MacArthur's Theology ? ?

[Wannabee]

You can disagree all you like Tom. That's what he said from the pulpit at GCC, and I was there. So, you're either calling him, or me, a liar.

Doesn’t it sound just a bit “prideful” to you? When do you think we can we expect an apology from MacArthur to his Reformed brethren?

My suspicion is that TMS grads are leaving the Calvinist dispensational ghetto and are bleeding over into a more consistently Reformed/Calvinistic eschatology, and this concerns MacArthur. Thus the strong words.

Don't expect an apology. There can be fine line between confidence in God's Word and arrogance. If someone disagrees with you it can seem like arrogance, though it may not be. You rest in the sovereignty of God in salvation. Your brother in Christ may not. Yet, because you understand God's Word more clearly in regard to predestination you can speak confidently. Your brother, however, is convinced and sees your position as arrogance. Pride? Perhaps. But, whether it is or not, it's instilled by a confidence in God's Word. You disagree with MacArthur, but in your manner of dealing with your disagreement you continue to reveal your own arrogance by making yourself an expert and claiming that a faithful man of God is naive, short-sighted, etc. Disagree all you want. But, in doing so, learn from the character of men like Sproul and Waldron in the process.

Your comment about TMS grads is unhelpful, derogatory and simply based on your own prejudices. As one, and one who has regular contact with both grads and students, I can assure you that this is absolute nonsense. You act like MacArthur's against the ropes or something. There have been a few who have embraced a more reformed doctrine/hermeneutic/system, but the majority are still comfortable with the TMS position, which is decidedly MacArthurite. Having said that, there is grace in the class rooms and the professors do not treat students who don't "tow the line," so to speak, with any harshness. As long as they present a good argument and handle Scripture well they do well. When looking for a seminary a friend of mine advised me to "find a seminary that will teach you how to think, not what to think." That's what TMS does. They teach systematics, but the focus is on preparing the men to grapple with Scripture and arrive at the truth on their own. This is decidedly uncharacteristic of most of today's seminaries, which perceive a need to force their own "systems" down the throats of their students.

This grows wearying Tom. You have a bone to pick and you need a platform. You've been called and don't like it. If you sense a need and see bashing MacArthur as your service to God then by all means start another thread. If you leave MacArthur's name out of it I probably won't even notice. But it would be much better for you, the PB, and God's Kingdom, if another approach was taken; one tempered by love, mercy, grace and humility.

 

[Israelite]

Hi Joshua, i want to briefly reply to some of your questions.

You said:
Chris, do you believe that any one of God's elect can be saved apart from faith? Really?

No

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

You said:
Chris, are God's elect justified by God's means of faith?

God's elect were justified at the cross 2,000 years ago.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Romans 3:24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"

Romans 4:25 "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for (because of) our justification."

Romans 5:8-11 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. (10) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (11) And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."


You said:
Umm...yeah. Duh. God has a means to His end. Chris, are you purporting that men may be justified apart from faith/repentance (which is no doubt brought about by regeneration)? Really?

I believe that the bible clearly teaches that our justification was accomplished 2,000 years ago when Christ cried out "IT IS FINISHED" but don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean as some who are called primitive baptists teach that many will die in ignorance of the gospel and still enter into glory.


Joshua, do you believe God saved you conditioned on your faith?


You said:
Yeah, the faith He gave me as a gift. The means by which He brought me unto Himself. He elected me in eternity past. He made provision for my justification on the cross. He applied said provision to me upon my conversion, which went like this: Regeneration---->Faith/Repentance--->Justification--->Still Workin' on Sanctification---->Will be Glorification.

Joshua, one man i have read rightly said
quote:
Faith is not a condition of or prerequisite to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation.

He is correct.

Quote:
do you believe justification is conditioned on faith?

You said:
See above.

the answer is a resounding no, even if you believe faith is the alone instrument whereby God's elect recieve justification as defined in the westimster and baptist confessions, it is not a condition.
salvation is unconditional.

Quote:
God says:
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

You said:
Amen! I love Scripture. Not really sure how anything you've drivelled above is relevant to the aforementioned texts.

my point was that God gives his elect an understanding of the truth of the gospel, the simple gospel of Christ crucified (according to the scriptures).

