I think it best to understand that we were objectively justified before the foundation of the world and at the cross and that we are subjectively justified in time in the tribunal of our conscience.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Eternal justification
- Thread starter Iosias
- Start date
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,477
- 3,736
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
As John Gill stated, No new will, or act of will, can arise in God, or any decree be made by him, which was not from eternity.
A good sermon here:
Introduction:
The title of my message is ETERNAL GRACE. I want to show you from the Word of God that Gods grace, in all its fulness and blessedness is eternal and was bestowed upon chosen sinners in Christ before the worlds were made. Our text will be Ephesians 1:3-6. The fact that God the Fathers works of grace for us were finished in eternity, the fact that our salvation was eternally accomplished by him is stated with emphatic clarity three times in the New Testament.
A good sermon here:
Introduction:
The title of my message is ETERNAL GRACE. I want to show you from the Word of God that Gods grace, in all its fulness and blessedness is eternal and was bestowed upon chosen sinners in Christ before the worlds were made. Our text will be Ephesians 1:3-6. The fact that God the Fathers works of grace for us were finished in eternity, the fact that our salvation was eternally accomplished by him is stated with emphatic clarity three times in the New Testament.
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,477
- 3,736
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
A quote from George Ella on Huntington:
The Covenant Obligations of Christ
Huntington, according to the Banner of Truth, held that “faith, repentance, and holy obedience are covenant conditions on the part of Christ, not on our part.” This, they claim, is Antinomianism. Such criticism reveals the Banner of Truth’s own Antinomianism in altering the nature of the Mosaic law, the covenant of grace and the rule of faith. They demand the impossible, i.e. that the sinner must overcome certain obstacles before winning God’s justification. Huntington, believed that the covenant of grace is established in eternity where believers are placed in union with Christ. Fuller claims that this union is not from eternity but is created when the sinner meets the conditions of faith. Huntington argues that all covenant conditions are met by Christ, the originator, keeper and fulfiller of the covenant, according to God’s eternal decrees regarding His elect. Christ is the Author and Finisher of every believer’s faith. By means of Christ’s work in eternity for His Bride, culminating in His vicarious work in the fulness of time, Christ graciously grants her repentance, faith and a fulfilled law, without which no man can be saved. As no man is able to exercise the repentance, faith and obedience required by both law and gospel, Christ steps in as the vicarious representative and substitute for those in union with Him. In following Fuller in denying this, the Banner of Truth is challenging both orthodox Christianity and the completeness of Christ’s atoning, penal, vicarious work both in time and eternity.
Huntington argues in his Dimensions of Eternal Love that as the elect are condemned by the law, faith, repentance and obedience to that law is impossible for even them in their natural state. But Christ fulfilled the law on their behalf, “He shall make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24). Such a reconciliation and bringing in of everlasting righteousness is solely Christ’s doing because, “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:19).”[27] Fuller denies that Christ made Himself obedient to the law vicariously for His Bride, the elect Church. He claims that Christ neither placed himself against nor under the law “but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it.”[28] Christ is thus not the believer’s substitution but his super-human guide. Huntington, of course, believed that Christ as God is above the law and more than its teaching, but argues that He came as a man under men to fulfill the conditions men could not. It would have been enough for man to have kept the law to attain an Edenic state but this no man after the fall could do. So Christ had to do it for him, granting him above and over that a greater inheritance in Heaven. Christ redeemed His Bride through his obedience as a man, our human substitute, who truly kept both the letter and spirit of the law for our sakes. It was the law that slew man, not something above it or more than it, so it was through obedience to the law, under the law only that man could be given life. Thus Huntington emphasises that Christ was ‘made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.”[29]
Fuller sees man’s repentance as the way to justification. The Banner views repentance as being a condition placed on man. In his Contemplations on the God of Israel, Huntington teaches that repentance is the work of the Spirit and is thus a gift of grace. That Huntington’s stance is scriptural is testified by the Word. Acts 5:31 tells us “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” This is obviously a reference to Christ acting on an unbeliever in giving him repentance and faith before any previous belief is shown. Fuller might claim that this is a one off text which demands special interpretation, but in vain. Acts 11:18, Romans 2:4, and 2 Timothy 2:25 all stress that it is God who leads to repentance; God who grants repentance and God who ‘peradventure’ i.e. according to His will, gives repentance.
