• 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.

Justification from Eternity

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
moonbeam,

Calvinists disagree on the subject of justification from eternity but it is an in house debate.

jm



I have taken the liberty of changing my icon from Christian to Calvinist.

Which, I thought, would define my theological position more clearly to those in this faith group who are not familiar with my soteriological position.

I thought also, that doing so would encourage you to interact with my enquiries regarding justification from eternity, which, it would appear, you hold to be scripturally defensible, and so, necessarily the truth.

I beg to differ on the matter…and hold to the position espoused by the WCF.

So…this being an "in house debate" I was hoping you would engage with me in an examination of various aspects concerning this controversy.

"iron sharpens iron" … which can only be a good thing for all who would wield the sword.

My previous post to you (#95) and also my previous post to twin1954 (#94) regarding this subject went without any response from either of you…and I began to consider whether or not your silence should be interpreted as consent (in regards my request)…and my lack of response than interpreted as disinterest in the matter.

I was no sure if that was the case…so I have taken this course of action to dispel any misconceptions that may have been formed and to remove any impediments to furthering the discussion.

Justification from eternity is quite an interesting subject and to have the opportunity of discussing the fundamentals of the position with those who advocate it, in a debate format, is edifying…in that rightly dividing the word of God can only be a good thing.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I have taken the liberty of changing my icon from Christian to Calvinist.

Which, I thought, would define my theological position more clearly to those in this faith group who are not familiar with my soteriological position.

I thought also, that doing so would encourage you to interact with my enquiries regarding justification from eternity, which, it would appear, you hold to be scripturally defensible, and so, necessarily the truth.

I beg to differ on the matter…and hold to the position espoused by the WCF.

So…this being an "in house debate" I was hoping you would engage with me in an examination of various aspects concerning this controversy.

"iron sharpens iron" … which can only be a good thing for all who would wield the sword.

My previous post to you (#95) and also my previous post to twin1954 (#94) regarding this subject went without any response from either of you…and I began to consider whether or not your silence should be interpreted as consent (in regards my request)…and my lack of response than interpreted as disinterest in the matter.

I was no sure if that was the case…so I have taken this course of action to dispel any misconceptions that may have been formed and to remove any impediments to furthering the discussion.

Justification from eternity is quite an interesting subject and to have the opportunity of discussing the fundamentals of the position with those who advocate it, in a debate format, is edifying…in that rightly dividing the word of God can only be a good thing.

.

I am not really interested in a debate. Debate is assertion and rebuttal, assertion rebuttal with the end being to destroy your opponent's argument with your own.

I will consider trying to answer questions about the truth of the doctrine though. I will try to explain what I believe and why but I am not going to defend it.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,476
3,733
Canada
✟876,691.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Hi moonbeam. I appropriate the change in demeanor. I feel confident that most of your questions will have answers linked somewhere in this thread. That is the entire purpose of this thread; to provide resources for those who have objections. I would love to respond specific questions but cannot guarantee a time frame. If the answer is easy or obvious I'll respond quickly. If it is more detailed or laborious I may not get back for a while. I normally respond from my iPhone so giving long answers is out of the question. The iPhone is also more difficult to toggle between pages.



jm
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
I am not really interested in a debate. Debate is assertion and rebuttal, assertion rebuttal with the end being to destroy your opponent's argument with your own.

I will consider trying to answer questions about the truth of the doctrine though. I will try to explain what I believe and why but I am not going to defend it.


The process of examining a particular scriptural matter through assertion and rebuttal is not to destroy your opponent’s argument with your own...but to arrive at the truth concerning the matter.

Because the word of God is truth, even as the Word of God is truth...it possesses the unique and inherent ability to withstand any, and all, assaults, upon the veracity of its content (those things asserted)

This ability to withstand assault (critical examination) is not shared by that which is untruth.

Justification from eternity is either true or false....there is no middle ground.

I will make a reply to your last response to me regarding justification from eternity (your post #77)


PS - In regards to some of your previous comments - I am a 56 year old diesel mechanic from New Zealand, currently working in the remote Western Australia mining industry on a fly in/out, week on/off roster. I left school at the age of 16 and have no academic qualifications of any kind. However...I do possess an enquiring mind, and that enlivened by the Spirit of God.