God saves his people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.

 

[turmeric]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!
I think some are confusing regeneration and justification. I think we all would agree that regeneration precedes faith and is a gracious, immediate work of the Holy Spirit, independent of anyone's actions. Faith is a gift, and is commonly said to be the instrument of our justification.
[BIBLE]Rom 3:27-31[/BIBLE]

 

[AV1611]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!
I think some are confusing regeneration and justification. I think we all would agree that regeneration precedes faith and is a gracious, immediate work of the Holy Spirit, independent of anyone's actions. Faith is a gift, and is commonly said to be the instrument of our justification.
[BIBLE]Rom 3:27-31[/BIBLE]

Our justification in our person but we are justified from eternity in Christ our Surety. I would point to Thomas Goodwin, William Twisse, John Gill, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Hoeksema as theologians who held to that position.

 

[Israelite]

Hi Richard, what are your thoughts on this verse.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

how does one who holds to justification from eternity like yourself and John Gill deal with this verse?

 

[Calvibaptist]

Hi Richard, what are your thoughts on this verse.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

how does one who holds to justification from eternity like yourself and John Gill deal with this verse?

Well, I'm not either of those, but here is why being a Baptist is important. I believe in regenerate church membership (not to get back into that debate again). This verse simply cannot apply to those who are unsaved. Paul is writing to the church in Rome, to those he has already called "saints" and "beloved of God." He is writing to those who are already believers and emphasizes that they are in a state of justification.

Besides that, the context of the passage is justification by faith. Romans 5:1 says "being justified by faith." It is in reference to those whom God has called in space and time and given repentance and faith.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It seems Romans 4:1 through 5:1 is being skipped over and they want to jump into something that this passage leads to.

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

(Rom 5:2) through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

(Rom 4:1) What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?

(Rom 4:2) For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

(Rom 4:3) For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

(Rom 4:4) Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.


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

(Gal 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.



(Gal 3:5) Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?—

(Gal 3:6) just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

(Gal 3:7) Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

(Gal 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.”

(Gal 3:9) So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

Faith is required for justification.

Westminster Confession 11.4 explicitly says:

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is a thread and blog you may want to read through. Justification / Vindication

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=22545

http://www.oceansideurc.org/the-heidelblog/2007/6/23/justification-v-vindication-2.html

 

[AV1611]

Hi Richard, what are your thoughts on this verse.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

how does one who holds to justification from eternity like yourself and John Gill deal with this verse?

On Romans 5:9 Gill writes

Much more then being now justified by his blood,.... The apostle here argues from justification by Christ to salvation by him, there being a certain and inseparable connection between these two; whoever is justified shall be saved; and speaks of justification "as being now by his blood". Justification in God's mind from eternity proceeded upon the suretyship engagements of Christ to be performed in time; the Old Testament saints were justified of God with a view to the blood of the Lamb which was to be shed; this blood was "now" shed, and an application of justification by it was "now" made to the persons spoken of; which is the reason of this way of speaking. The blood of Christ intends his death, as appears from the context, and shows it to be a violent death; death by the effusion of blood. There is an emphasis upon it, "his blood"; not the blood of bulls and goats, nor of a mere innocent creature, but of Christ the Son of God; which is therefore efficacious to all the purposes for which it was shed, and particularly justification. This being ascribed to it, shows the concern Christ had in it, his blood is here put for the whole matter of justification; the shedding of that being the finishing part of it; and that our justification before God proceeds upon the foot of a satisfaction made to the law and justice of God: hence such as are interested in it,​

He also deals with this type of objection thus:

