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.
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 Christs 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.What are your thoughts on Justification from Eternity.
I was reading this and found it rather compelling:
Justified from Eternity Don Fortner « Feileadh Mor
Interesting! Thanks!AMR said: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 Christs 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
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 Christs 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
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 Christs 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.
Eternal justification (justified from eterntity") denies the elect were ever sinners, children of wrath.
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.
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 if given.
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 Goodwins 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)
.
Jm,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.
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.
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.
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.
.
Great way to get a response...by admitting you are already closed minded to our posts.
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 ?
Exactly.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?