.
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Hi moonbeam. I appropriate the change in demeanor. I feel confident that most of your questions will have answers linked somewhere in this thread. That is the entire purpose of this thread; to provide resources for those who have objections. I would love to respond specific questions but cannot guarantee a time frame. If the answer is easy or obvious I'll respond quickly. If it is more detailed or laborious I may not get back for a while. I normally respond from my iPhone so giving long answers is out of the question. The iPhone is also more difficult to toggle between pages.


Thanks for the reply.

The issues raised by yourself and other proponents of justification from eternity can be quite complex in some regards, and quite simple in others.

I have considered most of what is linked in the course of this thread and have given the matter some personal consideration in the past.

Apart from an inherent internal impetus to contend against justification from eternity on the basis that it is false doctrine and therefore must be opposed and refuted...I also have a further interest in that I suspect it lies at a foundational level of the systematic theology of a friend of mine who has chosen to distance himself from me...though not me, from him. So the opportunity to converse with proponents who can articulate the finer nuances of eternal justification is useful, in that it helps me better understand his thought, and theirs.

Do not take by forthright comments as an indicator of a closed mind...on the contrary, but rather an enquiring mind.

One of the benefits of the assertion/rebuttal format afforded by these forums is that my personal perceptions regarding the truth of scripture are challenged by the insightful replies of my opponents. Their probing questions and critical logical dissection of my concepts and assertions can cause my arguments to unravel...at which point...perhaps...reluctantly...I should consider seriously the possibility that I am simply wrong concerning the matter in general, or a particular aspect concerning it.

Though having said that...I am hoping that the above will be your experience not mine...(said with a smile, from your contending, but not offending, brother in Christ)

I will make a reply to your previous post that being the latter section of your post #79

PS - Do not worry about being prompt with your replies...I can be somewhat tardy with my responses myself, not out of disinterest though, I just like to absorb what my opponent has said and give it due consideration...before destroying their arguments (said with a smile, from your contending, but not offending, brother in Christ).

.
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
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.


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.

To suggest, as you do, that the context of Paul’s statement (regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the redeemed sinner) has nothing to do with, or, concerning justification...deserves to be dismissed with a degree of incredulousness.

Nothing...indicates more succinctly that one is justified in the sight of God with that imputed righteousness peculiar to the second person of the Godhead than the presence, and thereby the endorsement, of the third person of the Godhead...testifying to our spirits that we are the children of God.

Any attempt to dilute the significance of this simple, yet profound, act of God must be resisted, and assessed, as an attempt to obscure the truth of God...as He would have us know it.


Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The election of specific persons (envisaged) to be enlivened by the grace of God, allows for the caveat to be enforced prior to that elect persons regeneration and consequent repentance and exercise of the faith.

However...the election, and the justification, of specific persons (envisaged) to be enlivened by the grace of God...does not allow...for the caveat to be enforced prior to that elect persons regeneration and consequent repentance and exercise of the faith.

How so ? ...because it can never be said of one who has had his sins imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness imputed to them that “he is none of his”

He most certainly can not be anything else...but his.

The logical ramifications of this unambiguous statement destroys the foundation of the justified from eternity position.

The proponent of justification from eternity needs to demonstrate how it is possible, that the elect and eternally justified person (envisaged) in Christ from eternity can be said to be “none of his” prior to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the temporal realm ?

This difficulty...is not a difficulty for those who hold to the truth revealed in scripture. The election of specific persons (envisaged)...envisages the temporal outworking of the Fathers eternal decree’s.

However the difficulty for the justified from eternity proponent is that the basis of his position is the ascendancy of the eternal over the temporal spheres...in that that which (he supposes) is fact in the eternal, is necessarily subsumed in the temporal...and so assumed to be fact also.

The truth of scripture, however, allows for the Being of God…to be Being (I Am)…...not to have been (I Was)

The orderly séquentiel revealing of the eternal, in the temporal realm...is the eternal plan/mind of God displayed.

In the mind of the Eternal Father….The Eternal Plan....was that, the Eternal Plan….would, and should be, Eternally Transient.

.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,476
3,733
Canada
✟876,691.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Beam, you are using the verse out of context to bolster your argument. Paul was discussing justification in the previous chapter, he had moved on to conforming to Christ by mortifying the flesh. The verse you believe is so strong against justification from eternity is dealing with a different subject: SANCTIFICATION.

Paul is dealing with sanctification and the Christian need for. It makes since chronologically. Sanctification is the work of the Spirit and if you have not the Spirit working in you, you have no reason to believe you are Christ's.