Thus, Huntington did not regard faith, obedience and repentance as conditions to be met by natural, fallen man. He explains in his Dimensions that the righteousness of God comes by the faith of Christ, not man’s faith (Romans 3:21-22), and that the gift of righteousness reigns in us through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:17).[30] This faith and righteousness of Christ is claimed by the Banner of Truth to be a condition based on man’s agency as if a fallen sinner or even an elect saint could give himself Christ’s faith and righteousness, grant himself repentance and give himself the power to be obedient to the law. This they call ‘duty-faith’ but one can only exercise a duty to faith once it has been given. Faith is never given as a reward for duties obeyed. Unfulfilled law-duties merely doom sinners. Christ’s faith given to man reprieves him and gives him a saving faith which no law-keeping could ever procure for him. This is made clear in Acts 13:39 and Romans 4:16. Fuller, following Bellamy, taught that keeping the law perfectly would eventually lead to faith in Christ. Huntington taught that even if we kept the law perfectly, this might restore an Adam to Eden but certainly not a sinner to Christ because the believer’s status in Christ is greater than that of Adam in Eden. Fuller set himself the impossible and unnecessary task of making Adams of us all. This is the gospel he calls Worthy of All Acceptation.[31] The Bible tells us, that the salvation which might have been found in the first Adam was merely of an earthly, natural kind whereas that found in the last Adam (Christ) fits us out with a spiritual, heavenly body (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).
Banner of Truth writer, Robert Oliver, attacks Huntington for not holding that the moral law is the complete rule for right faith.[32] In his essay Faith in Christ Being a Requirement of the Moral Law, Fuller argues that one can approach God in Christ through following one’s law duties and that “If love to God include faith in Christ wherever he is revealed by the gospel, then the moral law, which expressly requires the former, must also require the latter.” In his The Law Established in a Life of Faith, Huntington reveals the weakness of such a position, arguing that the work of the Law is to discover sin and condemn man. It furnishes the unjustified sinner with an accuser before God and thus the Law separates the sinner completely from his Maker. The Law, however, cannot subdue sin; it cannot give the sinner dominion over it; it cannot give man a second chance nor lift the sentence of death from him. The Law knows no pardon and can neither give life to the sinner nor quicken him spiritually. The Law cannot justify a man nor even bring a man to the Saviour of itself without God’s effectual call. Huntington concludes that it is scandalous to argue that the Law contains all the injunctions and powers of the gospel. It has its own work to do as also the Rule of Faith and the Rule of Christ.[33] Those who confuse them, as he believed Fuller did, confuse Law with gospel and thus have no true Law and no true gospel.
The Covenant Obligations of Christ
Huntington, according to the Banner of Truth, held that “faith, repentance, and holy obedience are covenant conditions on the part of Christ, not on our part.” This, they claim, is Antinomianism. Such criticism reveals the Banner of Truth’s own Antinomianism in altering the nature of the Mosaic law, the covenant of grace and the rule of faith. They demand the impossible, i.e. that the sinner must overcome certain obstacles before winning God’s justification. Huntington, believed that the covenant of grace is established in eternity where believers are placed in union with Christ. Fuller claims that this union is not from eternity but is created when the sinner meets the conditions of faith. Huntington argues that all covenant conditions are met by Christ, the originator, keeper and fulfiller of the covenant, according to God’s eternal decrees regarding His elect. Christ is the Author and Finisher of every believer’s faith. By means of Christ’s work in eternity for His Bride, culminating in His vicarious work in the fulness of time, Christ graciously grants her repentance, faith and a fulfilled law, without which no man can be saved. As no man is able to exercise the repentance, faith and obedience required by both law and gospel, Christ steps in as the vicarious representative and substitute for those in union with Him. In following Fuller in denying this, the Banner of Truth is challenging both orthodox Christianity and the completeness of Christ’s atoning, penal, vicarious work both in time and eternity.
