When were Gods elect Justified?

[The Lamb]

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


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

 

[pastorway]

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

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

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

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

Phillip

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by pastorway

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

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

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

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

Phillip

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

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

But I thank you for responding in Grace.




In His Grace

Joseph

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

Your view is historically unorthodox.

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

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

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[fredtgreco]

Joseph,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Calvin:

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

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

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

[Edited on 3/16/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Scott Bushey]

I previously said:

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

 

[pastorway]

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

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

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

Phillip