you´re talking about?



> Paul said I preach Christ and Him crucified, I desired to know nothing among you except Christ crucified, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ, How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? Or OT if you rather, "œHow lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation, and says to Zion, "Your God reigns!"
> And then I set forth that the duty of man which is to broadly and promiscuously declare the Gospel (never denying election once mind you). To not do so is using rationalizations over and above the Gospel.
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't "œrationalized" anything. Christians are required to believe not only those things explicitly set down in Scripture but all those things necessarily inferred from Scripture as well. That´s because all valid deductions from Scripture are Scripture. You seemed to think that the heart of the Gospel requires the preacher to say that Christ died for all and is given to all without distinction -- or, at the very least, to leave that impression -- and this is false. You said the "œGood News is Christ has died for your sins and given you His righteousness" in contrast to the proposition that God does not desire the salvation of all universally distributive. It seems to me, and evidently others, that for you the message of a universal atonement is the message that should be preached. If that´s not what you meant, you haven´t really done anything so far to set the record straight. 



> I´ve never stated that election is untrue, in fact I whole heartedly affirmed it, but what I´m speaking to is the difference in duty and proclamation versus teaching a doctrine that supports that very Gospel in the first place. No where in scripture are you to proclaim the Gospel thus to world, "œThe Good News is Jesus only died for some of you."



So by logical parity are we to proclaim the Gospel thus to the world, "œThe Good News is Jesus died for all"? Or are we just to leave that impression to our hearers in order to do "œevangelism"?



> In fact the parable of the sower militates, scripture explicit to the giving of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, entirely against you in the clearest terms possible. In which we see that the Gospel seed is to be promiscuously broadcast.



How does the parable of the sower militate against what I´ve said? Have I anywhere denied that the Gospel is to be promiscuously broadcast? Uh, no. Have I denied that Christ died for all is part of the Gospel message that is to be promiscuously broadcast, to use your word, "œnakedly"? Indeed I have. The universal atonement of Christ is a lie and, if we agree on that, then I fail to see how leaving the impression that Christ died for all is a necessary component of preaching as you suggest? I don´t believe deceptions, half-truths and outright lies are an aid to the proclamation of the Gospel, actually they´re a positive determent. 



> Further, I couldn´t find your citation from Calvin,
> 
> 
> III.xxiv.5 Institutes of the Christian Religion, J. Calvin.
> ...



Thanks. Seems that Calvin had no problem with the harmony between the doctrine of election and the proclamation of the Gospel either. 

[Edited on 7-31-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 31, 2006)

Faith is always receptive and passive in what it receives. That´s the nature of trusting into an objective object out side of one´s self. Faith is never "œactive" as in exertion of. Faith literally always receives the Gospel, yet the great paradox of Christianity is that this faith is living and produces its fruits. Great extraordinary faith is shown most strongly by the ordinary fruits it produces. For only great faith in Christ will not seek to self aggrandize itself by the "œhighest of works". 

Thus, the Apostle Paul could say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ. Thus, faith is never a "œcondition" unto salvation, Christ fulfills ALL conditions. Faith is though a state necessary but it is not a condition "œfulfilled" to save, Christ alone fulfills all conditions. When people hear of faith as a "œcondition" they try to "œexert a kind of faith. This "œexerted faith" is false faith for its object, Christ crucified is no longer its object but itself has become its object. This false faith soon dies or becomes a kind of pharisaical faith and any works it produces is pure sin for the "œself" is the purpose and fear of punishment or hope of reward is its motive.

True saving faith is fixed permanently upon Christ, the Gospel. This faith, paradoxically is so singularly fixed, produces its fruits, the fruits of the Spirit. These fruits are true fruits for their object is not their selves but the neighbor. Thus, faith and true godly love function similarly. Faith must stay fixed upon Christ and thus trusting for self, true godly love arises which serves the neighbors need without "œreligiously" doing it for self (which is false love. True godly love like faith is singularly fixed upon its object, the neighbor. The great paradox for the Christian is this, by trusting in Christ alone for self and loving without a hidden agenda true faith and love happen. Yet, faith that tries to "œbe faith" and love that tries to "œbe love" are absolutely false of either. Thus, it said accurately by Luther that theologies of glory of all forms say "œdo and nothing is done" at all even if one gives one´s self for many men, while the theology of the cross says, "œtrust and all is done" and not even a cup of cold water goes unrewarded. As Luther said many speak of faith and good works but they only babble about both for they know not from which either come. Why? They are tripping over the stumbling stone and struggling with the foolishness of the cross. This statement means nothing to the fallen flesh, "œGod may suffer a man to do no good works, so that he may at last look to Christ alone and live."

As Dr. Martin Loyd Jones once aptly observed (paraphrased ldh), If you have never been accused of antinomianism or that you are against good works, then it is quite likely you have never really given the Gospel. He was correct.

Blessings always,

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 31, 2006)

> So by logical parity are we to proclaim the Gospel thus to the world, "œThe Good News is Jesus died for all"? Or are we just to leave that impression to our hearers in order to do "œevangelism"?



What you call logical parity, your rationalism, is the Gospel. Because we must give it in the communication without limit and leave the conversion to God. To delimit it to some by communication, you forbid it to all because that mass of "some" are some that would hear it and if they hear it is only to sum in the budding of their faith they will most certainly doubt it is for them. You make the devil's work too easy for him. To leave the communication to the hearer that Christ actually died for all which communicates "for me" is faith, that's why John 3:16 goes no further in its communication than it does and the doctrine of election, as Calvin points out contra to you, has its place and time and relationship, Calvin does not mingle them so basely.

You are not to ascend like some high flying spirit who knows the mind of God and eternity, and then descend upon humanity and say "Christ only saves some of you". You are to give the Gospel without limit, God brings the increase, YOU CANNOT.

While the reality of election is real, you cannot confuse it with the communication of the Gospel.

It's real simple, how do you know you are elect? How do you know the Gospel is FOR YOU, and if you have not heard the "for me/you" part of it you have not heard the Gospel.

The parable of the sower,


> Indeed I have"


, then the word of God is against you entirely in the communication of the Gospel, the parable of the sower. 

I consider this matter finished, respond as you see fit. I shall not return to it for lack of time or desire to go further.

In the Sufficiency of Christ alone,

Ldh


----------



## MW (Jul 31, 2006)

> As Dr. Martin Loyd Jones once aptly observed (paraphrased ldh), If you have never been accused of antinomianism or that you are against good works, then it is quite likely you have never really given the Gospel. He was correct.



The apostle states he was "slanderously reported" as teaching such, Rom. 3:8. He certainly does not appear to me to have been happy over the situation that he was accused of teaching something he did not, as if it were a badge of a true preacher. Learning from the whole canon of Scripture, a good preacher will seek to avoid the misrepresentations made upon the apostle's preaching, by making the very same qualifications the apostle did, who went to great pains to clear his preaching from the slanders cast upon it.


----------



## Magma2 (Jul 31, 2006)

> Faith is always receptive and passive in what it receives. That´s the nature of trusting into an objective object out side of one´s self. Faith is never "œactive" as in exertion of. Faith literally always receives the Gospel, yet the great paradox of Christianity is that this faith is living and produces its fruits.




Ah, here we go! Faith which receives the Gospel is "œthe great paradox of Christianity." And, in case anyone missed it, "œthe great paradox" is found within the passivity of faith and it´s _active production of fruit_. While I would never accuse you of anything so reprehensible as Van Tilianism, this is Van Tilianism at its core. Dr. Clark should read carefully what you have to say since he is evidently blind to the connection between VT and the current controversy over justification. He should familiarize himself with this "œthe great paradox" of Christianity as you have so succinctly, and nicely, expressed. 

I don´t mean to pick on you, but what you write above is pure irrationalism and is positively hostile to the Christian faith which you profess to defend. It is not a plus for Christianity nor its future defense if the doctrine of justification and the preaching of the Gospel entails the paradox you assert. Although, it is certainly a plus for some.




> As Dr. Martin Loyd Jones once aptly observed (paraphrased ldh), If you have never been accused of antinomianism or that you are against good works, then it is quite likely you have never really given the Gospel. He was correct.



Good point and it makes you wonder about those like Berkhouwer who, per the piece linked to above, accused Kuyper of antinominianism. 

Yet, after the good point above, in response to my statement:



> So by logical parity are we to proclaim the Gospel thus to the world, "œThe Good News is Jesus died for all"? Or are we just to leave that impression to our hearers in order to do "œevangelism"?



you follow it with. . . 



> What you call logical parity, your rationalism, is the Gospel.



Here we go again! Someone takes issue with the universalism (Arminianism) implied in your Gospel presentation and you accuse them of "œrationalism." 