Huntington argues in his Dimensions of Eternal Love that as the elect are condemned by the law, faith, repentance and obedience to that law is impossible for even them in their natural state. But Christ fulfilled the law on their behalf, “He shall make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24). Such a reconciliation and bringing in of everlasting righteousness is solely Christ’s doing because, “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:19).”[27] Fuller denies that Christ made Himself obedient to the law vicariously for His Bride, the elect Church. He claims that Christ neither placed himself against nor under the law “but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it.”[28] Christ is thus not the believer’s substitution but his super-human guide. Huntington, of course, believed that Christ as God is above the law and more than its teaching, but argues that He came as a man under men to fulfill the conditions men could not. It would have been enough for man to have kept the law to attain an Edenic state but this no man after the fall could do. So Christ had to do it for him, granting him above and over that a greater inheritance in Heaven. Christ redeemed His Bride through his obedience as a man, our human substitute, who truly kept both the letter and spirit of the law for our sakes. It was the law that slew man, not something above it or more than it, so it was through obedience to the law, under the law only that man could be given life. Thus Huntington emphasises that Christ was ‘made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.”[29]
Fuller sees man’s repentance as the way to justification. The Banner views repentance as being a condition placed on man. In his Contemplations on the God of Israel, Huntington teaches that repentance is the work of the Spirit and is thus a gift of grace. That Huntington’s stance is scriptural is testified by the Word. Acts 5:31 tells us “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” This is obviously a reference to Christ acting on an unbeliever in giving him repentance and faith before any previous belief is shown. Fuller might claim that this is a one off text which demands special interpretation, but in vain. Acts 11:18, Romans 2:4, and 2 Timothy 2:25 all stress that it is God who leads to repentance; God who grants repentance and God who ‘peradventure’ i.e. according to His will, gives repentance.
Thus, Huntington did not regard faith, obedience and repentance as conditions to be met by natural, fallen man. He explains in his Dimensions that the righteousness of God comes by the faith of Christ, not man’s faith (Romans 3:21-22), and that the gift of righteousness reigns in us through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:17).[30] This faith and righteousness of Christ is claimed by the Banner of Truth to be a condition based on man’s agency as if a fallen sinner or even an elect saint could give himself Christ’s faith and righteousness, grant himself repentance and give himself the power to be obedient to the law. This they call ‘duty-faith’ but one can only exercise a duty to faith once it has been given. Faith is never given as a reward for duties obeyed. Unfulfilled law-duties merely doom sinners. Christ’s faith given to man reprieves him and gives him a saving faith which no law-keeping could ever procure for him. This is made clear in Acts 13:39 and Romans 4:16. Fuller, following Bellamy, taught that keeping the law perfectly would eventually lead to faith in Christ. Huntington taught that even if we kept the law perfectly, this might restore an Adam to Eden but certainly not a sinner to Christ because the believer’s status in Christ is greater than that of Adam in Eden. Fuller set himself the impossible and unnecessary task of making Adams of us all. This is the gospel he calls Worthy of All Acceptation.[31] The Bible tells us, that the salvation which might have been found in the first Adam was merely of an earthly, natural kind whereas that found in the last Adam (Christ) fits us out with a spiritual, heavenly body (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).
Banner of Truth writer, Robert Oliver, attacks Huntington for not holding that the moral law is the complete rule for right faith.[32] In his essay Faith in Christ Being a Requirement of the Moral Law, Fuller argues that one can approach God in Christ through following one’s law duties and that “If love to God include faith in Christ wherever he is revealed by the gospel, then the moral law, which expressly requires the former, must also require the latter.” In his The Law Established in a Life of Faith, Huntington reveals the weakness of such a position, arguing that the work of the Law is to discover sin and condemn man. It furnishes the unjustified sinner with an accuser before God and thus the Law separates the sinner completely from his Maker. The Law, however, cannot subdue sin; it cannot give the sinner dominion over it; it cannot give man a second chance nor lift the sentence of death from him. The Law knows no pardon and can neither give life to the sinner nor quicken him spiritually. The Law cannot justify a man nor even bring a man to the Saviour of itself without God’s effectual call. Huntington concludes that it is scandalous to argue that the Law contains all the injunctions and powers of the gospel. It has its own work to do as also the Rule of Faith and the Rule of Christ.[33] Those who confuse them, as he believed Fuller did, confuse Law with gospel and thus have no true Law and no true gospel.
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,477
- 3,736
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
From my blog.
