The Monergism Safe House

[twin1954]

Thanks for something to chew on, JM. I guess my question would be what is the difference between decretive justification and actual justification (As AW Pink differentiated in the quote you provided)

The first thing that comes to mind when talking about this is the teaching of Paul that justification is by faith. I do not deny that God planned to justify His elect from eternity past. But I see faith in temporal time (which God guarantees will happen) as the moment of justification proper.

If I held to eternal justification, the implications of that are many. (I'm still learning, though, and open to teaching). For example, we could say that we were "right with God" even before we trusted in Christ and were united to him by saving faith. That doesn't sit right with me. Mainly because the Bible tells us that it is because of our being believers that we are now translated from darkness to light, adopted, no longer at enmity with God, but now have peace, etc etc etc. The Bible tends to emphasize a moment in temporal time when this drastic spiritual change occurred.

If we are not justified in eterniity then God had to have hated us until we believed. Eternal justification means that God has alwys looked on us in Christ and united to Him from before the foundation of the world. Justification by faith is simply our experience of it. We find out we are justified when we believe but our justification took place in the decree and purpose of God before the world began. Eph. 2: 3 says that were were by nature children of wrath even as others but it doesn't say that we were ever children of wrath. We are by nature children of Adam but the last Adam, Christ Jesus the Lord, has from eternity been our substitute and Surety. Just as we were by nature in the first Adam and sinned in fact when he sinned, Rom. 5:18 all the elect have been eternally in Christ and in fact are justified by Him from before the foundation of the world. God has never dealt with His people as sinners.

 

[student ad x]

Thank you twin

A question that might be asked by those reading through the thread. Theologues speak of logical inference. Would it be correct for those reading this thread to consider your view of eternal justification to be a logical inference?

 

[Jack Terrence]

If we are not justified in eterniity then God had to have hated us until we believed.

Eternal justification is nonsense! Condemnation must precede justification. The elect must be condemned in Adam before they may be justified in Christ.

Therefore, the elect were not justified until AFTER Christ payed for their ransom.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Thank you twin

A question that might be asked by those reading through the thread. Theologues speak of logical inference. Would it be correct for those reading this thread to consider your view of eternal justification to be a logical inference?

Eternal justification is not a logical inference of Calvinism. Adam was our first federal head and condemnation came through him. Christ is our second federal head and justification came by His obedience and not before.

"For by the obedience of the one man the many were made righteous (justified)."

 

[twin1954]

Thank you twin

A question that might be asked by those reading through the thread. Theologues speak of logical inference. Would it be correct for those reading this thread to consider your view of eternal justification to be a logical inference?

Not really. As you may know I am not a fan of the idea put forth in the confessions about necessary consequence. That is the view that we are tyo believe those things that can be logically infered from the Scriptures. I seek to believe whart the Scriptures actually teach not what can be infered from them. That is why I believe in eternal justification. Not because it is infered from the Scriptures but taught in them. We were put in christ before the foundation of the world in the covenant of grace and therefore justified in Him before the world began. For God to decree a thing is the same as the thing being done. I was actually justified in the purpose of God before the foundation of the world. That is why Paul used the language he did in Rom. 8:30. I have not experienced glorification yet but I am glorified. Psa. 5:5 tells us plainly that God hates all workers of iniquity. If I was ever considered a worker of iniquity before Christ died or I believed then we have the same problem thsat the Arminians do with God's hate changing to love at some point. I am still condemned in Adam but that old man will one day perish in physical death and that new man will inherit eternity. The old man in Adam still exists in me and that is why I still sin with every breath. But that new creation which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness is without sin. Eph. 4:24 I, like Paul, am crucified with Christ yet I live. Eph. 2:20

God calls His elect because they are justified in Christ. While it is true that Christ Jesus actually accomplished justification in time when He lived and died in this world I still wasn't born then either. Yet He justified me. I experience that justification I had before the foundation of the world and accomplished in time by Christ when I am made new by the Spirit by the Gospel. I didn't get justification when I believed I experienced it in my soul when I believed. God has always treated me and thought of me a justified.

Heb. 4:3 tells us that the works were finished before the foundation of the world. Paul told Timothy in his last inspired letter that grace was given us before the foundation of the world. 2Tim. 1:9-10. The purpose and grace of God given us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world are made mainfest by the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Justification by faith doesn't mean that our faith justifies us. We are justified by the person and work of Christ. Faith lays hold of that justication and we experience it and are justifed in our souls by faith.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[twin1954]

Eternal justification is nonsense! Condemnation must precede justification. The elect must be condemned in Adam before they may be justified in Christ.

Therefore, the elect were not justified until AFTER Christ payed for their ransom.

The boxer meets the black belt. Wonder who will come out on top?

You may think it nonsense but I assure it is not.

 

[JM]

The Boxer is coming out on this topic swinging...ok, that was bad, lol.

With the post I made (resources included) and the clarification twin added, not forgetting that OT believers were justified by Christ's blood before it was shed in time, I don't really think much more could be posted without causing a rift between us monergists.

I've learned from twin that it is best to stay on point, say what you want to say and leave it at that.

jm

 

[Jack Terrence]

The Boxer is coming out on this topic swinging...ok, that was bad, lol.

With the post I made (resources included) and the clarification twin added, not forgetting that OT believers were justified by Christ's blood before it was shed in time, I don't really think much more could be posted without causing a rift between us monergists.

The Westminster Confession chapter 11 article 4 on justification:

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, UNTIL the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

 

[twin1954]

The Westminster Confession chapter 11 article 4 on justification:

Which is part of the reason why I hold to neither the Westminster or London Confessions.