Per your good quote above, I think you have never really defended the Christian faith "“ much less understood it "“ if you have never been accused of rationalism. 



> Because we must give it in the communication without limit and leave the conversion to God. To delimit it to some by communication, you forbid it to all because that mass of "some" are some that would hear it and if they hear it is only to sum in the budding of their faith they will most certainly doubt it is for them. You make the devil's work too easy for him. To leave the communication to the hearer that Christ actually died for all which communicates "for me" is faith, that's why John 3:16 goes no further in its communication than it does and the doctrine of election, as Calvin points out contra to you, has its place and time and relationship, Calvin does not mingle them so basely.



Perhaps if your misology wasn´t so transparent, you´d see that John 3:16 goes much further than anything you´ve said thus far implies. God´s love of the world doesn´t extend universally as you have asserted, but rather it extends to "œwhosoever believeth." If you look back you´ll see this was the only qualifier I made, which you continue to reject. You should read A. W. Pink´s appendices in Sovereignty of God in an unedited edition (i.e., don´t buy the misnamed "œBanner of Truth" revised edition). 

in my opinion it is you who makes the Devil´s work too easy because the universalism you have defended DOES imply a false Gospel and a false faith, which I´m afraid way too many professing Christians (even those calling themselves "œReformed") possess. The doctrine of God´s particular election should never be so completely separated from the preaching of the Gospel as you have (strongly) advocated. Aren´t we commanded to work out our faith in fear and trembling and to make our calling and election sure? Yet, if election and predestination are to fade into the background as you suggest, how can this occur? Yours is a prescription for anemia. 

It seems to me the preacher who is intent on following Paul, and not tickling the ears of men, will preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. OTOH you seem to favor a truncated gospel which is pleasing to the ears of men - universally distributive of course.  




> While the reality of election is real, you cannot confuse it with the communication of the Gospel.



God willing, I would never divorce election from the communication of the Gospel as you have done. I would never say anything to impugn the doctrine of election, which Calvin called the "œfoundation of our faith," by saying its preaching "œdestroys more faith than 10,000 atheist could ever dream of." 



> It's real simple, how do you know you are elect? How do you know the Gospel is FOR YOU, and if you have not heard the "for me/you" part of it you have not heard the Gospel.



Of course, no one knows, in the strict sense, if they are counted amongst God´s elect. It is an assurance within us that we hope to see evidenced even in exchanges such as these and by God's grace. It is, as Edwards rightly said, a "œconsequence" of the faith, and, as such, is not an object of knowledge. If it were otherwise why would we be commanded to test ourselves in order "œto see if" we are "œin the faith"? in my opinion it is better to entertain some doubts than to presume we are "œin the faith" regardless of what errors we might continue to harbor. 



> I consider this matter finished, respond as you see fit. I shall not return to it for lack of time or desire to go further.



That´s too bad, for I believe you´ve said a number of things which are in error. But if you don´t want to go further, who am I to stop you?

[Edited on 8-1-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Peter (Jul 31, 2006)

Let me offer some points of clarification:
1.) Jesus Christ is the object of faith not faith itself, this is without dispute.
2.) Faith IS *THE* condition of the new Covenant and salvation. God fulfills the condition by enabling us to have faith.
3.) BUT this is not to say faith is the grounds or basis of salvation which is Christ Alone.
4.) So we say, that through or upon faith we enter into the new Covenant, the great benefit of which is the imputation of Christ's rightousness (who fulfilled all the conditions of the OLD covenant). And that only by the renewing of the holy Ghost are we made able and willing to exercise faith.

5.) Ministers should not preach indiscriminately that Christ died for you. That's not true so it would be lying. Ministers are to preach indiscriminately that if you believe in Jesus Christ you will be saved. That's what the bible says but nowhere in scripture do you have an example of ministers preaching to people that Jesus died for them. Christ promises that all who come to Him will in no wise be cast out. THAT is the warrant for faith NOT that he promises that he died for everyone, which is not true.
6.) I agree that God loves everybody that is why He offers them salvation if they believe but that does not mean he died for everybody and we are not to tell them so since its not true.

I've done my best. Let me know if I've erred.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 31, 2006)




----------



## MW (Jul 31, 2006)

Well said, Peter. Only some distinction must be made when referring to the love of God. God demonstrates His love in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. As we have concluded Christ did not die for all, it is clear that all are not the objects of this divine love.


----------



## Peter (Aug 1, 2006)

God's love in planning and executing the work of Redemption is limited but God's love in making and sustaining his creatures and offering a way of salvation is universal. As long as reprobates live they enjoy some of God's lovingkindness and mercy. The free offer is the ultimate expression of his love to them.


Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Ezekiel 33:11


The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 1, 2006)

> 6.) I agree that God loves everybody that is why He offers them salvation if they believe but that does not mean he died for everybody and we are not to tell them so since its not true.
> 
> I've done my best. Let me know if I've erred.



I too have no problem with most of your points, but I second Rev. Winzer´s objection concerning #6. Love in Scripture is a volition and is evidenced by what God actually does. Therefore it doesn´t follow that the "œfree offer is the ultimate expression of his love to them [i.e., the reprobate]" for the simple reason that He does not save them. To call this love is lip service and reduces God's love to an empty platitude. Further, the Scriptures contradict this idea in numerous places including Psa 11:5; The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. 



> God's love in planning and executing the work of Redemption is limited but God's love in making and sustaining his creatures and offering a way of salvation is universal. As long as reprobates live they enjoy some of God's lovingkindness and mercy.



While there is no question that the sun rises and the rain falls on the wicked and the righteous alike, only those in Christ are the objects of God´s loving kindness. 



> Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Ezekiel 33:11



While the above is a difficult passage to exegete, it seems to me that you are intending to make it say considerable more than it does. The passage does not say that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked whether he turns or not, but God´s pleasure here is expressed on the condition of turning which only God can cause. As Calvin said:

"œIf it is equally in God´s power to convert men as well as to create them, it follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their conversion; for if he wished it he could do it: and hence it appears that he does not wish it." Commentary on Ezekiel.

"œAnd the holy scripture showeth throughout, that conversion is a special gift of God. And indeed the place of Ezechiel, (Ezekiel 18:32; Ezekiel 33:11) whereof this troublecoast maketh his buckler, very well confirmeth my saying. For the Prophet having said, _ that God will not have pleasure in the death of a sinner, addeth, but rather will that he return and live._ Whereby he signifieth that God biddeth and exhorteth all which are gone astray to return to the right way. But not that indeed he leadeth them all to himself by the power of his spirit. The which he promiseth not, but to a certain number, which appeareth as well in the thirty-first chapter of Jeremy, (Jeremiah 31) as in the thirty-seventh of Ezechiel and in the eleventh (Ezekiel 11; Ezekiel 37) and throughout the whole scripture." Sermons on Election and Reprobation

"œBut our opponents are in the habit of quoting in opposition a few Scripture passages in which God seems to deny that the wicked perish by his ordination, except in so far as by their clamorous protests they of their own accord bring death upon themselves. Let us therefore briefly explain these passages and prove that they do not conflict with the foregoing opinion. 

A passage of Ezekiel´s is brought forward, that "œGod does not will the death of the wicked but wills that the wicked turn back and live" [Ezekiel 33:11 p.]. If it pleases God to extend this to the whole human race, why does he not encourage to repentance the very many whose minds are more amenable to obedience than the minds of those who grow harder and harder at his daily invitations? Among the people of Nineveh [cf.Matthew 12:41] and of Sodom, as Christ testifies, the preaching of the gospel and miracles would have accomplished more than in Judea [Matthew 11:23]. If God wills that all be saved, how does it come to pass that he does not open the door of repentance to the miserable men who would be better prepared to receive grace? Hence we may see that this passage is violently twisted if the will of God, mentioned by the prophet, is opposed to His eternal plan, by which He has distinguished the elect from the reprobate." Institutes 3.24.15 



> The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9



Whereas Ezekiel 33 posed some (minor) difficulties, this verse is positively easy. The "œall" that should come to repentance are the entire universe of the elect, which should be clear in that God´s longsuffering is toward us; i.e., toward believers in Christ. The verse in no way teaches the desire of God for the salvation of all men universally, but rather all those of a particular class of sinners; the elect.

Hope that clears things up.


----------



## Peter (Aug 1, 2006)

I agree with Rev. Winzer that we need distinctions when we talk about the love of God. The supreme love of election was reserved to only some, however, we see clearly in scripture that to an extent God loves the even the Reprobate until he perishes and becomes completely an object of wrath. 