[FONT="]Wednesday, April 18, 2007[/FONT]
[FONT="]Notes on eternity from John Brine:[/FONT]
[FONT="]These phrases express either a measurable duration, or an immeasurable one. It is I think allowed by all, that a duration is intended, which was before the existence of the world. That duration either had beginning, or it had not. If it commenced, and had beginning, it was properly time, and not eternity. time and eternity differ, as finite and infinite differ. Time is finite, and eternity is infinite. And it is impossible, that there should be a medium between eternity and time: As there cannot be a mean between infinite, and finite. Whatever is, must be either infinite or finite, unlimited, or limited. And, consequently, this duration, if it began, it was time, it could not be eternity: It was measurable, and certainly had a limit, at which we must necessarily stop, in our conceptions about it; if not, it was eternity: Or a duration infinite. To say, that it was not measured by the regular motion of body, as time with us, is measured by the course of the sun, will not prove it immeasurable, nor can that be intended; because then it must be granted, that it was eternity, which it is not allowed to be, by those unto whom I have reference; but it is said to be an AFTERDATE of eternity, by the learned author before mentioned, which had beginning, or commencement, which if it had, it was properly time, and it must differ from eternity, as that which is finite differs, from that which is infinite. And what is to be proved by all this? No other thing, than, that Gods decrees are later than his existence, and how much later he could not determine, because neither the thing speaks, nor the word declares it. The Being of God was eternal, or had no Beginning; but all his decrees, if this is true, were temporary, or had beginning. And therefore, for an infinite duration, which must have been, before this after date, or beginning, could take place; God was without any conceptions and thoughts of his works. That is to say, once God had no Love to Christ as mediator, nor conceptions concerning him: Once he had no Love to the Church, nor thoughts about her: Once he was without infinite thought and consciousness, and consequently he once was not God. For, a being without infinite thought and consciousness cant be God. As I have before said. The other writer mentioned above, in order to support his notion of the existence of the soul of Christ before the creation of the world, interprets these phrases, in the same manner; in this, copying after that learned author, as some others also do, to defend a notion which is absolutely useless, that hath not the least connection with, dependence upon, nor is inferrible from any branch whatever, of evangelical truth. But is wholly dissonant to the Scripture, and everts the eternal covenant of Grace, wherein the salvation of Gods Elect was everlastingly provided for and secur'd. [/FONT]
[FONT="]If there was a duration before the production of the world, which had commencement, why may there not be a duration, after the dissolution of it, which will have an end? And if the former is called everlasting, tho it had beginning, why may not the latter be so called, tho it should have an end? As some imagine it will; but both are foolish dreams and alike untrue. Farther, if this liberty may be taken in interpreting the Scripture, I am sure, it will be impossible to prove from thence, the eternity of God himself; for his eternal existence is not expressed in stronger language, than is used about his decrees, and the designation of Christ unto the mediatorial office, in respect to that duration, wherein the divine decrees were formed, and Christ was set up, or constituted mediator. And such liberty can be taken, only to maintain that which is directly absurd, and repugnant unto some of the most glorious Truths of the Gospel, viz. Christs eternal relation to the Church of God, and his eternal engagements in her favour, in the Covenant of Grace. These Phrases, from Everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the Earth was, so fully express eternity, or that immeasurable duration which was before creation, that I much scruple whether any, which do more strongly express it in Scripture, can be produced. So operose was Solomon, in setting forth the eternity of wisdom, lest it should be thought that he spake of created Wisdom, as the learned Gerjerus observes. When God represents unto us his eternal existence, it is thus: Yea, before the day was, I am he (Isaiah 43:13). And when he asserts the Eternity of his Decrees, it is thus: Calling the Generations, (çarm) from or before the Beginning (Isaiah 41:4). And the plain Sense of the Phrases here used, is, Duration before the commencement of time, or the existence of any thing created. Christ was set up before the world or time, before the beginning, and before the Earth existed. I humbly hope that the proper eternity of the divine decrees, and the proper eternity of the mediatorial Office of Christ, are established beyond sober and modest Objection; which were the important Ends that I had in view, in this Discourse.
