Justification from Eternity

[moonbeam]

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his…(Rom 8:9)


My understanding of this scripture is that it is the actual presence of the indwelling Spirit of Christ (Holy Spirit) as a present possession...which is the sole delineator indicating any individuals position in regards to the kingdoms of light or darkness.

I would like to hear an explanation from those who espouse eternal justification regarding this particular scripture.

 

[AMR]

What are your thoughts on Justification from Eternity.

I was reading this and found it rather compelling:

Justified from Eternity – Don Fortner « Feileadh Mor

It is not Biblical, hints of Antinomianism, also hyper-Calvinism, and it is is anti-Confessional for those that affirm the Westminster Standards, LBCF, etc. Justification is one of the fruits of Christ’s redemptive work, applied to believers by the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit did not and could not apply this or any other fruit of the work of Christ from eternity. Eternal justification (justified from eterntity") denies the elect were ever sinners, children of wrath.

see also:
Marks of True Church; Signs of the Gospel; HyperCalvinism

 

[Osage Bluestem]

It is not Biblical, hints of Antinomianism, also hyper-Calvinism, and it is is anti-Confessional for those that affirm the Westminster Standards, LBCF, etc. Justification is one of the fruits of Christ’s redemptive work, applied to believers by the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit did not and could not apply this or any other fruit of the work of Christ from eternity. Eternal justification (justified from eterntity") denies the elect were ever sinners, children of wrath. see also: Marks of True Church; Signs of the Gospel; HyperCalvinism

Interesting! Thanks!

 

[twin1954]

It is not Biblical, hints of Antinomianism, also hyper-Calvinism, and it is is anti-Confessional for those that affirm the Westminster Standards, LBCF, etc. Justification is one of the fruits of Christ’s redemptive work, applied to believers by the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit did not and could not apply this or any other fruit of the work of Christ from eternity. Eternal justification (justified from eterntity") denies the elect were ever sinners, children of wrath.

see also:
Marks of True Church; Signs of the Gospel; HyperCalvinism

Nonsense. The article on Hyper-Calvinism is a straw man. It doesn't actually deal with the "duty faith" argument in its actual teaching.

Eternal justification in no way denies that the elect were ever sinners. That too is a straw man. The elect were, and still are, sinners by nature and in Adam. What eternal justification means is that God has never treated us as sinners. There is a difference. A denial of eternal justification the same as saying that our faith is what justifies us. That is to say that faith is why God justifies us rather than the finished work of Christ. That is what is not Scriptural.

 

[JM]

It is not Biblical, hints of Antinomianism, also hyper-Calvinism, and it is is anti-Confessional for those that affirm the Westminster Standards, LBCF, etc. Justification is one of the fruits of Christ’s redemptive work, applied to believers by the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit did not and could not apply this or any other fruit of the work of Christ from eternity. Eternal justification (justified from eterntity") denies the elect were ever sinners, children of wrath.

AMR, I understand your concern, but as twin has pointed out they are baseless strawman arguments. Calvinism in general has been said to "hint at Antinomianism," but of course it doesn't.

Quote from my blog:

Case in point:

Abraham’s justification must not be seen as suspended until the Cross lest the argument of its timing relative to his circumcision fall to the ground, nor was this necessary from the perspective of the Holy One who inhabits Eternity. One of the problems I see with the theological “slicing and dicing” from Goodwin is the attempt to see justification as both forensic and experiential. Another is that the completion of the work of redemption appears to be left to our response of faith. Sometimes what appears to be solutions have the potential to create worse problems. In the case of Abraham and other Old Testament believers the “applicatory” (3) is seen as occurring prior to that which is referred to as the “transient” (2). This is not a problem with a God whose justifying decree is eternal and transcendant, but certainly should be to theologians who are not considering it from His perspective. – John T. Jeffery


False Claims against Eternal Justification Cleared | Feileadh Mor

Dr. Beeke on the subject: justified personally | Feileadh Mor

Regeneration doth not make us sons… | Feileadh Mor

Even Spurgeon, talking out of both sides of his mouth, said it was true.

Spurgeon: Justificaiton From Eternity | Feileadh Mor

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? Just a thought.

“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.” - Stephen Charnock

​

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Eternal justification (justified from eterntity") denies the elect were ever sinners, children of wrath.

I think I answered that here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7631723-6/#post65827703

Gotta run.