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Mat 5:45-48 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

We see here in Christ's sermon that we are to be kind and loving to the evil because God is loving to the evil. Ro 2:4-5 teaches us that this goodness towards the reprobate is to lead them to repentence.

My mind is with Calvin when he says in his commentary on Eze 18:21 


> "We hold, then, that; God wills not the death of a sinner, since he calls all equally to repentance, and promises himself prepared to receive them if they only seriously repent. If any one should object -- then there is no election of God, by which he has predestinated a fixed number to salvation, the answer is at hand: the Prophet does not here speak of God's secret counsel, but only recalls miserable men from despair, that they may apprehend the hope of pardon, and repent and embrace the offered salvation. If any one again objects -- this is making God act with duplicity, the answer is ready, that God always wishes the same thing, though by different ways, and in a manner inscrutable to us. Although, therefore, God's will is simple, yet great variety is involved in it, as far as our senses are concerned. Besides, it is not surprising that our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction, and wishes them to perish."



These things have been discussed a little here:
http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=18073

and I recommend any of  David Silversides' sermons on the free offer.

[Edited on 8-1-2006 by Peter]


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 1, 2006)

> I agree with Rev. Winzer that we need distinctions when we talk about the love of God. The supreme love of election was reserved to only some, however, we see clearly in scripture that to an extent God loves the even the Reprobate until he perishes and becomes completely an object of wrath.



Unless I´ve misunderstood Rev. Winzer (which is always possible, since Larry seems sure I´ve misunderstood him), the distinction being drawn is not between those whom Jesus loves and those whom He loves just a little bit more, but rather between those for whom Christ actually died for (demonstrable objects of divine love) and those for whom He didn´t (demonstrable objects of divine wrath and hatred). Rev. Winzer said; "œGod demonstrates His love in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. As we have concluded Christ did not die for all, it is clear that all are not the objects of this divine love." Those who "œare not objects of this divine love" aren´t simultaneously also objects of God´s love. This makes no sense and I honestly don´t see how you inferred this from his comments?



> Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.



Indeed we are commanded to love our enemies, especially in light of the great love God has shown "œus-ward." However, it doesn´t follow from this command that God loves all, for the Scriptures already adduced states that there are some whom God hates. Of course, let´s not forget about Esau whom God hated before he was even born.

The problem I see with the whole idea of the universal love of God toward men is 1) it´s not supported by Scripture, particularly passages which address God´s divine hatred, and, 2) it actually diminishes God´s great love evidenced by the cross and logically implies the heresy of Arminianism. 



> Mat 5:45-48 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
> Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.



Again, nothing from the above implies that God loves all. Beyond that, God sends hurricanes, earthquakes, planes into skyscrapers, and worse on the just and on the unjust as well. So if sun and rain are to be understood as signs of divine love for all, are shark attacks and car crashes signs of his divine hatred for all? It would seem so.



> My mind is with Calvin when he says in his commentary on Eze 18:21



My mind is that you´re not with Calvin at all, since you are arguing for a position held by those whom Calvin calls "œour opponents" (see the citations I provided above). 

But, look, you unquestionably hold the majority opinion. I think it not only wrong, but is a major reason why the Christian faith is positively anemic, Calvinism in particular. Hate is love and love is hate and the Christian faith is a morass of contradictory ideas where we have a God who loves those He says He hates and has ordained to perdition as vessels of wrath and hates those for whom He sent His Son to die for.


----------



## MW (Aug 1, 2006)

For what it's worth, I believe God loves the reprobate in hell, else He would not preserve them alive. Some will object, How can such suffering be called an act of love? Answer: in the same way we love our relatives and lock them up if they are a threat to society. God's love does not require man's sense of justice to vindicate it.

We should be clear that God only has one love. However, like His will, it is manifested in different ways towards different objects. In the will and love of God, the gospel does not come to the reprobate in order to save them. The gospel is given for the elect's sake alone. Hence the offer of the gospel, so far as the will and love of God is concerned, is restricted to the elect. As far as publication is concerned, it is made indiscriminately because the publishers do not know who are elect and who reprobate.

In God's purpose, because Christ did not procure any benefit to the reprobate, there is no saving benefit for the reprobate in the gospel. Hence we cannot conclude anything concerning a *disposition* on God's part towards the reprobate on the mere basis that He has purposed that the gospel should be preached conditionally and indiscriminately to all.

I believe the Ezekiel passages should be understood according to their grammatical construction, as hypothetical. God has no pleasure in the death of *that* wicked who has forsaken his wickedness. It is given as a reason to prove that the pining Israelites will not die if they return to the Lord. So John Knox understands the passage in his Treatise on Predestination.


----------



## Peter (Aug 1, 2006)

> Again, nothing from the above implies that God loves all. Beyond that, God sends hurricanes, earthquakes, planes into skyscrapers, and worse on the just and on the unjust as well. So if sun and rain are to be understood as signs of divine love for all, are shark attacks and car crashes signs of his divine hatred for all? It would seem so.



Except scripture explicitly says these are works of God's love.

*For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?*...
*Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.*

The inference is very obvious. Besides expressly calling these things manifestations of love scripture calls it kindness and that the reprobate are guilty of unthankfulness. Surely, God's goodness is an expression of love. If not what is love? 

I cannot see the scripturalness of the idea the gospel is preached to all merely b/c we do not know who the elect are. Why is it that the goodness and mercy of God to the reprobate is said to lead to repentence.

Ro 2:4-5 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 

Perhaps i am wrong, I don't think I will be persuaded so, but it must be observed that you (mr. Gerety) certainly misrepresent Calvin. Calvin, commenting on mark 10 about the rich young ruler says the following.

Mk 10:20-22 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.Then Jesus beholding *him loved him*, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.



> Jesus beholding him, loved him. The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good -- that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration -- have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance. 14 As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms. 15
> 
> But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him -- which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance -- he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, he loved his own work in them; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption.



Most importantly



> Matthew 19:22. He went away sorrowful. The result at length showed how widely distant the young man was from that perfection to which Christ had called him; for how comes it that he withdraws from the school of Christ, but because he finds it uneasy to be stripped of his riches? But if we are not prepared to endure poverty, it is manifest that covetousness reigns in us. And this is what I said at the outset, that the order which Christ gave, to sell all that he had, was not an addition to the law, but the scrutiny of a concealed vice. 16 For the more deeply a man is tainted by this or the other vice, the more strikingly will it be dragged forth to light by being reproved. We are reminded also by this example that, if we would persevere steadily in the school of Christ, we must renounce the flesh. This young man, who had brought both a desire to learn and modesty, withdrew from Christ, because it was hard to part with a darling vice. The same thing will happen to us, unless the sweetness of the grace of Christ render all the allurements of the flesh distasteful to us. *Whether or not this temptation was temporary, so that the young man afterwards repented, we know not; but it may be conjectured with probability, that his covetousness kept him back from making any proficiency.*



http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol32/htm/lxxi.htm

Calvin conjectures the rich ruler never repented. He is not sure, but any way this proves Calvin didn't have presuppositions forcing him to believe that he did repent.


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 2, 2006)

> For what it's worth, I believe God loves the reprobate in hell, else He would not preserve them alive. Some will object, How can such suffering be called an act of love? Answer: in the same way we love our relatives and lock them up if they are a threat to society. God's love does not require man's sense of justice to vindicate it.



I stand corrected, evidently Peter was right and I misunderstood you. Of course, it matters little what you believe, but rather what do the Scriptures teach. With that in mind, how did you arrive at this particular belief? Was it from the Scriptures or is this just theology you´ve invented on your own? 

If you analogy is to hold then what becomes of the doctrine of adoption? Are all men universally God´s children and all men brothers since the efficacy of your analogy hinges on some degree of a filial or family bond? Further, I would think that when someone is confronted with the need to lock up a loved one because they´re a threat to themselves or others, it is with the hope that they might one day be rehabilitated. Even if rehabilitation is wishful thinking, no one wants to see a loved one punished, much less unceasingly. So is God per your analogy a disciplining parent or a judge? For what it's worth I don´t know that judges, assuming they´re interested in meeting out justice, are so much concerned with remediation as they are with ensuring the punishment fits the crime. Also, what does this do to the idea of judgment day? Perhaps Christ will not return in judgment after all, but rather as a loving older brother who merely sends sinners to Hell in the loving hope that they will see the errors of their ways, come to their senses, and return to the family fold. 

As for the rest of what you write, I concur wholeheartedly.


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 2, 2006)

> Except scripture explicitly says these are works of God's love.
> 
> For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?...
> Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
> ...



John tells us per 1 John 4:10,11;" In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another."

