When were Gods elect Justified?

[pastorway]

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

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

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

You are abandoning the truth of justification by faith if you make exceptions!

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

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by pastorway

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

Phillip

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by pastorway

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

Phillip

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

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

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by pastorway

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

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

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

You are abandoning the truth of justification by faith if you make exceptions!

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

Phillip

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

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

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


In His Grace

Joseph

 

[The Lamb]

Fred:

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Arch2k]

Lamb,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pastorway]

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

Thanks Fred. Thanks Jeff.

Phillip

 

[The Lamb]

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

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


In His Grace


Joseph

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by pastorway

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

Phillip

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

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

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

 

[pastorway]

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

Phillip

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by pastorway

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

Phillip

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

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

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

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

"The entrance of Thy word giveth light" (Psa. 119:130), but before it can enter the darkened human heart the Spirit of God must operate upon it.*

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

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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



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

 

[The Lamb]

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

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

 

[The Lamb]

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

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

 

[The Lamb]

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

[original post quoted herein was edited]

[Edited on 3-15-05 by pastorway]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by The Lamb

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by The Lamb

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

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

[original quote posted herein was edited]



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

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by The Lamb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



In His Name


Joseph

 

[pastorway]

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

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

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

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

Phillip

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by The Lamb

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

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

[original quote posted herein was edited]



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

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

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


In His grace


Joseph

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

Thanks,

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

 

[The Lamb]

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

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

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

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

Phillip

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

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

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

Boettner states this :

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

Ronald hanko:

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

 

[pastorway]

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

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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 instruc­tion being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within." God then reckons them ,as He does with adults, justified based on faith. Whether one actively asserts it or not does not destroy the seed of it by which they can be actually justified.

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

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

Here is the strange part to me:

You said,

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

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


Then you said,

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

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


[Edited on 3-15-2005 by webmaster]

 

[Arch2k]

Matt!

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

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

 

[pastorway]

Exactly Matt.

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

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

Phillip

 

[andreas]

Elect infants can be and are saved by God,

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

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

 

[pastorway]