 

[moonbeam]

I would like to hear an explanation from those who espouse eternal justification regarding this particular scripture.

twin1954 and JM….could you guys offer some response in regards my previous post #61 ?

I am curious as to what method you would employ to dismiss my objection.

 

[JM]

twin1954 and JM….could you guys offer some response in regards my previous post #61 ?

I am curious as to what method you would employ to dismiss my objection.

Great way to get a response...by admitting you are already closed minded to our posts.

 

[twin1954]

twin1954 and JM….could you guys offer some response in regards my previous post #61 ?

I am curious as to what method you would employ to dismiss my objection.

I honestly don't see the objection. Where in this passage or the doctrine of eternal justification is the indwelling of the Spirit made to be an eternal act?

The Spirit indwells the believer and makes known to his heart the eternal act of God in justifying the sinner.

Eternal justification is simply God justifying all the elect before the foundation of the world in Christ, Christ actually accomplishing that justification by His life and death, and the Sprit applying that justification to the heart of the chosen sinner when at the appointed time faith is given.

 

[JM]

I honestly don't see the objection. Where in this passage or the doctrine of eternal justification is the indwelling of the Spirit made to be an eternal act?

The Spirit indwells the believer and makes known to his heart the eternal act of God in justifying the sinner.

Eternal justification is simply God justifying all the elect before the foundation of the world in Christ, Christ actually accomplishing that justification by His life and death, and the Sprit applying that justification to the heart of the chosen sinner when at the appointed time faith if given.

I think moonbeam is confusing election, and therefore the adoption of the God's chosen people in Christ, our justification as an eternal immanent act in the mind of God with regeneration. We are regenerated by the Holy Spirit because we are God's people and not made God's people and adopted because we are regenerate.

 

[moonbeam]

I honestly don't see the objection. Where in this passage or the doctrine of eternal justification is the indwelling of the Spirit made to be an eternal act?

The Spirit indwells the believer and makes known to his heart the eternal act of God in justifying the sinner.

Eternal justification is simply God justifying all the elect before the foundation of the world in Christ, Christ actually accomplishing that justification by His life and death, and the Sprit applying that justification to the heart of the chosen sinner when at the appointed time faith is given.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The highlighted section exposes the fallacious nature of the eternal justification (justified from eternity) position.

The statement “he is none of his” leaves no room for ambiguity at all. Until any individual person is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ there is no actualized relationship between that person and God. Therefore there is no real relationship between either party.

We can glean from this passage that those persons who are now indwelt by the Spirit (present possession) were previously not so, and in such a state the caveat is enforced by default.

Those who espouse eternal justification will make the attempt to obscure the force of this caveat by claiming that the implication of the phrase “he is none of his” is referencing the temporal sphere only not the eternal. And therefore has no destructive impact upon their position, as they make this claim according to one of their proponents- - "Justified then we were, says Dr. Goodwin when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head, as he had our persons then given him, and we came to have a being and an interest in him.”

But the force of the caveat “he is none of his” must necessarily be applicable to both the eternal and temporal spheres.

How so ? ...well let me utilise a portion of Dr Goodwin’s statement above to establish this destructive point. In reference to the eternal sphere Dr Goodwin says “as he had our persons then given him, and we came to have a being and an interest in him.”

I have little to quibble about concerning his statement, and so it seems to me that the scriptural caveat “he is none of his” can not be true, if it is restricted solely to the temporal sphere.

Thereby accentuating the point that the intended relationship in the mind of the Father, though eternally intended, can not be established relationally, until actualized in the temporal realm.

Therefore there is a logical necessity for the Spirit to indwell the individual concerned to actualize the relationship. A logical necessity that the Triune God can not circumvent.

Those who espouse eternal justification have erred in not appreciating this logical necessity that the Father is constrained by....in His desire for Self-Expression (glorifying His Name through the creation of moral/sentient creatures)

.

 

[twin1954]

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The highlighted section exposes the fallacious nature of the eternal justification (justified from eternity) position.

The statement “he is none of his” leaves no room for ambiguity at all. Until any individual person is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ there is no actualized relationship between that person and God. Therefore there is no real relationship between either party.

We can glean from this passage that those persons who are now indwelt by the Spirit (present possession) were previously not so, and in such a state the caveat is enforced by default.

Those who espouse eternal justification will make the attempt to obscure the force of this caveat by claiming that the implication of the phrase “he is none of his” is referencing the temporal sphere only not the eternal. And therefore has no destructive impact upon their position, as they make this claim according to one of their proponents- - "Justified then we were, says Dr. Goodwin when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head, as he had our persons then given him, and we came to have a being and an interest in him.”