"The several passages of scripture, where we are said to be justified by, or through faith, are urged, as declaring faith to be a prerequisite to justification; which cannot be, say they, if justification was from eternity." To which I answer: That those places of scripture, which speak of justification, by, or through faith, do not militate against, nor disprove justification before faith: for though justification before, and by faith differ; yet they are not opposite and contradictory: yea, justification by, or through faith; supposes justification before faith. For if there was no justification before faith, there can be none by it, without making faith the cause or condition of it. As to those places of scripture, which speak of justification by, or through faith, declaring faith to be prerequisite to justification, I reply: If by a prerequisite, is meant a prerequisite to the being of justification, it is denied that those scriptures teach any such thing; for faith adds nothing to the being of justification: but if by it, is meant a prerequisite to the sense and knowledge of it, or to a claim of interest in it, it will be allowed to be the sense of them. But a learned author says: That "to refer them to a sense of justification only, is weak and foreign to the mind of the apostle Paul." But I must beg leave to differ from him, till some reasons are given why it is so. But let us a little consider some of the scriptures which are insisted on. Perhaps the words of my text may be thought to stare me in the face and to furnish out an objection against justification, before faith; when the apostle says, And by him all that believe are justified. From whence it can only be inferred: that all who believe are justified persons, which no body denies; and they may be justified before they believe, for aught that the apostle here says. And if any one should think fit to infer from hence, that those who believe not, are not justified, it will he allowed that they are not declaratively, or evidentially justified: that they do not know that they are; that they cannot receive any comfort from it, nor claim any interest in justification; but that they are not justified in God’s sight, or in Christ the Mediator, cannot be proved. Again, the apostle in 1 Corinthians 6:11, says of the Corinthians, that they were now justified, as if they were not justified before. But this I conceive, does not at all militate against justification before faith: for they might be justified in foro Dei, and in their Head, Christ Jesus, before now, and yet not till now be justified in their own consciences, and by the Spirit of God; which, it is plain, is the justification the apostle is here speaking of. But the grand text, which is urged to prove justification a consequent of faith, is Galatians 2:16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. Here the apostle is speaking of justification, as it terminates upon the conscience of a believer; and this is readily granted to follow faith, and to be a consequent of it; for that none are justified by faith until they believe, is acknowledged by all. The apostle’s meaning then is, that we have believed in Christ, or have looked to him for justification, that we might have the comfortable sense and apprehension of it, through faith in him; or that we may appear to he justified, or to expect justification alone by his righteousness, received by faith, and not by the works of the law. In the same light may many other scriptures, of the same kind, be considered. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_37.htm​

Gill sets forth the doctrine here also and I would impress upon you the need to read this. Whilst you are at it try John Brine's http://www.mountzionpbc.org/John_Brine/JB_Eternal_Justification.htm



Hope they help

 

[AV1611]

Faith is required for justification.

Faith is an evidence of being justified in Christ from eternity and through faith we become justified in our own person. Have a gander at Kuyper's Justification from Eternity.

Furthermore the Synod of Urtrecht of 1905 declared:

In regard to the second point, eternal justification, Synod declares:

that the term itself does not occur in the Confessional Standards but that it is not for this reason to be disapproved, any more than we would be justified in disapproving the term Covenant of Works and similar terms which have been adopted through theological usage;

that it is incorrect to say that our Confessional Standards know only of a justification by and through faith, since both Gods' Word (Rom. 4:25) and our Confession (Article XX) speak explicitly of an objective justification sealed by the resurrection of Christ, which in point of time precedes the subjective justification;

that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.

Wherefore Synod earnestly warns against any view that would do violence either to Christ's eternal suretyship for his elect, or to the requirement of a sincere faith to be justified before God in the tribunal of conscience.​

 

[JM]

RJS wrote: "...we are justified from eternity..." Brother, you didn't mean we are justified in eternity but from eternity right?

Thomas Goodwin, "We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ what is said of Christ, that `his goings forth are from everlasting'"

or

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Do I understand you correctly?

Peace,

j

 

[AV1611]

RJS wrote: "...we are justified from eternity..." Brother, you didn't mean we are justified in eternity but from eternity right?

Thomas Goodwin, "We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ what is said of Christ, that `his goings forth are from everlasting'"

or

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Do I understand you correctly?

Peace,

j

Indeed brother, we are justified from eternity.