I would think this verse should help us understand the command found in Matthew 5 and explains why I argue God´s love is not universal as you suggest. Certainly, and contrary to those who claim that God desires the salvation of all men and that the gospel is an expression of love to all, since God did not send His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of those ordained to destruction and judgment, then I would think these men are not properly objects of God´s love. What am I missing? Rev. Winzer believes that God loves those whom He confines to the eternal punishment of Hell, but he did say "œsome will object" so count me among his objectors. At least what he and you call love is not any love that I can conceive of at the moment (perhaps you can convince me otherwise). 

Calvin said; "œIf it is equally in God´s power to convert men as well as to create them, it follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their conversion; for if he wished it he could do it: and hence it appears that he does not wish it." I agree and in light of John´s comments above I think God´s love toward His creatures is evidenced by what He actually does. I don´t think keeping His creatures alive (if you can call that living) in the eternal torments of Hell, completely alienated from the light and goodness of God, can be construed as love in any sense. This seems to me to be a very tortured and strained idea of love. But perhaps love is just a feeling after all and God loves those whom He passes over and the wicked aren´t really being fattened for the day of judgment, they´re just loved a little bit less than others whom He actually saves. 




> I cannot see the scripturalness of the idea the gospel is preached to all merely b/c we do not know who the elect are.



How about the "œscripturalness" of 2 Cor 2:15,16 concerning the preacher; "œFor we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?" The gospel preached comes as the stench of death to those who are perishing and those who perish do so by the Sovereign will and foreordination of God since God alone can save them.

Or, concerning the good things of God which you say evidence his love toward the reprobate, how do you harmonize this with James 5:5; "œYou have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter." It seems to me that God gives good things to the reprobate _to their judgment and detriment_ and we´re told even the plowing of the their fields is sin in God´s eyes. 



> Why is it that the goodness and mercy of God to the reprobate is said to lead to repentance.
> 
> Ro 2:4-5 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;




I think you´re confused, the reprobate by definition do not repent so in my opinion you misunderstand this passage if you think God´s goodness (you evidently added the idea of "œmercy" which is nowhere in the passage you cite) leads to repentance because they are kept from seeing (knowing) the goodness of God and in their blindness they contribute to their own judgment. I honestly do not see how you infer God´s universal love for all mankind from this passage at all? Romans 2 is part of an extended argument demonstrating that both Jew and Gentile are without excuse and are under God´s just wrath, not that all men are the objects of God´s love and mercy. 



> Perhaps i am wrong, I don't think I will be persuaded so, but it must be observed that you (mr. Gerety) certainly misrepresent Calvin. Calvin, commenting on mark 10 about the rich young ruler says the following.



I guess the question is whether I have misrepresented Calvin or does his understanding of the account of the rich young ruler contradict things he´s written elsewhere? Does the preponderance of Calvin´s writings support the idea of a common love and grace of God toward all men or does he teach that the good things of God common to all men come to one class of men as blessings and to another as curses? I agree the selection you´ve provided supports the former position, but I can provide just as many, if not more, selections from Calvin´s works that teach the latter. 

Regardless, I question whether Calvin is right per his take on the RYR. We know Jesus loved the RYR and that he went away disappointed after his encounter with Jesus, but is it a valid inference to assume that the RYR is to be accounted among the reprobate? I don´t think so. Evidently Calvin and you _assume_ this to be the case, but how do we know that this man wasn´t converted later on, even on a road to Emmaus? Given 1 John 4:10,11 above why wouldn't I be justified, if not more so, to assume that the RYR came to his senses later on and repented? Isn't the love of God in Christ always effectual? The problem I have with the assumption you´re making, and echoed by Calvin, is that in this case Christ´s love toward this man is ineffectual. I honestly don't think this passage can be used to support either one of us, but I grant that Calvin's exegesis, which I think is faulty, supports you. 

It seems to me because you already accept the idea of God´s universal love for all men you´re predisposed to assume the RYR was not one counted among those for whom Christ died and I don´t think this idea follows either for you or the prince of theologians, John Calvin. OTOH I don't think Calvin was so predisposed, because he argues against the idea of God's universal love for all men elsewhere and even as already cited. I just think Calvin was wrong here. Hey, I don´t even agree with Rev. Winzer that God loves those He sends to Hell. 

So, I think I´ve been a good sport in addressing verses and arguments you´ve put forth in support of the idea of the universal love of God toward all men (some more than others), but I´ve yet to see you interact with any of my counter arguments or verses which express God´s hatred toward sinners. Why is this? Why don´t you explain Psalm 11:5 in light of God´s universal love? How about the account of Jacob and Esua where we´re told God loves the one and hates the other even before the twins birth? And, why did you fail to interact with the objection that if sun and rain are supposed to be understood as signs of God´s love toward all men, what do you then do with falling towers, hurricanes, killer floods and heat waves? Why can't we infer God's universal hatred toward all men from these things?


----------



## Peter (Aug 2, 2006)

I agree that God hates the wicked and the reprobate. How can God both love and hate or desire the repentence of the reprobate and yet have condemned them to be vessels of wrath? I leave the answer to Calvin:



> Ez 18 If any one again objects -- this is making God act with duplicity, the answer is ready, that God always wishes the same thing, though by different ways, and in a manner inscrutable to us. Although, therefore, God's will is simple, yet great variety is involved in it, as far as our senses are concerned. Besides, it is not surprising that our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction, and wishes them to perish.





> 2 Pe 3:9-13 Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.
> 
> But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. 1





> To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance. 14 As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms. 15
> 
> But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him -- which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance -- he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, he loved his own work in them; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption.



Berkhof is very clear in his systematic theology on p445 This should also satisfy your objection about car crashes.



> Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favorable disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assume such a disposition in God. This structure takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God, in His election and reprobation. Along the line of His election God reveals his love, grace, mercy and longsuffering leading to salvation and the historical realixation of his reprobation he gives only to his aversion, disfavor, hatred, and wrath leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic oversimplification of the inner life of God which does not take sufficient accoint of his self revelation. In speaking on this subject we ought to be very careful and allow ourselves to ve guided by explicit statements of Scripture rather than by our bold inferences from the secret counsel of God. There is far more in God than we can redce to our loguical categories. Are the elect in this life the objects of God's love only and never the objects of his wrath? Is moses thinking only of the reprobate when he says: "For we are consumed in thine anger, and in thy wrath are we troubled"? PS 90:7 Does the the statement of Jesus that the wrath of God abideth on them that obey not the Son imply that it is removed from the others when, and not until, they submit to the beneficent rule of Christ? Jo 3:36 And does not Paul say to the Ephesuians that they "were by nature children of wrath even as the rest" 2:3 Evidently the elect can not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of God's love. And if they who are the objects of God's redeeming love can also in some sense of the word be regarded as objects of his wrath, why should it be implossible that they who are the objects of his wrath should also in some sense share in his favor? A father who is also a judge may loathe the son that is brought before him as a criminal and feel constrained to visit his judicial wrath upon him, but may yet pity him and show him acts of kindness while he is under condemnation. Why should this be impossible in God?...The Bible clearly teaches that He showers untold blessings upon all men and also clearly indicates that these are the expression of a favorable disposition in God which falls short, however, of the positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift their sentence, and to grant them salvation. Prov 1:24; Isa 1:18; Ez 18:23,32; 33:11; Mt 5:43--45; 23:37; Mk 10:21; Lk 6:35; Rom 2:4; 1 Tim 2:4. If such passages do not testify to a favorable disposition in God it would seem that language has lost meaning and that God's revelation is not dependable on this subject.



on p71



> The love of God. When goodness is exercised towards rational creatures it assumes the higher character of love and this love may again be distinguished according to the objects on which it terminates...He does not even withdraw His love completely from the sinner in his present sinful state, though the latters suin is an abomination to Him, since he recognizes even in the sinner his image-bearer Jo 3:16, Matt 5:44,45. At the same time he loves believers with a special love since he contemplates them as his spiritual children in Christ. It is to them that he communicates himself in the fullest and richest sense, with all the fulness of his grace and mercy. Jo 16:27; ro 5:8; 1 Jo 3:1.



As for Ro 2:4, what I meant and what I expect Paul meant, is that the *design* of God's longsuffering is to lead the reprobate to repentence. Unless you believe that the elect treasure up wrath on the day of wrath the reprobate are the subjects here. Mercy is usually defined as goodness towards undeserving sinners.

I think you missed the point of Mt 5:44,45,46,. If it were merely v45 it would be possible to wrest the scriptures to make them say there is no favor in the gifts of God. But the motivation for the command to love our enemies 44,46 is the example of God's blessings on the wicked. Our love is to imitate his love.