I'm pretty sure I posted a sermon or two from Romans 8 that will help to clarify, if you could go back through and have a listen, it might help move the discussion forward. As of right now you are beating a dead horse. We fail to see your point because you are using a verse given to a Christian about sanctification and claiming it has everything to do with justification.

j
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
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



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.

In regards to the above scripture

How does an eternal immanent act in the mind of God (such as election) become a transient act of God in the temporal sphere (regeneration)...without an eternal immanent act in the mind of God ?

.
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Beam, you are using the verse out of context to bolster your argument. Paul was discussing justification in the previous chapter, he had moved on to conforming to Christ by mortifying the flesh. The verse you believe is so strong against justification from eternity is dealing with a different subject: SANCTIFICATION.

Paul is dealing with sanctification and the Christian need for. It makes since chronologically. Sanctification is the work of the Spirit and if you have not the Spirit working in you, you have no reason to believe you are Christ's.

I'm pretty sure I posted a sermon or two from Romans 8 that will help to clarify, if you could go back through and have a listen, it might help move the discussion forward. As of right now you are beating a dead horse. We fail to see your point because you are using a verse given to a Christian about sanctification and claiming it has everything to do with justification.


There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Rom 8:1)

This scripture above destroys your objection in regards my use of Rom 8:9.

Justification (no condemnation) is equated with them which are “in Christ Jesus” and who walk “after the Spirit”

Rom 8:9 defines the sole delineator that differentiates between the “flesh” (condemnation) and the “Spirit” (no condemnation/justification)

That sole delineator is the indwelling Holy Spirit as a present possession...and nothing else.

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)

Therefore Rom 8:9 has everything to do with Justification.

I would be very interested to know how you would establish that Rom 8:9 is restricted, solely, in its application, to sanctification, in light of the testimony of Rom 8:1 above ?

.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
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.

To suggest, as you do, that the context of Paul’s statement (regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the redeemed sinner) has nothing to do with, or, concerning justification...deserves to be dismissed with a degree of incredulousness.

Nothing...indicates more succinctly that one is justified in the sight of God with that imputed righteousness peculiar to the second person of the Godhead than the presence, and thereby the endorsement, of the third person of the Godhead...testifying to our spirits that we are the children of God.

Any attempt to dilute the significance of this simple, yet profound, act of God must be resisted, and assessed, as an attempt to obscure the truth of God...as He would have us know it.


Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The election of specific persons (envisaged) to be enlivened by the grace of God, allows for the caveat to be enforced prior to that elect persons regeneration and consequent repentance and exercise of the faith.

However...the election, and the justification, of specific persons (envisaged) to be enlivened by the grace of God...does not allow...for the caveat to be enforced prior to that elect persons regeneration and consequent repentance and exercise of the faith.

How so ? ...because it can never be said of one who has had his sins imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness imputed to them that “he is none of his”

He most certainly can not be anything else...but his.

The logical ramifications of this unambiguous statement destroys the foundation of the justified from eternity position.

The proponent of justification from eternity needs to demonstrate how it is possible, that the elect and eternally justified person (envisaged) in Christ from eternity can be said to be “none of his” prior to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the temporal realm ?

This difficulty...is not a difficulty for those who hold to the truth revealed in scripture. The election of specific persons (envisaged)...envisages the temporal outworking of the Fathers eternal decree’s.

However the difficulty for the justified from eternity proponent is that the basis of his position is the ascendancy of the eternal over the temporal spheres...in that that which (he supposes) is fact in the eternal, is necessarily subsumed in the temporal...and so assumed to be fact also.

The truth of scripture, however, allows for the Being of God…to be Being (I Am)…...not to have been (I Was)

The orderly séquentiel revealing of the eternal, in the temporal realm...is the eternal plan/mind of God displayed.

In the mind of the Eternal Father….The Eternal Plan....was that, the Eternal Plan….would, and should be, Eternally Transient.

.

First of all I didn't say that the verse has nothing to do with justification I said that the context isn't justification. There is a difference. Please don't put words in my mouth.

It is a given that the Spirit indwells all who are justified. Eternal justification doesn't teach that the Spirit indwells those who are justified before He does the work of regeneration though. Your use of the passage to suggest that it does is ridiculous and the use of a verse out of its context is prooftexting.

Contrary to what you assert Rom. 8:1 does not set the context of what follows. You make the mistake of reading the chapter breaks placed by men as though they were inspired by God. They were not. In reality the subject changes from justification to the walk in the Spirit and assurance in verse 3. No commentator I know will back up your assertion. All of them see a transition in the passage. Therefore your use of Rom. 8:9 as you do is a misuse of the verse and cannot back up your assertion.