But the force of the caveat “he is none of his” must necessarily be applicable to both the eternal and temporal spheres.

How so ? ...well let me utilise a portion of Dr Goodwin’s statement above to establish this destructive point. In reference to the eternal sphere Dr Goodwin says “as he had our persons then given him, and we came to have a being and an interest in him.”

I have little to quibble about concerning his statement, and so it seems to me that the scriptural caveat “he is none of his” can not be true, if it is restricted solely to the temporal sphere.

Thereby accentuating the point that the intended relationship in the mind of the Father, though eternally intended, can not be established relationally, until actualized in the temporal realm.

Therefore there is a logical necessity for the Spirit to indwell the individual concerned to actualize the relationship. A logical necessity that the Triune God can not circumvent.

Those who espouse eternal justification have erred in not appreciating this logical necessity that the Father is constrained by....in His desire for Self-Expression (glorifying His Name through the creation of moral/sentient creatures)

.

What you are doing is taking a verse of Scripture out of context to make a point. Look at the context of the passage and you will find the answer unless of course you choose to ignore it.

 

[AMR]

AMR, I understand your concern, but as twin has pointed out they are baseless strawman arguments. Calvinism in general has been said to "hint at Antinomianism," but of course it doesn't.

Jm,

You know eternal justification will not fly at conservative confessional discussion sites and you know it is roundly considered anti-confessional. Why you want to pursue this here escapes me. Discuss this with your Pastor as I won't debate the matter.

 

[moonbeam]

What you are doing is taking a verse of Scripture out of context to make a point. Look at the context of the passage and you will find the answer unless of course you choose to ignore it.

The text I have quoted from (Rom 8:9) comes from the same chapter which you will utilise to provide one of your primary points of leverage to support eternal justification, that being Rom 8:33.

The chapter begins with powerful statements concerning our justification and some details concerning the means employed by God to that end such as Rom 8:1-4...I quote from Rom 8:9...and the chapter continues with even stronger statements concerning the profound depths of our surety, in our surety Christ Jesus such as Rom 8:14-17. The chapter continues in a powerful surge right to the end with some of the most profound doctrinal statements concerning justification contained in scripture, such as Rom 8:28-39.

On a personal note...the Lord Jesus Christ anchored me early with Rom 8:28 preparing me for a rocky ride.

In light of the above, I fail to see how my use of Rom 8:9 to challenge your perceptions concerning eternal justification qualifies for this comment of yours “What you are doing is taking a verse of Scripture out of context to make a point.”

I can assure you, that I do not choose to ignore that which you suspect of me.

It is apparent by your response that the anomaly in my reasoning which you have identified stands forth with some clarity for you....not so for me.

I would appreciate it if you would walk me through your reasoning process to clarify your points of contention regarding what I have asserted.

.

 

[stenerson]

Is this a matter of semantics? Sometimes scripture letting us see things from God's eternal perspective as in (me paraphrasing) "I have determined and decreed it, so it's as good as done."
And other times giving it from man's perspective in time and history?

 

[JM]

Jm,

You know eternal justification will not fly at conservative confessional discussion sites and you know it is roundly considered anti-confessional. Why you want to pursue this here escapes me. Discuss this with your Pastor as I won't debate the matter.

AMR,

It is against the traditions of the Reformed church but Baptists have been more willing to continue to reform than our Reformed brothers. I pursue the subject here to help clear up the obvious parroting of objects that continue to be raised. They are straw man objections as can be seen with a quick read through of this thread.

I didn't start this thread for debate but to add a resource for those studying the issue.

Yours in The Lord,

jm
PS: moonbeam, lay off the granola, it's making you too aggressive

 

[twin1954]

The text I have quoted from (Rom 8:9) comes from the same chapter which you will utilise to provide one of your primary points of leverage to support eternal justification, that being Rom 8:33.

The chapter begins with powerful statements concerning our justification and some details concerning the means employed by God to that end such as Rom 8:1-4...I quote from Rom 8:9...and the chapter continues with even stronger statements concerning the profound depths of our surety, in our surety Christ Jesus such as Rom 8:14-17. The chapter continues in a powerful surge right to the end with some of the most profound doctrinal statements concerning justification contained in scripture, such as Rom 8:28-39.