[Edited on 8-2-2006 by Peter]


----------



## MW (Aug 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I stand corrected, evidently Peter was right and I misunderstood you. Of course, it matters little what you believe, but rather what do the Scriptures teach. With that in mind, how did you arrive at this particular belief? Was it from the Scriptures or is this just theology you´ve invented on your own?



This is referred to in the review of the Free Offer. God retains the relationship of Creator to His creatures, and in a broader sense fallen man is still regarded as the image of God. God loves that in which His own image is to be found. However, it is a non-saving love which simply seeks the creature's preservation.

I believe Ps. 136, and its use of chesed with respect to creation and preservation, provides sound biblical support for this theology. "Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy [chesed] endureth for ever," v. 25.



> If you analogy is to hold then what becomes of the doctrine of adoption? Are all men universally God´s children and all men brothers since the efficacy of your analogy hinges on some degree of a filial or family bond?



I don't believe in the universal fatherhood of God, if that is what you are asking. However, it is clear that man is the offspring of God in the sense that he derives his life, breath, and all things from God. Hence there is a Creator/creature relationship.



> Further, I would think that when someone is confronted with the need to lock up a loved one because they´re a threat to themselves or others, it is with the hope that they might one day be rehabilitated. Even if rehabilitation is wishful thinking, no one wants to see a loved one punished, much less unceasingly. So is God per your analogy a disciplining parent or a judge?



God is a righteous judge. Justice is meted out on the supposition of maintaining order, not with rehabilitation in mind.



> Also, what does this do to the idea of judgment day? Perhaps Christ will not return in judgment after all, but rather as a loving older brother who merely sends sinners to Hell in the loving hope that they will see the errors of their ways, come to their senses, and return to the family fold.



My initial analogy supposed a case of a person being a threat to society. Given that the reprobate's state is irremedial, given that they are a threat to the holy and happy society of heaven, given that the Lord still has pleasure in preserving them, the analogy holds good. Introducing the concept of restorationism is irrelevant.

Blessings!

[Edited on 8-3-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 3, 2006)

> I agree that God hates the wicked and the reprobate.



We don´t agree at all. You have been defending the exact opposite proposition which is God loves the wicked and the reprobate. You wrote, among many other things in support of this proposition:



> . . . we see clearly in scripture that to an extent God loves the even the Reprobate . . .
> 
> The free offer is the ultimate expression of his love to [the reprobate].
> 
> God loves everybody that is why He offers them salvation . . . .








> How can God both love and hate or desire the repentence of the reprobate and yet have condemned them to be vessels of wrath? I leave the answer to Calvin



I'll leave the answer to Calvin too and then some (see below), but notice that this universal love now issues forth in a divine desire (albeit an unfulfilled and impotent disire) that the reprobate "“ those God has predestined as vessels of His wrath "“ come to repentance and be saved. 



> " . . . the reprobate are hateful to God, and with very good reason. For, deprived of his Spirit, they can bring forth nothing but reason for cursing" (Institutes 3.24.17).



A. W. Pink: 


> "œ"˜Thou hatest all workers of iniquity´"”not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says, "˜Thou hatest all workers of iniquity´ (Ps. 5:5)! "˜God is angry with the wicked every day.´ "˜He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God´"”not "˜shall abide,´ but even now"”"˜abideth on him´ (Ps. 5:5; 8:11; John 3:36). Can God "˜love´ the one on whom His "˜wrath´ abides? Again; is it not evident that the words "˜The love of God which is in Christ Jesus´ (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words "˜Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated´ (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody? ... Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change"”He is "˜without variableness or shadow of turning!´" (The Sovereignty of God, p. 248).



Robert Haldane: 


> "Nothing can more clearly manifest the strong opposition of the human mind to the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty, than the violence which human ingenuity has employed to wrest the _expression, "˜Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.´ By many this has been explained, "˜Esau have I loved less.´ But Esau was not the object of any degree of the Divine love ... If God´s love to Jacob was real literal love, God´s hatred to Esau must be real literal hatred. It might as well be said that the phrase, "˜Jacob have I loved,´ does not signify that God really loved Jacob, but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all that is meant by the expression, is that God hated Jacob less than he hated Esau. If every man´s own mind is a sufficient security against concluding the meaning to be, "˜Jacob have I hated less,´ his judgment ought to be a security against the equally unwarrantable meaning, "˜Esau have I loved less´ ... hardening [is] a proof of hatred" (Romans, pp. 456, 457).



Jerome Zanchius: 


> "When hatred is ascribed to God, it implies (1) a negation of benevolence, or a resolution not to have mercy on such and such men, nor to endue them with any of those graces which stand connected with eternal life. So, "˜Esau have I hated´ (Rom. 9), i.e., "˜I did, from all eternity, determine within Myself not to have mercy on him.´ The sole cause of which awful negation is not merely the unworthiness of the persons hated, but the sovereignty and freedom of the Divine will. (2) It denotes displeasure and dislike, for sinners who are not interested in Christ cannot but be infinitely displeasing to and loathsome in the sight of eternal purity. (3) It signifies a positive will to punish and destroy the reprobate for their sins, of which will, the infliction of misery upon them hereafter, is but the necessary effect and actual execution" (Absolute Predestination, p. 44).



Francis Turretin: 


> "For as he who loves a person or thing wishes well and, if he can, does well to it, so true hatred and abhorrence cannot exist without drawing after them the removal and destruction of the contrary" (Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, pp. 237-238).



Martin Luther: 


> "the love and hate of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of "˜free-will,´ but before the world was made; [so] all things take place in us of necessity, according as He has from eternity loved or not loved ... faith and unbelief come to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God" (The Bondage of the Will, pp. 226, 228-229).


 

As for Berkof, his "œsolution" "“ if anyone can properly call it that "“ requires a complete rejection of logic; "œThere is far more in God than we can reduce to our logical categories." So, yes, if you reject the idea that the Christian faith is a rational faith and accept the premise (as many do) that the Scriptures teach contradictory proposition which are beyond our grasp and have not been given to us by God so that we might understand, then I agree his solution - or any solution for that matter - is a good one since things like soundness and validity, key logical categories among others, are to be rejected and anything goes. Admittedly a convenient solution, but some people are evidently impressed by such spurious and vacuous theologizing. 

With men prattling on like Berkof, no wonder the Christian faith everywhere is so pallid and why Calvinism, in particular, is in disarray and its adherents eager to embrace every flatulent wind of doctrine that comes along.


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 3, 2006)

> This is referred to in the review of the Free Offer. God retains the relationship of Creator to His creatures, and in a broader sense fallen man is still regarded as the image of God. God loves that in which His own image is to be found. However, it is a non-saving love which simply seeks the creature's preservation.
> 
> I believe Ps. 136, and its use of chesed with respect to creation and preservation, provides sound biblical support for this theology. "Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy [chesed] endureth for ever," v. 25.



You may be extending the verse farther than it should be, but I will have to think on this more. A "œnon-saving love" which seeks the creature´s preservation even through the eternal torments of Hell would seem to drain the word "œlove" of all meaning. I guess we would have to say God loves Satan and his minions too since there is there a Creator/creature relationship there as well and Satan will be preserved in the fires of Hell for eternity. Now, I would agree that God does not hate men as men, because He made man "œgood," and Satan too for that matter. OTOH, I think I agree with Pink that God hates men as sinners and only loves some because of Christ and on account of His finished work alone. 

But if you're right and God really does love those He sends to Hell, even though He alone has the power within Himself to prevent such an outcome, it seems to me a very odd way of showing it. 

Anyway, I´ve got few enough friends on this list, no reason to alienate every potential ally.


----------



## MW (Aug 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> You may be extending the verse farther than it should be, but I will have to think on this more. A "œnon-saving love" which seeks the creature´s preservation even through the eternal torments of Hell would seem to drain the word "œlove" of all meaning. I guess we would have to say God loves Satan and his minions too since there is there a Creator/creature relationship there as well and Satan will be preserved in the fires of Hell for eternity.



We are not given enough information concerning Satan to know what relationship he bears to God. Hence I would be wary of drawing any conclusions in that direction.



> Now, I would agree that God does not hate men as men, because He made man "œgood," and Satan too for that matter. OTOH, I think I agree with Pink that God hates men as sinners and only loves some because of Christ and on account of His finished work alone.



I think God loves some because He loves them, and therefore they were given to Christ and were to be redeemed by Him. The reason why them and not others rests solely in God Himself. There is a reason, only it is not revealed to us. It is the same with His hatred of the reprobate. The reason is known only to Him.