Now I told you that I am not going to debate this with you so don't bother to continue to assert that which is clearly not the case. I suggest that you read the passage over again until you see that the subject does change. Until you can acknowledge that simple and clear truth all argument concerning it is moot.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,476
3,733
Canada
✟876,691.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
How does an eternal immanent act in the mind of God (such as election)

Stop.

become a transient act of God in the temporal sphere (regeneration)...without an eternal immanent act in the mind of God ?

.
It doesn't. What takes place in time is decree by God from all eternity, which is fixed and known, and includes transient acts in the temporal sphere.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,476
3,733
Canada
✟876,691.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Rom 8:1)

This scripture above destroys your objection in regards my use of Rom 8:9.

Actually, it proves it. It comforts the Saints to know that we have God the Holy Spirit in us and therefore suffer no condemnation. Why? Because of God's grace in election.

Justification (no condemnation) is equated with them which are “in Christ Jesus” and who walk “after the Spirit”
Walking in the Spirit does not equal justification. Just as the Lamb Jesus Christ was seen as "slain from the foundation of the world" we are seen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

Rom 8:9 defines the sole delineator that differentiates between the “flesh” (condemnation) and the “Spirit” (no condemnation/justification)

That sole delineator is the indwelling Holy Spirit as a present possession...and nothing else.
Some of these points have already been answered. I asked politely for you to read through the thread and think about what was posted before continuing but it seems you missed this one. I'll repost it for you.
Justification is not only before faith, but it is from eternity, being an immanent act in the divine mind, and so an internal and eternal one; as may be concluded,
1. From eternal election: the objects of justification are God's elect; "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? it is God that justifies"; that is, the elect. Now if God's elect, as such, can have nothing laid to their charge; but are by God acquitted, discharged, and justified; and if they bore this character of elect from eternity, or were chosen in Christ before the world began; then they must be acquitted, discharged and justified so early, so as nothing could be laid to their charge: besides, by electing grace men were put into Christ, and were considered as in him before the foundation of the world; and if they were considered as in him, they must be considered as righteous or unrighteous; not surely as unrighteous, unjustified, and in a state of condemnation; for "there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ", Rom. 8:1 and therefore must be considered as righteous, and so justified: "Justified then we were, says Dr. Goodwin {13} 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."

2. Justification may well be considered as a branch of election; it is no other, as one expresses it, than setting apart the elect alone to be partakers of Christ's righteousness; and a setting apart Christ's righteousness for the elect only; it is mentioned along with election, as of the same date with it; "Wherein", that is, in the grace of God, particularly the electing grace of God, spoken of before, "he hath made us accepted in the beloved", Eph. 1:6. What is this acceptance in Christ, but justification in him? and this is expressed as a past act, in the same language as other eternal things be in the context, he "hath" blessed us, and he "hath" chosen us, and "having" predestinated us, so he hath made us accepted; and, indeed, as Christ was always the beloved of God, and well pleasing to him; so all given to him, and in him, were beloved of God, well pleasing to him, and accepted with him, or justified in him from eternity.

3. Justification is one of those spiritual blessings wherewith the elect are blessed in Christ according to election-grace, before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:3,4. That justification is a spiritual blessing none will deny; and if the elect were blessed with all spiritual blessings, then with this; and if thus blessed according to election, or when elected, then before the foundation of the world: and this grace of justification must be no small part of that "grace which was given in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world was", 2Tim. 1:9. We may say, says Dr. Goodwin {14}, of all spiritual blessings in Christ, what is said of Christ, that his goings forth are from everlasting--in Christ we were blessed with all spiritual blessings, #Eph 1:3 as we are blessed with all other, so with this also, that we were justified then in Christ!

4. Christ became a Surety for his people from everlasting; engaged to pay their debts, bear their sins, and make satisfaction for them; and was accepted of as such by God his Father, who thenceforward looked at him for payment and satisfaction, and looked at them as discharged, and so they were in his eternal mind; and it is a rule that will hold good, as Maccovius {15} observes, "that as soon as one becomes a surety for another, the other is immediately freed, if the surety be accepted;" which is the case here and it is but a piece of common prudence, when a man has a bad debt, and has good security for it, to look not to the principal debtor, who will never be able to pay him, but to his good bondsman and surety, who is able; and so Dr. Goodwin {16} observes, that God, in the everlasting transaction with Christ, "told him, as it were, that he would look for his debt and satisfaction of him, and that he did let the sinners go free; and so they are in this respect, justified from all eternity."