 

[AndOne]

This is a great discussion but I think it would be better if this was discussed in the SR forum... I don't believe that Reformed folk debating each I other is in the spirit of what this thread is all about...

 

[RisingSpirit]

We have separated ourselves from God's Will as pertains to His Commandments. We reject them and thereby are separate from them. not in the sense that we are not still obligated but in our rejection of God's will for our lives, the Decalogue, which is how the believer is to live.

We are not separated from God's Will in the sense of His ordination, His Plan, His purpose. We fulfill this Will of God even in our rebellion, for as our confession states

For His power and goodness are so great and beyond understanding that He ordains and executes His work in the most excellent and just manner, even when devils and wicked men act unjustly. (Belgic Article 13)

 

[RisingSpirit]

It's a terrible, and false, thing to turn the Biblical authors against each other.

"God is not a God of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33 NASB)

His book [bible] does not contradict itself !

When Paul uses "justify" it's in the eternal and soteric sense.

Whereas James uses "justify" in relation to our faith being genuine.

One (Paul) refers to justification in the eyes of the Lord. The other (James) references justification in the eyes of our fellows.

No contradiction ! The two apostles simply use "justify" with different objects.

Neither apostle taught a Saving Faith without works.

"Do we then nullify the Law through faith ?
May it never be ! On the contrary, we establish the Law."
(Romans 3:31 NASB)

We aren't saved by our works. And James never says that anyone is saved by their works.

We are saved by Faith Alone. Yet, when determining whether someone has Saving Faith, we look to their works.

Works don't save us. Faith does. But, Saving Faith has works !

Get it ? Not saved by works, yet not saved by a faith that doesn't have works.

 

[JM]

What are you thoughts on the soteriology of the Eastern Orthodox? A friend of mine is considering leaving his Presbyterian church and making a move to the Eastern Orthodox denomination because he is dazzled by the claims to be the 'historical' church. I've tried to make it clear that EO's believe in synergism and he reponds that 'if the Eastern Orthodox denomination is the true church it doesn't matter.' When we speak about scripture he clearly sides with monergism, declaring that Adam's fall was pre-ordained, double predestination with a clear understanding of the atonement.

Any thoughts this subject?

 

[Jack Terrence]

Which is part of the reason why I hold to neither the Westminster or London Confessions.

Well, you did not answer my original posts which which were based in scripture only.

Eternal justification is nonsense! Condemnation must precede justification. The elect must be condemned in Adam before they may be justified in Christ.

Therefore, the elect were not justified until AFTER Christ payed for their ransom.

and,

Eternal justification is not a logical inference of Calvinism. Adam was our first federal head and condemnation came through him. Christ is our second federal head and justification came by His obedience and not before.

"For by the obedience of the one man the many were made righteous (justified)."

Your "eternal justification" teaching implies that the elect were never condemned in the first Adam.

 

[twin1954]

Well, you did not answer my original posts which which were based in scripture only.


and,



Your "eternal justification" teaching implies that the elect were never condemned in the first Adam.

Here was my answer concerning being condemed in Adam. Apparently you didn't read my previous post.

If I was ever considered a worker of iniquity before Christ died or I believed then we have the same problem thsat the Arminians do with God's hate changing to love at some point. I am still condemned in Adam but that old man will one day perish in physical death and that new man will inherit eternity. The old man in Adam still exists in me and that is why I still sin with every breath. But that new creation which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness is without sin. Eph. 4:24 I, like Paul, am crucified with Christ yet I live. Eph. 2:20

 

[Jack Terrence]

Here was my answer concerning being condemed in Adam. Apparently you didn't read my previous post.

If I was ever considered a worker of iniquity before Christ died or I believed then we have the same problem thsat the Arminians do with God's hate changing to love at some point. I am still condemned in Adam but that old man will one day perish in physical death and that new man will inherit eternity. The old man in Adam still exists in me and that is why I still sin with every breath. But that new creation which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness is without sin. Eph. 4:24 I, like Paul, am crucified with Christ yet I live. Eph. 2:20

You are saying that God justified you because you have always been a righteous man. But Paul said that God justifies the UNGODLY!

However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the UNGODLY, their faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 4:5

Your point regarding God's hate changing to love is a non sequitur. It is the LAW and not God that condemns.

 

[JM]

Boxer,

Not all monergists appeal to confessions of faith to settle arguments, they are useful, but not inspired.

We have been asked not to continue this discussion. If you respect the other posters in this thread please let it go allow the thread to get back on track. I have given some resources in a previous post for continued study if anyone wishes to pursue it.

jm

 

[Jack Terrence]

Boxer,

Not all monergists appeal to confessions of faith to settle arguments, they are useful, but not inspired.

And some do appeal to confessions of faith recognizing that they are useful and not inspired. I will make no apology for this.

We have been asked not to continue this discussion. If you respect the other posters in this thread please let it go allow the thread to get back on track.

I did not feel it was off track. I came in when it was already off track if it is indeed off track. Twin and I are both Monergists and I thought that debate among Monergists was allowed. My understanding of the rule is that there can be no Monergist/anti-Monergist debate.

The clarification of the gospel message should never be stifled. The gospel message is this: God justifies (present tense verb) the UNGODLY.

Boxer

 

[JM]

Your appeal to authority is fallacious. Not all monergists accept your fideism to the WCF. A monergist asked a question and both twin and I offered a response. If you disagree that's fine but you were asked not to be disagreeable in this thread.

 

[JM]

This is a great discussion but I think it would be better if this was discussed in the SR forum... I don't believe that Reformed folk debating each I other is in the spirit of what this thread is all about...

I apologize brother for continuing a discussion but as you can see from my first post in this thread my intentions were pure, not seeking to argue, but give an answer to a question.