But as I said previously, God's love manifests itself differently to different objects. I am not averse to the idea that the biblical definition of hatred might include a lesser form of love. Esau still received a temporal blessing, Gen. 27:39. God's "hatred" was expressed towards him in the fact that he would serve the younger Jacob. Who needs friends when you have God for your enemy!



> But if you're right and God really does love those He sends to Hell, even though He alone has the power within Himself to prevent such an outcome, it seems to me a very odd way of showing it.



We are not God's counsellors. He chose to send the gospel to some peoples and not to others, thereby making a difference in the tolerability of their judgment. Only He knows why.



> Anyway, I´ve got few enough friends on this list, no reason to alienate every potential ally.


----------



## JM (Aug 5, 2006)

> 9. What are the essentials and nonessentials of Christian Doctrine?
> 
> The question is ... a little ambiguous, so I´ll give you three answers:
> 
> If it means "œwhat doctrines must one believe to be saved?" the answer is, None. I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs. Of course, regenerate people, as they mature, naturally respond positively to the truths of the Scriptures, because of the Spirit´s work in them. Refusal to embrace these doctrines is evidence that the person is not regenerate.http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Interview.htm



Does Frame believe in eternal justification?

[Edited on 8-6-2006 by JM]


----------



## JM (Sep 3, 2006)

I'm still studying this subject, any critics I should review, something on line?


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 3, 2006)

Eternal Justification by Louis Berkhof


----------



## JM (Sep 3, 2006)

Got a question, in Romans 9 we see "Jacob I loved Esau I hated" and this was before they had done good or evil. On what basis did God love them?


----------



## Peter (Sep 3, 2006)

On the one hand God's love of Esau is just on the basis of his sovereign good pleasure. Yet in some respect our election is contemplated in our union with Christ.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us _in him_ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Even though I acknowledge we are not actually united with Christ until our effectual calling Eph 2:12; 2:3; 1 Cor 1:9. Perhaps someone else here can reconcile these truths.


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JM_
> Got a question, in Romans 9 we see "Jacob I loved Esau I hated" and this was before they had done good or evil. On what basis did God love them?



Verses 18, 19 trace it back to the will of God. Verses 20, 21, show that man has no right to pry into or question that will. Verses 22, 23, give a reasonable account as to why we should simply accept God's will as righteous and good.

Or, in the words of Deut. 7, turning the negative expression into a positive, God loves because God loves.

Blessings!


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JM_
> Got a question, in Romans 9 we see "Jacob I loved Esau I hated" and this was before they had done good or evil. On what basis did God love them?



Using this text to support EJ is not valid, for the love spoken of in Romans 9 existed before any "good or evil" had been done. Hence, no fall had yet taken place, and hence no need for justification. How can one be delivered from bondage when not yet inslaved?


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Eternal Justification by Louis Berkhof





> JUSTIFICATION FROM ETERNITY. The Antinomians held that the justification of the sinner took place in eternity, or in the resurrection of Christ. They either confounded it with the eternal decree of election, or with the objective justification of Christ when He was raised from the dead. They did not properly distinguish between the divine purpose in eternity and its execution in time, nor between the work of Christ in procuring, and that of the Holy Spirit in applying the blessings of redemption. According to this position we are justified even before we believe, though we are unconscious of it, and faith simply conveys to us the declaration of this fact. Moreover, the fact that our sins were imputed to Christ made Him personally a sinner, and the imputation of His righteousness to us makes us personally righteous, so that God can see no sin in believers at all. Some Reformed theologians also speak of justification from eternity, but at the same time refuse to subscribe to the Antinomian construction of this doctrine.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 4, 2006)

Like I said earlier, unless one is willing to abandon justification by faith (which is a very clear doctrine in scripture), then one cannot accept eternal justification. Justification by faith, means justification IN time, by the means of faith, on the grounds of Christ and his righteousness alone.


----------



## JM (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JM_
> ...



Jeff, 

.v11 is about Jacob and Esau when it speaks about "the children." Are you saying "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" is speaking of all mankind which includes Adam and Eve? On what basis? Doesn't this deny the personal election of Jacob and Esau?


----------



## JM (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Like I said earlier, unless one is willing to abandon justification by faith (which is a very clear doctrine in scripture), then one cannot accept eternal justification. Justification by faith, means justification IN time, by the means of faith, on the grounds of Christ and his righteousness alone.



That's not true!

"Sometimes people reject the doctrine of eternal justification as though the doctrine indicates that people do not have to believe in order to be justified. That is not a valid comparison. By eternal justification all we mean is that justification is bound to God´s eternal decree. We are not saying that someone is justified subjectively before he believes. Romans 8:29-30, "œFor 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." Many times we view these verses as taking place in time but these are all tied together "” "œwhom he did foreknow he also did predestinate"¦ moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called"¦" We know that at the time Paul wrote this passage not everyone who would be called had already been called. Then why did he use the past tense? He used the past tense because these graces are linked from all eternity." 

and

"The Bible speaks of an objective justification as well as a subjective justification. When God looks at his people objectively, he sees Christ. Objectively he sees the righteousness of Christ, not our sin. But that does not mean that subjectively each one of us is justified until such time as we believe. To give you an idea of what this idea signifies, we need to read Romans 4:25, "œWho was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." If Christ was "œraised again for our justification," when does our justification take place? Did our justification take place at his resurrection? Does our justification take place when we believe? There is an objective sense in which God sees nothing but Christ when he looks at his elect people though they have yet to believe. But there is also a subjective sense in which we receive that justification at such time as we believe.

Let´s consider the example of a surety standing for a debt. When was the debt paid? Was the debt paid when the surety first agreed to stand for it or was the debt paid when the debt was actually paid, or was the debt paid when the debtor received the information that the debt was paid for him? There is a sense in which each of those times is correct. As soon as the surety agrees to pay the debt, the debt is no longer hanging over the original debtor. Then, when the debt actually comes due and the surety pays the debt, there is the sense in which that is the time at which the debt is paid. And finally, when the original debtor comes in to pay his own debt and finds that it has already been paid for him, subjectively it is then that the person is notified that the debt has been paid for him. So, in different aspects, in different senses, all three times are correct. During the Reformation the doctrine of predestination, the doctrine of election and the doctrine of justification were closely bound together. There cannot be one without the others. This is why the Reformers could not accept an Arminian gospel as being a true gospel. We have to see justification as referring to the eternal decree of God, or we do not see Christ as surety." Richard Bacon

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


----------



## JM (Sep 6, 2006)

PS: I'm not fighting for this doctrine, just struggling to understand it, that's all.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JM_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I am saying that this passage is meant to teach us about how God elects people TO salvation (this includes all mankind, but AFTER the fall, for no redemption was necessary before the fall.). To plan to justify someone is different than actually justifying them. Before the foundation of the world is when God _planned_ to send his son to be the propititation for our sins, he planned to regenerate us by his Spirit, he planned to give us the gift of faith, and he planned to justify us. But don't you think it is putting the cart before the horse to ACTUALLY justify a person before they had ACTUALLY fallen? Isn't that like fixing something that was never broke (but you planned on breaking it!)?


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 6, 2006)

> I am saying that this passage is meant to teach us about how God elects people TO salvation (this includes all mankind, but AFTER the fall, for no redemption was necessary before the fall.). To plan to justify someone is different than actually justifying them. Before the foundation of the world is when God _planned_ to send his son to be the propititation for our sins, he planned to regenerate us by his Spirit, he planned to give us the gift of faith, and he planned to justify us. But don't you think it is putting the cart before the horse to ACTUALLY justify a person before they had ACTUALLY fallen? Isn't that like fixing something that was never broke (but you planned on breaking it!)?



Not to  but I think I the piece linked above by Pastor Bacon makes a very good point that shouldn't be overlooked:



> "In Numbers 23 we read the story of Balaam trying to curse Israel. God told Balaam that he was not allowed to curse Israel. He commanded him to bless Israel. Verse 21 explains why, "œHe [God] hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them." What does the passage mean by stating that God "œhas not beheld iniquity in Jacob?" Does that mean that there were no sinners in the assembly of Israel on that day? Of course not. It means that God was seeing them in Christ! He was seeing them justified. God does not see any perverseness in his elect. He does not see perverseness in his elect because he sees his elect justified."



I really love Pastor Bacon and have always appreciated his insights and the systematic way in which he pursues a question. That's why I think the above is particularly significant in regard (and in response) to those who, for example, wrongly think the universal desire for the salvation of all men is a mark of orthodoxy. When you consider Eph 2:3,4 in which we're told that while we were children of wrath like all the rest that God loved us, the idea of eternal justification in Christ provides the legal and objective basis by which the enmity between God and those for whom Christ died is overcome throughout the entire spectrum of redemptive history. It doesn't take any action or movement on our parts to be transformed into objects of God's love, for we are already loved because of Christ in accordance with God's immutable and eternal decree. On what other basis could Paul write that we were the objects of God's love even when we were personally and subjectively alienated from God on account of sin?


