Justification from Eternity

[Osage Bluestem]

What are your thoughts on Justification from Eternity.

I was reading this and found it rather compelling:

Justified from Eternity – Don Fortner « Feileadh Mor

 

[JM]

Makes sense to me. see also John's Gill and Brine.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Makes sense to me. see also John's Gill and Brine.

How does justification from eternity fit into the ordo salutis?

Election is the superstructure of our ordo salutis, but not itself the application of redemption.

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)

Monergism :: Ordo Salutis


I understand justification from eternity in that God has somehow always viewed us as justified because he is outside of time yet for us in time justification is applied in time after we come to faith. Is that an accurate assessment?

 

[JM]

Osage, don't worry too much about it for now, you have been doing a lot of thinking lately and this one is controversial.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Osage, don't worry too much about it for now, you have been doing a lot of thinking lately and this one is controversial.

Ok. But I thought you said it was important.

 

[JM]

Having a biblical understanding of justification is, but brother, you have doing a lot of theology lately. That's a good thing but if water is found 10 feet underground digging five holes 2 feet deep won't get you water.

 

[JM]

...oh well, I'll post something.

How does justification from eternity fit into the ordo salutis?

The ordo salutis is mans attempt to logically order the divine decrees, that's all, it is our way of guessing each step in the decrees, etc.

I understand justification from eternity in that God has somehow always viewed us as justified because he is outside of time yet for us in time justification is applied in time after we come to faith. Is that an accurate assessment?

From my blog:

If a King gives a condemned man a pardon but the pardon doesn’t reach the condemned man for a few days, or even months, when does the pardon actually take place? Does the pardon depend on the decree from the King to pardon or the condemned man’s apprehension of it?

Charnock, “There is no succession in the knowledge of God. The variety of successions and changes in the world make not succession, or new objects in the Divine mind; for all things are present to him from eternity in regard of his knowledge, though they are not actually present in the world, in regard of their existence. He doth not know one thing now, and another anon; he sees all things at once; “Known unto God are all things from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18); but in their true order of succession, as they lie in the eternal council of God, to be brought forth in time. Though there be a succession and order of things as they are wrought, there is yet no succession in God in regard of his knowledge of them. God knows the things that shall be wrought, and the order of them in their being brought upon the stage of the world; yet both the things and the order he knows by one act. Though all things be present with God, yet they are present to him in the order of their appearance in the world, and not so present with him as if they should be wrought at once. The death of Christ was to precede his resurrection in order of time; there is a succession in this; both at once are known by God; yet the act of his knowledge is not exercised about Christ as dying and rising at the same time; so that there is succession in things when there is no succession in God’s knowledge of them. Since God knows time, he knows all things as they are in time; he doth not know all things to be at once, though he knows at once what is, has been, and will be. All things are past, present, and to come, in regard of their existence; but there is not past, present, and to come, in regard of God’s knowledge of them, because he sees and knows not by any other, but by himself; he is his own light by which he sees, his own glass wherein he sees; beholding himself, he beholds all things.”

 

[twin1954]

How does justification from eternity fit into the ordo salutis?

Monergism :: Ordo Salutis


I understand justification from eternity in that God has somehow always viewed us as justified because he is outside of time yet for us in time justification is applied in time after we come to faith. Is that an accurate assessment?

We aren't justified in time when we believe we have that justification made known to us when we believe. Faith does not justify us the work of Christ does. Justification isn't applied to us when we beleive we beleive because we have been justified. Not only has God not seen us as sinners He has never dealt with us as sinners. We were by nature children of wrath even as others but we were never children of wrath.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

We aren't justified in time when we believe we have that justification made known to us when we believe. Faith does not justify us the work of Christ does. Justification isn't applied to us when we beleive we beleive because we have been justified. Not only has God not seen us as sinners He has never dealt with us as sinners. We were by nature children of wrath even as others but we were never children of wrath.

But according to all of the reformed theology I am aware of including that link at monergism we believe because we are regenerated and we are then justified because we believe.

I have always thought of justification from eternity in that God sees us justified in eternity because that's where he is. But for us in time there is a time before our salvation and a time after. The Holy Spirit does a miracle work on an unregenerate sinner and regenerates him, the fruits of that regeneration are faith repentance...etc in which the atonement is applied on his behalf then justification is legally declared of the regenerate man, who then embarks on gradual sanctification and eventually glorification.

I perceive as JM stated that the topic is probably pretty controversial in the Reformed community.

Currently, I think it's both. We are justified from eternity in the eyes of God, yet in time where we live there is a time before and a time after the declaration of justification.

 

[twin1954]

But according to all of the reformed theology I am aware of including that link at monergism we believe because we are regenerated and we are then justified because we believe.

I have always thought of justification from eternity in that God sees us justified in eternity because that's where he is. But for us in time there is a time before our salvation and a time after. The Holy Spirit does a miracle work on an unregenerate sinner and regenerates him, the fruits of that regeneration are faith repentance...etc in which the atonement is applied on his behalf then justification is legally declared of the regenerate man, who then embarks on gradual sanctification and eventually glorification.

I perceive as JM stated that the topic is probably pretty controversial in the Reformed community.

Currently, I think it's both. We are justified from eternity in the eyes of God, yet in time where we live there is a time before and a time after the declaration of justification.

We were justified in the purpose of God before the foundation of the world. We were justified in time when the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished our justification and we are made aware of it when we hear the Gospel of our salvation and the Spirit applies it to our hearts. The life and death of Christ isn't applied to us when we believe it was applied to us when God chose to save us.