5. The everlasting transaction, the same excellent writer thinks, is imported in 2Cor. 5:19. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them". And the very learned Witsius {17} is of opinion, "that this act of God may be called, the general justification of the elect." And, indeed, since it was the determination of God, and the scheme and method he proposed to take in Christ for the reconciliation of the elect, not to impute their sins to them, but to his Son, their Surety; then seeing they are not imputed to them, but to him; and if reckoned and accounted to him, then not to them; and if charged to him, then they must be discharged from them, and so justified; and a non-imputation of sin to the elect, is no other than a justification of them; and thus the apostle strongly concludes the imputation of Christ's righteousness; which is the "formalis ratio", or the form of justification, from the non-imputation of sin, and the remission of it, Romans 4:6-8.

6. It was the will of God from everlasting, not to punish sin in the persons of his elect, but to punish it in the person of Christ; and that it was his will not to punish it in his people, but in his Son, is manifest from his setting him forth in his purposes and decrees, to be the propitiation for sin; and from his sending him forth in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh; and from his being made sin and a curse, that his people might be made the righteousness of God in him. Now, as has been often observed, no new will can arise in God; God wills nothing in time, but what he willed from eternity; and if it was the eternal will of God not to punish sin in his people, but in his Son, then they were eternally discharged, acquitted from sin, and secured from everlasting wrath and destruction; and if they were eternally discharged from sin, and freed from punishment, they were eternally justified: Dr. Twisse {18} makes the very quiddity and essence of justification and remission of sin, which he takes to be the same, to lie in the will of God not to punish; and asserts, that this will not to punish, as it is an immanent act, was from eternity.

7. It deserves regard and attention, that the saints under the Old Testament, were justified by the same righteousness of Christ, as those under the New, and that before the sacrifice was offered up, the satisfaction given, and the everlasting righteousness brought in; for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins that were past, and his death was for the redemption of transgressions under the first Testament, Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:15.Now if God could, and actually did, justify some, three or four thousand years before the righteousness of Christ was actually wrought out, taking his Son's word and bond as their Surety, and in a view of his future righteousness; why could he not, and why may it not be thought he did, justify all his elect from eternity, upon the word and bond of their Surety, and on the basis of his future righteousness, which he had engaged to work out, and which he full well knew he would most certainly work out? and if there is no difficulty in conceiving of the one, there can be none in conceiving of the other.
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)

Therefore Rom 8:9 has everything to do with Justification.

I would be very interested to know how you would establish that Rom 8:9 is restricted, solely, in its application, to sanctification, in light of the testimony of Rom 8:1 above ?

.
It's pretty simple. Paul is progressing through Romans 8 explaining sanctification by contrasting the carnal mind with the life in the Spirit. Paul goes on to say we are lead by the Spirit, the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are Sons of God. Continuing with this idea of our physical bodies being sanctified and redeemed Paul reminds us that all of creation is being redeemed. Creation is not being justified, as you must contend with your supposition, but being restored, redeemed and made whole.

I'm at work on a computer so I only had a minute to sneak this post in.

j
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
First of all I didn't say that the verse has nothing to do with justification I said that the context isn't justification. There is a difference. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Than...would I be correct in inferring from your words, that you do in fact recognise that Rom 8:9 does have application regarding justification ?

Could you elaborate briefly on how Rom 8:9 is applicable to the doctrine of justification ?



Contrary to what you assert Rom. 8:1 does not set the context of what follows. You make the mistake of reading the chapter breaks placed by men as though they were inspired by God. They were not. In reality the subject changes from justification to the walk in the Spirit and assurance in verse 3. No commentator I know will back up your assertion. All of them see a transition in the passage. Therefore your use of Rom. 8:9 as you do is a misuse of the verse and cannot back up your assertion.


Now I told you that I am not going to debate this with you so don't bother to continue to assert that which is clearly not the case. I suggest that you read the passage over again until you see that the subject does change. Until you can acknowledge that simple and clear truth all argument concerning it is moot.


Chapter eight of Romans is utilised by Paul to bring together the various strands of argument he has employed in previous sections into a cohesive whole. The inter-related subjects of law, guilt, justification and sanctification are all brought together in concise statements, the scope of which encompass all facets of subject matter previously discussed.