----------



## JM (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JM_
> ...



It would be putting the cart before the horse in terms of time, I agree, but is our justification in time or in the eternal decree of God?

I don't know. 



Thanks brother.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > I am saying that this passage is meant to teach us about how God elects people TO salvation (this includes all mankind, but AFTER the fall, for no redemption was necessary before the fall.). To plan to justify someone is different than actually justifying them. Before the foundation of the world is when God _planned_ to send his son to be the propititation for our sins, he planned to regenerate us by his Spirit, he planned to give us the gift of faith, and he planned to justify us. But don't you think it is putting the cart before the horse to ACTUALLY justify a person before they had ACTUALLY fallen? Isn't that like fixing something that was never broke (but you planned on breaking it!)?
> ...



Hi Sean,

While I respect the motives of those who defend EJ, I don't see the reasoning above as necessarily defending EJ.

For instance, upon what basis does God view us in Christ? The reformed answer is because he loved us before the foundation of the world. But why does he love us from eternity? Because he sees us in Christ. See the circularness of this argument? 

I could be wrong, but I don't see the doctrine of election this way (although I must admit I have in the past). I view it like this:

God chose us from the foundation of the world to be in Christ because he first loved us. Why did he first love us? Because he made us to be objects of his love, not wrath. Simple as that. He has the right, for he is the potter, to make some for loving, and others for hating.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 6, 2006)

Just to include in the conversation:




> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XI
> Of Justification
> IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] *nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]*
> ...


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 6, 2006)

> I view it like this:
> 
> God chose us from the foundation of the world to be in Christ because he first loved us. Why did he first love us? Because he made us to be objects of his love, not wrath. Simple as that. He has the right, for he is the potter, to make some for loving, and others for hating.



You said that an acceptance of EJ is to abandon justification by faith, but hopefully you can see now that is not the case (or, at least, you haven´t yet shown it to be the case). Certainly I hope you agree that Pastor Bacon is not abandoning JBF per the piece cited above? The problem I have with your argument is the phrase "œBecause he made us to be objects of his love . . . ." Eph 2 cited above states that God loved us "œ*even* when we were dead in our transgressions." Our faith and repentance doesn´t make us lovable to God, for we were already objects of His love before regeneration. There was never a time when we were not objects of his love for He loved us even before the world was made, just as he loved the one and not the other before the two were born. Conversely, elsewhere in Scripture we´re taught that God hates sinners (Psalm 11:5, Prov 22:14, and many other places), yet Eph 2 makes it clear that there are some sinners He loves. Why? On what other basis can it be said that God "œhath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel" except on the basis of Christ´s propitiatory cross work? It seems to me that there has to be a sense in which God has always viewed us (and all the saints throughout history) in Christ and through the basis of His finished work. Of course that does not negate the fact that we are not subjectively, individually and personally justified until such time as we come to believe in Jesus Christ and His righteousness applied to us by faith. 

Perhaps "œeternal justification" is not the best way to describe the situation Bacon describes, but if OT saints were justified by faith in that they were looking ahead to the promised Messiah and His perfect sacrifice yet to come, then I don´t see why it causes any conflict to say that from God´s POV all the elect are seen as justified and sinless in Christ even though some still await to be made alive and the full number are brought into the Kingdom.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> You said that an acceptance of EJ is to abandon justification by faith, but hopefully you can see now that is not the case (or, at least, you haven´t yet shown it to be the case). Certainly I hope you agree that Pastor Bacon is not abandoning JBF per the piece cited above?



I am certainly not accusing Bacon of denying the gospel (or Gill or any other person who believes in EJ). However, I do think that to say that one is justified by faith, and one is eternally justified is contradictory, or the fallacy of equivication. One can try to say that the *term* "justification" has different senses (which I would agree), but the doctrine remains the same. Justification is still:



> Q70: What is justification?
> A70: Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners,[1] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[2] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[3] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[4] and received by faith alone.[5]
> 
> 1. Rom. 3:22, 24-25; 4;5
> ...





> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> The problem I have with your argument is the phrase "œBecause he made us to be objects of his love . . . ."



I understand what you are getting at here, but I think it is a misunderstanding of what I meant to convey by the phrase. My argument was not that God changes us to be objects of his love, but merely that he decides to make us objects of his love. On what basis? That is the question that the scriptures don't answer In my humble opinion. Because he decided to make some for love, others for destruction. 



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Eph 2 cited above states that God loved us "œ*even* when we were dead in our transgressions." Our faith and repentance doesn´t make us lovable to God, for we were already objects of His love before regeneration. There was never a time when we were not objects of his love for He loved us even before the world was made, just as he loved the one and not the other before the two were born. Conversely, elsewhere in Scripture we´re taught that God hates sinners (Psalm 11:5, Prov 22:14, and many other places), yet Eph 2 makes it clear that there are some sinners He loves. Why? On what other basis can it be said that God "œhath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel" except on the basis of Christ´s propitiatory cross work?



I don't think that solves the problem. Why did God decide to impute the work of Christ to some sinners and not others? Isn't imputing Christ's righteousness to some an act of love? How could he love them without Christ's righteousness imputed to them? It is still circular.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> It seems to me that there has to be a sense in which God has always viewed us (and all the saints throughout history) in Christ and through the basis of His finished work. Of course that does not negate the fact that we are not subjectively, individually and personally justified until such time as we come to believe in Jesus Christ and His righteousness applied to us by faith.



Even after reading Bacon, Gill and others, I don't understand what the difference is between the supposed "subjective" and "objective" justifications are. The closest I can come to is when a person comes to faith, they then realize their true condition, that they have always been justified. Nothing changes at faith, but realization. 



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Perhaps "œeternal justification" is not the best way to describe the situation Bacon describes, but if OT saints were justified by faith in that they were looking ahead to the promised Messiah and His perfect sacrifice yet to come, then I don´t see why it causes any conflict to say that from God´s POV all the elect are seen as justified and sinless in Christ even though some still await to be made alive and the full number are brought into the Kingdom.



And that brings in the OT saints, which brings a whole different element into the discussion. For the sake of time, I will have to comment on this later, Lord willing.

I understand where the EJ folks are coming from, but give me Westminster anyday.


----------



## JM (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > I view it like this:
> ...



What he said....


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 6, 2006)

> I understand what you are getting at here, but I think it is a misunderstanding of what I meant to convey by the phrase. My argument was not that God changes us to be objects of his love, but merely that he decides to make us objects of his love. On what basis? That is the question that the scriptures don't answer In my humble opinion. Because he decided to make some for love, others for destruction.



Fair enough. I guess my concern is that you have God´s love extending to sinners as sinners and I think this is problematic. Sin must be addressed. Scripture does answer this question, even if it doesn´t answer others.

Again, I think Bacon makes a great point and by way of example:



> Let´s consider the example of a surety standing for a debt. When was the debt paid? Was the debt paid when the surety first agreed to stand for it or was the debt paid when the debt was actually paid, or was the debt paid when the debtor received the information that the debt was paid for him? There is a sense in which each of those times is correct. As soon as the surety agrees to pay the debt, the debt is no longer hanging over the original debtor. Then, when the debt actually comes due and the surety pays the debt, there is the sense in which that is the time at which the debt is paid. And finally, when the original debtor comes in to pay his own debt and finds that it has already been paid for him, subjectively it is then that the person is notified that the debt has been paid for him. So, in different aspects, in different senses, all three times are correct. During the Reformation the doctrine of predestination, the doctrine of election and the doctrine of justification were closely bound together. There cannot be one without the others. This is why the Reformers could not accept an Arminian gospel as being a true gospel. We have to see justification as referring to the eternal decree of God, or we do not see Christ as surety.




Jeff:


> Even after reading Bacon, Gill and others, I don't understand what the difference is between the supposed "subjective" and "objective" justifications are. The closest I can come to is when a person comes to faith, they then realize their true condition, that they have always been justified. Nothing changes at faith, but realization.



Does the act of believing justify a man or did Christ´s cross work accomplish our justification more than 2000 years ago? It seems to me that faith is receiving what has already been accomplished. At that moment, the moment we first believe, justification is applied and we are translated from one kingdom to the next. 





> Originally posted by Magma2
> Perhaps "œeternal justification" is not the best way to describe the situation Bacon describes, but if OT saints were justified by faith in that they were looking ahead to the promised Messiah and His perfect sacrifice yet to come, then I don´t see why it causes any conflict to say that from God´s POV all the elect are seen as justified and sinless in Christ even though some still await to be made alive and the full number are brought into the Kingdom.
> 
> 
> ...