Yes it is controversial but only because historic Reformed doctrine will not be reformed. You must remember that the reformers came out of Rome and brought with them a whole lot of baggage. Justification by faith rather than through faith and progressive sanctification are just two of them.

 

[JM]

Yes it is controversial but only because historic Reformed doctrine will not be reformed.

Excellent point. The Confessions are useful as historical references and explanations of doctrine but for some they are used as an interpretive tool to understand the Bible.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Excellent point. The Confessions are useful as historical references and explanations of doctrine but for some they are used as an interpretive tool to understand the Bible.

You better make sure your Puritan Board buddies don't hear you say that. They'll excommunicate you immediately.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

We were justified in the purpose of God before the foundation of the world. We were justified in time when the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished our justification and we are made aware of it when we hear the Gospel of our salvation and the Spirit applies it to our hearts. The life and death of Christ isn't applied to us when we believe it was applied to us when God chose to save us.

Yes it is controversial but only because historic Reformed doctrine will not be reformed. You must remember that the reformers came out of Rome and brought with them a whole lot of baggage. Justification by faith rather than through faith and progressive sanctification are just two of them.

Justification form eternity makes sense to me in the fact that God is sovereign and has eternal knowledge. I would not be comfortable trying to explain it in any other fashion though as the bible does speak to man in time and lays out an ordo salutis.

Regarding progressive sanctification, how does one explain that born again Christians sin and are tempted to sin without the doctrine of progressive sanctification?

 

[JM]

You better make sure your Puritan Board buddies don't hear you say that. They'll excommunicate you immediately.

Nah, you can hold to different beliefs but are not allowed to talk about them on PB. When I post on that forum it's not about doctrine or theology, more devotional stuff, music, etc. For a while I tried to have discussions but my threads would disappear so I just stopped.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Is the elect ever guilty of his sin? Is the sin of Adam imputed to the elect? Are the sins of the elect man imputed to him at any point in time? Is there any point in time that God hates his elect person?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Nah, you can hold to different beliefs but are not allowed to talk about them on PB. When I post on that forum it's not about doctrine or theology, more devotional stuff, music, etc. For a while I tried to have discussions but my threads would disappear so I just stopped.

I see. I often wondered how you managed to not get kicked off of there. You are way different than what they are looking for.

 

[twin1954]

Is the elect ever guilty of his sin? Is the sin of Adam imputed to the elect? Are the sins of the elect man imputed to him at any point in time. Is there any point in time that God hates his elect person?

I am answering this one first because it requires a shorter answer.

As far as we are concerned yes we are guilty of sin and Adam's sin is our sin. As far as God is concerned no we have always been righteous. As far as we are concerned God can only hate us because we know we are sin and God hates sinners. As far as God is concerned He has never hated us because we were in Christ whom He loves. The Scriptures give warning to us as sinners in order to empty us of any hope in ourselves. Once empty they fill us with the knowledge and comfort of knowing that God has always loved us and will bless us in the Son.

Justification by faith, as it is taught in Reformed doctrine, is little more than a works justification. They only get around the works by saying it is God that gives us faith.

 

[twin1954]

Justification form eternity makes sense to me in the fact that God is sovereign and has eternal knowledge. I would not be comfortable trying to explain it in any other fashion though as the bible does speak to man in time and lays out an ordo salutis.

God's eternal knowledge is His eternal purpose. The way you seem to see it it just like those who claim that foreknowledge is God looking down through time. Not an insult just an observation to make the point.

God speaks to man in time because we are in time. God deals with us both where we are and where He has purposed us. He brings to pass His purpose in us in every moment to accomplish His purpose for us in eternity. God's dealings with us moment by moment determines every future moment as far as we are concerned. He uses each moment to shape us for the next like a potter.

The ordo salutis is God's wise determination of how it will happen in time but it doesn't determine the purpose of God. God deternined to justify all His elect before the world began therefore we are justifed before the world began. Now that justification is actually worked out in time by the ordo salutis.

Now as to whether the Scriptures teach the ordo salutis as the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith teaches is debatable.

Regarding progressive sanctification, how does one explain that born again Christians sin and are tempted to sin without the doctrine of progressive sanctification?

The two natures of a believer. The Scriptures never tell us that the old man is made better but that he must be put to death. We are a new creation in Christ not a reformed one. Progressive sanctification teaches us that we are to reform the old man by taking him to the hospital of the Law. The Scriptures tell us that we are to crucify the old man and live as the new creation which after God is created in true righteousness and holiness. Eph, 4:24. The new creation is Christ in you the hope of glory. Col. 1:27

Born again belivers sin because the old man, called the flesh, is still with us in this life. Paul calls it a body of death, Rom. 7:24 and in Gal. 5:17 he speaks of the flesh lusting against the spirit and the warfare that goes on in every believer.

Do you actually find yourself getting better? Are you more righteous and holy today than you were yesterday? That is the subtle deception of progressive sanctification. It goes against the Scriptures and experience.

 

[JM]

Kinda like, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" Ephesians 1:4

 

[twin1954]

Kinda like, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" Ephesians 1:4

Now I am going to sart another controversy. I believe the last two words of that text should actually be the beginning of the next. Instead of that we should be holy and without blame in love it should be that we should be holy and without blame (period) In love having predestinated us to the adoption of children... Makes more sense to me.