Pink quotes Goodwin thus:

In his ponderous treatise on justification, the Puritan Thomas Goodwin made clear some vital distinctions, which if carefully observed will preserve us from error on this point. "1. In the everlasting covenant. We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ, what is said of Christ Himself, that their ‘goings forth are from everlasting.’ Justified then we were when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head (Eph. 1:3). 2. There is a farther act of justifying us, which passed from God towards us in Christ, upon His payment and performance at His resurrection (Rom. 4:25, 1 Tim. 3:16). 3. But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God, and though they concern us and are towards us, yet 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: so as though by those acts we are estated into a right and title to justification, yet the benefit and possession of that estate we have not without a farther act being passed upon us."

Before regeneration we are justified by existing in our Head only, as a feoffee (one who is given a grant), held in trust for us, as children under age. In addition to which, we "are to be in our own persons, though still through Christ, possessed of it, and to have all the deeds and evidences of it committed to the custody and apprehension of our faith. We are in our own persons made true owners and enjoyers of it, which is immediately done at that instant when we first believe; which act (of God) is the completion and accomplishment of the former two, and is that grand and famous justification by faith which the Scripture so much inculcates—note the ‘now’ in Romans 5:9, 11; 8:11... God doth judge and pronounce His elect ungodly and unjustified till they believe" (Ibid.)​

 

[Israelite]

I think we all would agree that regeneration precedes faith and is a gracious, immediate work of the Holy Spirit, independent of anyone's actions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Westminster Confession of Faith
11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect (Rom_8:30; Gal_3:8; 1Pe_1:2, 1Pe_1:19, 1Pe_1:20), and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification (Rom_4:25; Gal_4:4; 1Ti_2:6): nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them (Gal_2:16; Col_1:21, Col_1:22; Tit_3:4-7).

1679 London Baptist Confession of Faith
4. God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.
( Galatians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 4:25; Colossians 1:21,22; Titus 3:4-7 )

I am hoping your justification from eternity is not the same as eternal justification that these two confessions are denouncing. It would be apparent to me that Justification from Eternity implies justification comes from God and we find the foundation for justification from Him. But it is not applied to persons until the Holy Spirit applies it to a regenerates life. Do you agree with the two confessions above?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.

The next passage after your quote in a previous post..... Synod of Urtrecht of 1905

 

[JM]

Lets get back on track.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Lets get back on track.

OK, let's.

Kim Riddlebarger's observation about MacArthur is this:

As I see it, here’s the issue. Dr. MacArthur picked this fight. His contention that unless you see Scripture through dispensational eyes, you cannot be a “self-respecting Calvinist” surprised many–Reformed amillennarians and historic premillennarians alike. Without the dispensational lens–says MacArthur–you will misunderstand much of the Bible. The latter point is part of the long-standing debate between amillennarians and dispensationalists (and no surprise), but the former comes as big news to those of us who are confessional Calvinists who think MacArthur’s brand of dispensational premillennialism is antithetical to any historic or confessional form of Reformed or Calvinistic theology.

Yet, here is John MacArthur telling confessional Calvinists that unless they give up their amillennialism, they cannot be consistently “Calvinists.” The sheer audacity of that charge is striking.

To most folks, the term "Reformed" is synonymous with "confessional", i.e., subscription to some reformed subordinate standard which defines your personal creed. By this definition MacArthur is not Reformed.

Further, MacArthur accepts a confession of sorts, but it is the informal confession of the modern dispensational movement, a movement criticized by most (all?) of the Reformed denominations.

Given the recent passing of Dr. Kennedy, the anecdote on The PCA Historical Center web site is telling. In the context of a 1944 statement on dispensaitonalism by the old Southern Presbyterian Church, the Center notes:

Recently it has come to our attention that Dr. D. James Kennedy, when examining a candidate for ordination, routinely asks for that candidate's views on the subject of dispensationalism, and particularly asks him to state his agreement with or disapproval of the 1944 report issued by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (i.e., the Southern Presbyterian Church). In light of that anecdote and in an effort to assist those hapless candidates who might otherwise have no knowledge of this document, we reproduce it here.