Hopefully you will at least agree that bringing in OT saints is hardly irrelevant. This is why I think you might be missing the point, because no one is denying Westminster in the least, but rather explicating the first clause of Chapter 11, Article 4, "œGod did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect . . . ." Again, I think Bacon is on target:



> Justification is so bound to God´s eternal decree that we can characterize it as "œeternal justification." I realize that this is a controversial doctrine. We do not hold that anyone who believes other than this is not Reformed. But, if we would be consistent with the Reformed faith, then we have to maintain that justification is so bound to the eternal decree of God that God eternally "œhas never seen iniquity in Israel." In reality we are sinners. In the desert Israel consisted of sinners. Why could God not behold their iniquity? It was not because there was not any to see; it was because it had all been canceled on Christ´s account. But this was before Christ ever died.



[Edited on 9-7-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## JM (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Just to include in the conversation:
> 
> 
> ...



Good quote, sometimes when we get going on a topic it's easy to forget that others [better able to deal with the topic] have written on this or similar topics. I don't hold to this confession as I understand it right now, but still thinking and studying on it.


----------



## MW (Sep 7, 2006)

> Let´s consider the example of a surety standing for a debt. When was the debt paid? Was the debt paid when the surety first agreed to stand for it or was the debt paid when the debt was actually paid, or was the debt paid when the debtor received the information that the debt was paid for him? There is a sense in which each of those times is correct. As soon as the surety agrees to pay the debt, the debt is no longer hanging over the original debtor. Then, when the debt actually comes due and the surety pays the debt, there is the sense in which that is the time at which the debt is paid. And finally, when the original debtor comes in to pay his own debt and finds that it has already been paid for him, subjectively it is then that the person is notified that the debt has been paid for him. So, in different aspects, in different senses, all three times are correct. During the Reformation the doctrine of predestination, the doctrine of election and the doctrine of justification were closely bound together. There cannot be one without the others. This is why the Reformers could not accept an Arminian gospel as being a true gospel. We have to see justification as referring to the eternal decree of God, or we do not see Christ as surety.



As much as I respect Pastor Bacon, this makes the gospel nothing more than notification and faith nothing more than assurance; and I know he does not hold to this. The analogy is amiss for the simple reason that there is no predetermined plan in the case of an ordinary debtor.

Reformed theology teaches conclusively that justification and sanctification are NEVER separated, only distinguished. It is this very point that the reformers used to vindicate their doctrine from the Romanist allegation that it was fictitious.


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 7, 2006)

> As much as I respect Pastor Bacon, this makes the gospel nothing more than notification and faith nothing more than assurance; and I know he does not hold to this. The analogy is amiss for the simple reason that there is no predetermined plan in the case of an ordinary debtor.



And in fairness to Pastor Bacon, I don´t think you should try and stretch the analogy further than he intended either. As I read the piece my understanding is that there is an objective sense in which the elect are always viewed as being "œin Christ." Just as payment for the sins of the elect was accomplished completely apart from us on the cross, however it is only at the moment when a person first believes that the benefits procured are imputed to us (i.e., per the great exchange occurs). This is how I understood his analogy and the distinction he draws between objective and subjective justification "“ or, objective justification from the standpoint of God's eternal decree and our personal, subjective justification in time where we're cleansed from our very particular and individual sins.



> Reformed theology teaches conclusively that justification and sanctification are NEVER separated, only distinguished. It is this very point that the reformers used to vindicate their doctrine from the Romanist allegation that it was fictitious.



You lost me. How does this relate to the doctrine of eternal justification or anything else Bacon said per the linked sermon?

[Edited on 9-7-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## MW (Sep 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> And in fairness to Pastor Bacon, I don´t think you should try and stretch the analogy further than he intended either. As I read the piece my understanding is that there is an objective sense in which the elect are always viewed as being "œin Christ." Just as payment for the sins of the elect was accomplished completely apart from us on the cross, however it is only at the moment when a person first believes that the benefits procured are imputed to us (i.e., per the great exchange occurs). This is how I understood his analogy and the distinction he draws between objective and subjective justification "“ or, objective justification from the standpoint of God's eternal decree and our personal, subjective justification in time where we're cleansed from our very particular and individual sins.



The problem with the objective/subjective language is the fact that we are justified by a righteousness outside of us, which can only be conceived of objectively; the only thing subjective about it is the assurance that we are justified. Saying that justification is objective from eternity, when justification by nature is objective, is to teach justification from eternity; whereas the natural import of Scriptural language indicates that God views the sinner outside of Christ as under wrath. It is better to retain the traditional language of virtual/actual.



> > Reformed theology teaches conclusively that justification and sanctification are NEVER separated, only distinguished. It is this very point that the reformers used to vindicate their doctrine from the Romanist allegation that it was fictitious.
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me. How does this relate to the doctrine of eternal justification or anything else Bacon said per the linked sermon?



I believe it is common ground that Dr. Bacon would agree with. It is pertinent because it requires us to view justification and sanctification along parallel lines at the three points of decree, impetration and application. We do not say that we are chosen in Christ and are therefore holy, but that we are chosen in Christ "that we should be holy." Likewise we should also say that we are chosen in Christ "that we should be ... without blame," Eph. 1:4. The Scriptures refer to God's eternal decree in purpose clauses, not consecutive clauses.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Magma2_
> ...


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 8, 2006)

> The problem with the objective/subjective language is the fact that we are justified by a righteousness outside of us, which can only be conceived of objectively; the only thing subjective about it is the assurance that we are justified.



in my opinion you miss the point, but not by much, and I don´t see that the object/subject language as being a problem nor does it render justification in time as nothing more than an aspect of assurance. You´re right in that the objective nature of justification and the source of our righteousness is outside of us. Frankly it was nailed to a tree at Calvary. Hopefully, that much we can agree on. I would also think we would agree that the benefits secured and applied are two different things and are different aspects of justification. Even beyond this, and as Richard Bacon rightly points out; "œJustification begins in eternity past and it continues in eternity future. Biblically, "œeternity" simply means outside time" (see his discussion of Rom 8:29-30 above). So, eternal justification, as I see it, is the consideration of Christ being the first born of many brothers and looking at justification from the perspective of eternity. Bacon again:



> Biblically speaking, eternity simply means outside time or divorced from time. Time is a part of creation as we are part of creation; therefore time impacts upon us as creatures. We know that certain things happened yesterday and that other things will not happen until tomorrow. However God, as Creator and not part of creation, is not aware of a succession of moments as we are. God is not trapped in a succession of days. For God there is just a constant now. God is always in his present, even though that, again, is speaking in temporal terms and temporal terms do not properly relate to God.



in my opinion it is only from the vantage point of God´s "œconstant now" that, say, Numbers 23:21 makes sense. Now if you have a different take on this verse than Bacon, and you must, I´d appreciate hearing what you have to offer.



> Saying that justification is objective from eternity, when justification by nature is objective, is to teach justification from eternity; whereas the natural import of Scriptural language indicates that God views the sinner outside of Christ as under wrath. It is better to retain the traditional language of virtual/actual.



I disagree that the "œnatural import of Scriptural language indicates that God views the sinner outside of Christ as under wrath." That´s too large a blanket and it´s simply not true in every case. Aside from Numbers and Romans adduced above, I´ve already mentioned Ephesians 2 which teaches that even while the elect were "œby nature" still children of wrath and dead in sin and trespass, suffering under the contagion of sin, they are viewed "“ and are always viewed "“ as objects of God´s *love* "“ not His wrath. Jacob was love by God even before he could do anything good or evil. Jer 31:3 also tells us; The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying, "I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness." This is true of all God´s chosen people. We love God because He first loved us. Yet, that´s not the all of it, for the only basis for God´s expressed love is Christ and His finished work on account of sin. Which is why I agree with Bacon and disagree with you when he says; "œGod never saw the elect in any way other than in Christ."

Anyway, I don't want to major in the minors or  so I will only ask that you read through and consider the points raised in Bacon's sermon (which in my opinion is excellent) and feel free to have the last word. I will however continue this with Jeff if he wants to add anything.

[Edited on 9-8-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## MW (Sep 8, 2006)

I don't have anything extra to add, Sean, except to charify that I would not want any observations I have made to detract in the slightest from Dr. Bacon or his ministry. Blessings!


----------



## JM (Sep 10, 2006)

If justification takes place in time, how does the death of Christ in time affect our understanding of how the OT saints were saved, considering they were saved before the cross...??

Thanks.


----------

