Phillip -
So an infant can be saved without or outside of faith?
No they can't.
Lamb - you can't see the forest for the trees.
First, Exegetically you want to keep Paul in context in Romans, and then subsequently in the rest of the epistles that follow. Paul is very clear.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Romans 3:30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised
by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his
faith is accounted for righteousness,
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his
faith is accounted for righteousness,
Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
So when Paul says:
Romans 8:30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He
justified, these He also glorified.
-we know what he means when he says "justified" because he has already qualified this. Justification is by faith.
The legal and forensic work going on here by Christ and imputed to us and how all that works is a covenantal problem that needs to be understood. That is why this question and thread overall is here because of a misunderstanding of "covenant" in general and imputation overall.
Galatians is also the same following the same Greek constructions that Romans does:
Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law but
by faith in Jesus Christ,
Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would
justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
Galatians 3:11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for
"the just shall live by faith."
Also, I would be careful quoting Turretin out of context. Turretin does NOT agree with you, nor does Calvin, Luther, Charnock, Watson, Owen, Reynolds, the entire Westminster Assembly, the WCF, or a hundred other reliable sources that one could quote. To certain extents I will quote Gill, et al. as you did, but they are not as safe as one would like overall (which is why Gill himself is a hyper-Calvinist in his work "The Cause of God and Truth" - he doe snot get this right). I would also beware of quoting Hanko who knows little if nothing about Covenant Theology in general and is also a hyper-Calvinist in most ways. I have critiqued his exceedingly poor understanding of "covenant" in his work "Everlasting Covenant of Grace" which ought to be thrown intot eh fire and burned. Don't rely on him - he is not a safe guide.
Turretin ALSO says that infants have SEED Faith. But you missed that overall. Active faith and seed faith are different theological concepts. Don't be confused. Justification, according to Turretin, et. al. is something that is instrumentally gained by faith. Without faith no one is justified ever, including infants. I would go back and reread, or read for the first time, Turretin. You are not following him in context. he makes a number of differences between kinds of justification, and how they are used in Scripture - something the Puritans did as well as Owen. Even at a basic level Turretin states, "For, in Is. 53:11, where it is said Christ by his knowledge shall justify many; it is manifest that reference is made to the meritorious and instrumental cause of our absolution with God, namely, Christ,
and the knowledge or belief of him." This is taken objectively " to which justification is everywhere ascribed. The following words show that
no other sense is to be sought, when it is added, for he shall bear their iniquities, to denote the satisfaction of Christ, which
faith ought to embrace, in order that we may be justified."
In infants (to which you referenced) Turretin states specifically "It is one thing to have the
principles and seeds of knowledge in the common notions implanted in us (
which we grant); another to have actual knowledge (which we deny)." This is the difference between actually exercising faith, and having faith as infants do. The "defect of age" as he says is what hinders them from exercising it. So make a distinction between "actual faith" which is of adults, and "seeds and principles" of faith which infants have. He says, "the seed or root of faith
cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrucÂtion being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within." God then reckons them ,as He does with adults, justified based on faith. Whether one actively asserts it or not does not destroy the seed of it by which they can be actually justified.
Also, Turretin, et al. also makes a distinction between regeneration, faith and justification. They are not the same and do not work the same no matter how instantaneously one might think they appear in a given conversion experience. The Reformers and Puritans are quite bound together on this point over the hyper-Calvinism of those you have thus quoted under the guise of "exalting God more highly for His sovereignty."
Personally, I find the the misunderstanding here is a failure to understand the covenant of works and the doctrine of imputation (of all things). That might sound confusing, but its the reality behind the problem understanding all this. But that's for another time.
Here is the strange part to me:
You said,
"Turretin speaks of the seed of faith which i agree with."
Which is good. This is what Turretin does not want you to mis. Then you quote "He also says"....yada yada. Whcih means you missed what he said.
Then you said,
So you seem to be in agreement with Luther who I believed errored on this issue of infants actually possessing saving faith.
Actually, this is EXACTLY what Turretin just said! They DO possess it, but cannot actually, or actively, exercise it. That does no mean however, that it is not there, or is not the ground and instrument of God's acceptance of them forensically in justification.
[Edited on 3-15-2005 by webmaster]
Matt!