This document from the PCUS concludes this way:

It is the unanimous opinion of your Committee that Dispensationalism as defined and set forth above is out of accord with the system of the doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, not primarily or simply in the field of eschatology, but because it attacks the very heart of the Theology of our Church, which is unquestionably a Theology of one Covenant of Grace. As Dr. Chafer clearly recognizes, there are two schools of interpretation represented here, which he rightly designates as “Covenant*ism” as over against “Dispensationalism.” (Bibliotheca Sctcra, Vol. 100, No. 399, p. 338.)

In fact, the divergence of Dispensationalism from the Covenant Theology of our Church is so obvious to Dr. Chafer that he suggests a revision of the Standards of the Church so as to make room for those who no longer hold to the Reformed tradi*tion of a Covenant Theology. (ibid., p. 345.)

 

[AV1611]

Westminster Confession of Faith
11:4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect (Rom_8:30; Gal_3:8; 1Pe_1:2, 1Pe_1:19, 1Pe_1:20), and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification (Rom_4:25; Gal_4:4; 1Ti_2:6): nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them (Gal_2:16; Col_1:21, Col_1:22; Tit_3:4-7).

1679 London Baptist Confession of Faith
4. God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.
( Galatians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 4:25; Colossians 1:21,22; Titus 3:4-7 )

I am hoping your justification from eternity is not the same as eternal justification that these two confessions are denouncing. It would be apparent to me that Justification from Eternity implies justification comes from God and we find the foundation for justification from Him. But it is not applied to persons until the Holy Spirit applies it to a regenerates life. Do you agree with the two confessions above?

that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.

The next passage after your quote in a previous post..... Synod of Urtrecht of 1905

My final statment on this thread regarding this issue: I do not disagree with the statements above. I would suggest you understand the argument before attacking it (not that you are but many people have become very irrate with my position before they even knew what it was). Try these.

These will help as they deal with background issues:
The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in light of the Westminster Tradition (1)
The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in light of the Westminster Tradition (2)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My final statment on this thread regarding this issue: I do not disagree with the statements above. I would suggest you understand the argument before attacking it (not that you are but many people have become very irrate with my position before they even knew what it was). Try these.

These will help as they deal with background issues:
The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in light of the Westminster Tradition (1)
The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in light of the Westminster Tradition (2)

I'm sorry Richard, but reading one of the articles leads me to believe that the only reason someone might port out that language would almost to purposefully be contrarian. It seems, in the end, that you're saying the same thing but you want to use a term that is going to raise hackles and lead people to believe you are un-Confessional only to qualify and use words and sentences in a way that end up saying pretty much the same thing.

Why would you feel a need to do so?

 

[VictorBravo]

^ A clarification (and to defend Randy). It looks like the quote got truncated. puritancovenanter did not make the above statement.

 

[AV1611]

I'm sorry Richard, but reading one of the articles leads me to believe that the only reason someone might port out that language would almost to purposefully be contrarian. It seems, in the end, that you're saying the same thing but you want to use a term that is going to raise hackles and lead people to believe you are un-Confessional only to qualify and use words and sentences in a way that end up saying pretty much the same thing.

Why would you feel a need to do so?

You are welcome to think what you will. My position is the same as Thomas Goodwin, Herman Witsius and William Twisse. There are (at least) two views of what eternal justification means, 1st, we are justified in eternity fully (the antinomian viewpoint), 2nd, we are justified from eternity in Christ. Hence the heated debates in the past.

Dr. Twisse: "Forgiveness of sin, if you regard the quiddity of it, is no other than a negation of punishment, or a will not to punish: be it therefore, that to forgive sin is no other than to will not to punish; why, this will not to punish, as it is an immanent act in God, was from eternity."

Dr. Twisse: "Justification and absolution, as they signify an immanent act of the divine will, are from eternity: but the external notification of the same will and manner of a judicial and forensic absolution, which is made by the Word and Spirit, at the tribunal of every one’s conscience, is that imputation of Christ’s righteousness, remission of sins, justification and absolution, which follow faith. For hereupon absolution is pronounced, as it were by the mouth of a judge, and so that internal purpose of absolving, which was from eternity, is made manifest."