[/FONT] [FONT="]The Proper Eternity of the Divine Decrees, and of the Mediatorial Office of Jesus Christ: Asserted and Proved. Preached in 1754. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Wednesday, April 18, 2007[/FONT]
[FONT="]Notes on eternity from John Brine:[/FONT]
[FONT="]These phrases express either a measurable duration, or an immeasurable one. It is I think allowed by all, that a duration is intended, which was before the existence of the world. That duration either had beginning, or it had not. If it commenced, and had beginning, it was properly time, and not eternity. time and eternity differ, as finite and infinite differ. Time is finite, and eternity is infinite. And it is impossible, that there should be a medium between eternity and time: As there cannot be a mean between infinite, and finite. Whatever is, must be either infinite or finite, unlimited, or limited. And, consequently, this duration, if it began, it was time, it could not be eternity: It was measurable, and certainly had a limit, at which we must necessarily stop, in our conceptions about it; if not, it was eternity: Or a duration infinite. To say, that it was not measured by the regular motion of body, as time with us, is measured by the course of the sun, will not prove it immeasurable, nor can that be intended; because then it must be granted, that it was eternity, which it is not allowed to be, by those unto whom I have reference; but it is said to be an AFTERDATE of eternity, by the learned author before mentioned, which had beginning, or commencement, which if it had, it was properly time, and it must differ from eternity, as that which is finite differs, from that which is infinite. And what is to be proved by all this? No other thing, than, that Gods decrees are later than his existence, and how much later he could not determine, because neither the thing speaks, nor the word declares it. The Being of God was eternal, or had no Beginning; but all his decrees, if this is true, were temporary, or had beginning. And therefore, for an infinite duration, which must have been, before this after date, or beginning, could take place; God was without any conceptions and thoughts of his works. That is to say, once God had no Love to Christ as mediator, nor conceptions concerning him: Once he had no Love to the Church, nor thoughts about her: Once he was without infinite thought and consciousness, and consequently he once was not God. For, a being without infinite thought and consciousness cant be God. As I have before said. The other writer mentioned above, in order to support his notion of the existence of the soul of Christ before the creation of the world, interprets these phrases, in the same manner; in this, copying after that learned author, as some others also do, to defend a notion which is absolutely useless, that hath not the least connection with, dependence upon, nor is inferrible from any branch whatever, of evangelical truth. But is wholly dissonant to the Scripture, and everts the eternal covenant of Grace, wherein the salvation of Gods Elect was everlastingly provided for and secur'd. [/FONT]
[FONT="]If there was a duration before the production of the world, which had commencement, why may there not be a duration, after the dissolution of it, which will have an end? And if the former is called everlasting, tho it had beginning, why may not the latter be so called, tho it should have an end? As some imagine it will; but both are foolish dreams and alike untrue. Farther, if this liberty may be taken in interpreting the Scripture, I am sure, it will be impossible to prove from thence, the eternity of God himself; for his eternal existence is not expressed in stronger language, than is used about his decrees, and the designation of Christ unto the mediatorial office, in respect to that duration, wherein the divine decrees were formed, and Christ was set up, or constituted mediator. And such liberty can be taken, only to maintain that which is directly absurd, and repugnant unto some of the most glorious Truths of the Gospel, viz. Christs eternal relation to the Church of God, and his eternal engagements in her favour, in the Covenant of Grace. These Phrases, from Everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the Earth was, so fully express eternity, or that immeasurable duration which was before creation, that I much scruple whether any, which do more strongly express it in Scripture, can be produced. So operose was Solomon, in setting forth the eternity of wisdom, lest it should be thought that he spake of created Wisdom, as the learned Gerjerus observes. When God represents unto us his eternal existence, it is thus: Yea, before the day was, I am he (Isaiah 43:13). And when he asserts the Eternity of his Decrees, it is thus: Calling the Generations, (çarm) from or before the Beginning (Isaiah 41:4). And the plain Sense of the Phrases here used, is, Duration before the commencement of time, or the existence of any thing created. Christ was set up before the world or time, before the beginning, and before the Earth existed. I humbly hope that the proper eternity of the divine decrees, and the proper eternity of the mediatorial Office of Christ, are established beyond sober and modest Objection; which were the important Ends that I had in view, in this Discourse.
[/FONT] [FONT="]The Proper Eternity of the Divine Decrees, and of the Mediatorial Office of Jesus Christ: Asserted and Proved. Preached in 1754. [/FONT]
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,477
- 3,736
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
What gets me, people read Brine on this subject and agree with him, but deny eternal grace, identification, etc.
:o
:o
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,477
- 3,736
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Upvote
0
mlqurgw
Well-Known Member
- Aug 19, 2005
- 5,828
- 540
- 70
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't much care for that site. The fellow who runs it and others are always looking for someone to blast. The seem to love controversy. My pastor happens to be one they like to attack.
Upvote
0
I think they are a good source for works by others but they do seem to be a little too angry at times. But then I am sure we are all guilty of this, I know I am.
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,477
- 3,736
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,477
- 3,736
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Upvote
0
So I was browsing through some of this discussion, and since I am using the PDA version, I have no idea when this discussion actually started (could have been years ago)... but I have a question about this eternal justification deal. That seems to be a popular mode of discussion here, anyhow: "Does God hate a person one day and love the next," etc. So here's my question.
If we've always been justified, does that mean we've never been sinners? Or never needed to be "saved" from anything? Or were never children of wrath (Eph. 2)? Or...?
If we've always been justified, does that mean we've never been sinners? Or never needed to be "saved" from anything? Or were never children of wrath (Eph. 2)? Or...?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