On a personal note...the Lord Jesus Christ anchored me early with Rom 8:28 preparing me for a rocky ride.

In light of the above, I fail to see how my use of Rom 8:9 to challenge your perceptions concerning eternal justification qualifies for this comment of yours “What you are doing is taking a verse of Scripture out of context to make a point.”

I can assure you, that I do not choose to ignore that which you suspect of me.

It is apparent by your response that the anomaly in my reasoning which you have identified stands forth with some clarity for you....not so for me.

I would appreciate it if you would walk me through your reasoning process to clarify your points of contention regarding what I have asserted.

.

The context of the statement by Paul is not concerning justification but one of walking in the Spirit. When Paul says that he who doesn't have the Spirit is none of Christ's he is talking about evidence of being a believer. Any who call themselves believers but do not have the Spirit are not true believers. That is the context of the statement and for you to use it as a proof-text in the manner you have isn't legitimate. I am not accusing you of any malice or even of not being logical but of misapplication. I don't doubt your heart or your sincerity I am only pointing out what is not obvious to you.

 

[moonbeam]

Great way to get a response...by admitting you are already closed minded to our posts.

Two questions for you.

Q1 - Show me, explicitly, from any of the words or phrasing I have used in my posts #61 or #67 to which you where responding, the basis for your assertion above ?


Q2 - How does holding an opinion (concerning a disputed matter) establish that ones mind is closed ?

.

 

[JM]

Q1 - Show me, explicitly, from any of the words or phrasing I have used in my posts #61 or #67 to which you where responding, the basis for your assertion above ? Q2 - How does holding an opinion (concerning a disputed matter) establish that ones mind is closed ?

You wrote,

"I am curious as to what method you would employ to dismiss my objection."

You are not willing to interact on the subject because you have already come to the conclusion we would simply dismiss your objections without offering a valid argument. This is the equivalent of plugging your ears and yelling, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" as we offer responses. It's childish. That is being closed minded and, from looking around the forum and reading some of your posts, argumentative.

The context of the statement by Paul is not concerning justification but one of walking in the Spirit. When Paul says that he who doesn't have the Spirit is none of Christ's he is talking about evidence of being a believer. Any who call themselves believers but do not have the Spirit are not true believers. That is the context of the statement and for you to use it as a proof-text in the manner you have isn't legitimate. I am not accusing you of any malice or even of not being logical but of misapplication. I don't doubt your heart or your sincerity I am only pointing out what is not obvious to you.

Exactly.

Further on we read,

"For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And having called them, he gave them right standing with himself. And having given them right standing, he gave them his glory."

Which is why I posted, "I think moonbeam is confusing election, and therefore the adoption of the God's chosen people in Christ, our justification as an eternal immanent act in the mind of God with regeneration. We are regenerated by the Holy Spirit because we are God's people and not made God's people and adopted because we are regenerate."

j

 

[moonbeam]

You wrote,

"I am curious as to what method you would employ to dismiss my objection."

You are not willing to interact on the subject because you have already come to the conclusion we would simply dismiss your objections without offering a valid argument. This is the equivalent of plugging your ears and yelling, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" as we offer responses. It's childish. That is being closed minded and, from looking around the forum and reading some of your posts, argumentative.

Your reasoning is sufficiently plausible to be acceptable.


PS: I would have thought that my initial post #61 “I would like to hear an explanation from those who espouse eternal justification regarding this particular scripture.”...in combination with my latter statement from post #67 would have provided you with a plausible reason to infer otherwise, in regards my intent, than the conclusion you settled on.

I accept that my use of the word “dismiss” was a poor choice in retrospect...”overthrow” or “undermine” would have been preferable to express my intended intent.

In regards being “argumentative” there would be very few people who post in the soteriology forum (99% of my posts) from either camp who would not qualify for that dubious distinction...from time to time.

And I do believe you would have the potential to qualify for that distinction yourself considering this note I found, in your handwriting, which must have slipped out of your pocket unintentionally, as you were leaving the building in post #76 "PS: moonbeam, lay off the granola, it's making you too aggressive"


Now that we have introduced ourselves to each other (so to speak)...eyeing each other warily from opposite corners of a dingy smoke filled bar littered with the lifeless remains of all those who have contested with us...only we remain...hats tilted well forward casting an impenetrable shadow over our features, hands light and easy on our holsters...listening to the sound of silence.


Gird up your loins...and prepare for battle.


.