I believe in EJ for the simple reason that it is Scriptural and of great comfort to the brethren. I delight to rest assured in THE DOCTRINES OF GOD’S EVERLASTING LOVE TO HIS ELECT, AND THEIR ETERNAL UNION WITH Christ.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm sorry Richard, but reading one of the articles leads me to believe that the only reason someone might port out that language would almost to purposefully be contrarian. It seems, in the end, that you're saying the same thing but you want to use a term that is going to raise hackles and lead people to believe you are un-Confessional only to qualify and use words and sentences in a way that end up saying pretty much the same thing.

Why would you feel a need to do so?

You are welcome to think what you will. My position is the same as Thomas Goodwin, Herman Witsius and William Twisse. There are (at least) two views of what eternal justification means, 1st, we are justified in eternity fully (the antinomian viewpoint), 2nd, we are justified from eternity in Christ. Hence the heated debates in the past.

Dr. Twisse: "Forgiveness of sin, if you regard the quiddity of it, is no other than a negation of punishment, or a will not to punish: be it therefore, that to forgive sin is no other than to will not to punish; why, this will not to punish, as it is an immanent act in God, was from eternity."

Dr. Twisse: "Justification and absolution, as they signify an immanent act of the divine will, are from eternity: but the external notification of the same will and manner of a judicial and forensic absolution, which is made by the Word and Spirit, at the tribunal of every one’s conscience, is that imputation of Christ’s righteousness, remission of sins, justification and absolution, which follow faith. For hereupon absolution is pronounced, as it were by the mouth of a judge, and so that internal purpose of absolving, which was from eternity, is made manifest."

I believe in EJ for the simple reason that it is Scriptural and of great comfort to the brethren. I delight to rest assured in THE DOCTRINES OF GOD’S EVERLASTING LOVE TO HIS ELECT, AND THEIR ETERNAL UNION WITH Christ.

Look Richard, I just find this conclusion strange:

Was all the debate in the Presbyterian tradition (as well as the Continental) simply over words? Undoubtedly there has been some talking past one another. This paper has sought to demonstrate that there were nevertheless important issues at stake in the use of various terminology regarding our justification. To speak of eternal justification is not wrong, but it must be qualified so that both the objective and subjective aspects of justification are maintained in proper balance with the eternal aspect. At the same time, it must be vigorously maintained that our justification has its source in eternity.

I took the time to read much of the articles. All you're saying is that you believe that the WCF is right but you prefer your terminology - terminology that doesn't exist in the Word. The WCF and Reformed Confessions preserve the notion that Justification is based in eternity.

I just find it odd that people would want to insist upon using different terminology to express the same idea when the immediate reaction from every Confessional person would be to question what you mean, only to have you get into a long discussion that you're saying the same thing. Why not just strive for unity up front instead of sowing potential discord over a term?

 

[Herald]

I just find it odd that people would want to insist upon using different terminology to express the same idea when the immediate reaction from every Confessional person would be to question what you mean, only to have you get into a long discussion that you're saying the same thing. Why not just strive for unity up front instead of sowing potential discord over a term?

 

[MW]

I could nearly be taken in by the language of Twisse et al. except that I discern such language bypasses God's covenantal action in time. Covenant of works = condemned. Covenant of grace = justified. Not until the elect are instated in the covenant of grace are they justified in the true sense of the term. "En Xristw" -- how is it possible for such well studied divines to miss this fundamental Pauline term. Eph. 1:4, the relation between election and blamelessness is mediated by the infinitive "einai" expressing purpose, not result. This is virtual justification, not actual justification. The doctrine of eternal justification undermines the historical process whereby God brings His elect to glory.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Whoah! Really? So the elect weren't born "children of wrath?"[bible]Ephesians 2:1-3[/bible]

I disagree. We're all, by nature, children of wrath. Our justification was decreed in eternity, secured at the cross, but not applied until conversion.

Joshua, In this thread I actually asked him his understanding of the word "by".

Here is what I wrote in the post:

When you say this, how do you understand the word "by" when it says "we are justified by faith"?

Here is what I know: "By" = instrumental dative: means by which things come to pass. Therefore, the instrumental cause of justification is faith. IF we are justified "by" our faith, how is it that we are justified on the cross 2,000 years ago? Did we have faith before we existed?

You hit it on the nail when you said:

We're all, by nature, children of wrath. Our justification was decreed in eternity, secured at the cross, but not applied until conversion.

Eph 2:2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Romans 3:28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I'm sorry Richard, but reading one of the articles leads me to believe that the only reason someone might port out that language would almost to purposefully be contrarian. It seems, in the end, that you're saying the same thing but you want to use a term that is going to raise hackles and lead people to believe you are un-Confessional only to qualify and use words and sentences in a way that end up saying pretty much the same thing.

Why would you feel a need to do so?

You are welcome to think what you will. My position is the same as Thomas Goodwin, Herman Witsius and William Twisse. There are (at least) two views of what eternal justification means, 1st, we are justified in eternity fully (the antinomian viewpoint), 2nd, we are justified from eternity in Christ. Hence the heated debates in the past.

Dr. Twisse: "Forgiveness of sin, if you regard the quiddity of it, is no other than a negation of punishment, or a will not to punish: be it therefore, that to forgive sin is no other than to will not to punish; why, this will not to punish, as it is an immanent act in God, was from eternity."

Dr. Twisse: "Justification and absolution, as they signify an immanent act of the divine will, are from eternity: but the external notification of the same will and manner of a judicial and forensic absolution, which is made by the Word and Spirit, at the tribunal of every one’s conscience, is that imputation of Christ’s righteousness, remission of sins, justification and absolution, which follow faith. For hereupon absolution is pronounced, as it were by the mouth of a judge, and so that internal purpose of absolving, which was from eternity, is made manifest."

I believe in EJ for the simple reason that it is Scriptural and of great comfort to the brethren. I delight to rest assured in THE DOCTRINES OF GOD’S EVERLASTING LOVE TO HIS ELECT, AND THEIR ETERNAL UNION WITH Christ.

Richard,

I thank you so much for your links to covenant theology by the way.

A quick note though. I find no scriptural justification for being "justified" in eternity past. If this is what you believe(since I'm confused by your terminology) then I would ask that you provide scriptural evidence. You quoting other men is as valid as me quoting Darwin to state evolution is right(which I don't believe).

 

[AV1611]

Richard,

I thank you so much for your links to covenant theology by the way.

A quick note though. I find no scriptural justification for being "justified" in eternity past. If this is what you believe(since I'm confused by your terminology) then I would ask that you provide scriptural evidence. You quoting other men is as valid as me quoting Darwin to state evolution is right(which I don't believe).

It is a logical issue similar to the issue of a Covenant of Redemption, the lapsarian issue,etc. Scripture supports it, no confessions condemn it (whether they explicitly teach it is a different issue) but it is not a proof texting issue as such.

Spurgeon:

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​

 

[AV1611]

I took the time to read much of the articles. All you're saying is that you believe that the WCF is right but you prefer your terminology - terminology that doesn't exist in the Word. The WCF and Reformed Confessions preserve the notion that Justification is based in eternity.

I just find it odd that people would want to insist upon using different terminology to express the same idea when the immediate reaction from every Confessional person would be to question what you mean, only to have you get into a long discussion that you're saying the same thing. Why not just strive for unity up front instead of sowing potential discord over a term?

Personally I do not think that EJ is explicitly taught in the confessions. They do not condemn it when correctly understood even though some will claim it is condemned by the statements puritancovenanter used previously and we find articles such as this.

If you accept that we were justified in Christ in eternity and at the cross and later in our own person by faith in time then we have no quarel

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Richard,

I thank you so much for your links to covenant theology by the way.

A quick note though. I find no scriptural justification for being "justified" in eternity past. If this is what you believe(since I'm confused by your terminology) then I would ask that you provide scriptural evidence. You quoting other men is as valid as me quoting Darwin to state evolution is right(which I don't believe).

It is a logical issue similar to the issue of a Covenant of Redemption, the lapsarian issue,etc. Scripture supports it, no confessions condemn it (whether they explicitly teach it is a different issue) but it is not a proof texting issue as such.

Spurgeon:

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​

Richard,

I don't think you understand what I'm asking. Let me ask another way; are you born justified?