The statements made in Rom 8:1 and 8:9 are of this category and are extremely precise, and accurate, in regards their scope, which includes the law, guilt, justification and sanctification…for example

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

”There is therefore now”… is the introduction of the summary of the previous content concerning law, guilt, justification, sanctification touched on in previous discourse.

“no condemnation”…. is clearly a judicial term relating to matters of law, guilt and punishment, it must relate, primarily, to being justified and justification, the definition of which equates to a judicial finding of no condemnation because of innocence.

“to them which are in Christ Jesus”.... referencing election and sanctification and justification.

“who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”.... referencing sanctification, progressive and declarative and justification.


Can you agree with me that Paul’s use of Rom 8:1 is sufficiently broad to encompass my view above ?

If you conclude otherwise...Can you elaborate on how the phrase “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” should be understood as exclusively referencing sanctification and excluding reference to justification ?


PS - I will reply to your other comments (your misunderstanding) regarding the indwelling of the Spirit in a separate post

.
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
It is a given that the Spirit indwells all who are justified. Eternal justification doesn't teach that the Spirit indwells those who are justified before He does the work of regeneration though. Your use of the passage to suggest that it does is ridiculous and the use of a verse out of its context is prooftexting.


Justification from eternity asserts that because God elected specific persons from eternity, that that election was (as they would define it) an immanent act in the mind of God...to quote from John Gill

"Now, as before observed, as God's will to elect, is the election of his people, so his will to justify them, is the justification of them; as it is an immanent act in God, it is an act of his grace towards them, is wholly without them, entirely resides in the divine mind, and lies in his estimating, accounting, and constituting them righteous, through the righteousness of his Son; and, as such, did not first commence in time, but from eternity."


The proponents of justification from eternity assert, in addition, and as a consequent, that justification is a branch of election, and likewise adoption, and that these spiritual blessings were effected in Christ who engaged to be our surety, before the foundation of the world.

Therefore the proponents of justification from eternity assert that....the elect unregenerate sinner (before regeneration) is in fact, having their sin’s imputed to Christ and the righteousness of Christ is being imputed to them, from their first breath of life.

The basis for this is that the surety (Christ) engaged in his suretyship on behalf of the elect, in the counsel of the Godhead in eternity, before the foundation of the world.



Now that I have framed the paradigm which my comments related to...(and which I thought you would grasp without explanation of the doctrine you assert is truth)…I will reproduce (below) that section of my former post which seems to have had you in some confusion in regards my meaning, for your reconsideration

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The election of specific persons (envisaged) to be enlivened by the grace of God, allows for the caveat to be enforced prior to that elect persons regeneration and consequent repentance and exercise of the faith.

However...the election, and the justification, of specific persons (envisaged) to be enlivened by the grace of God...does not allow...for the caveat to be enforced prior to that elect persons regeneration and consequent repentance and exercise of the faith.

How so ? ...because it can never be said of one who has had his sins imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness imputed to them that “he is none of his”

He most certainly can not be anything else...but his.

The logical ramifications of this unambiguous statement destroys the foundation of the justified from eternity position.

The proponent of justification from eternity needs to demonstrate how it is possible, that the elect and eternally justified person (envisaged) in Christ from eternity can be said to be “none of his” prior to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the temporal realm ?

This difficulty...is not a difficulty for those who hold to the truth revealed in scripture. The election of specific persons (envisaged)...envisages the temporal outworking of the Fathers eternal decree’s.

However the difficulty for the justified from eternity proponent is that the basis of his position is the ascendancy of the eternal over the temporal spheres...in that that which (he supposes) is fact in the eternal, is necessarily subsumed in the temporal...and so assumed to be fact also.

The truth of scripture, however, allows for the Being of God…to be Being (I Am)…...not to have been (I Was)

The orderly séquentiel revealing of the eternal, in the temporal realm...is the eternal plan/mind of God displayed.

In the mind of the Eternal Father….The Eternal Plan....was that, the Eternal Plan….would, and should be, Eternally Transient.

.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,476
3,733
Canada
✟876,691.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
All that mess is just a convolute way to keep arguing. I could ask you to demonstrate how God learns, or changes His mind, how God has succession of thought in historical terms...or how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's not edifying. It's simply argumentative. If you read through this thread and search this forum for other threads on justification from eternity you will find sufficient material to answer most of the questions you have. I’ve gone back through the posts made so far on the subject, the links provided, audio and video sermons, etc. and feel confident that most of your objections have already been answered, even if you disagree with the responses, they are given.

My years on this and similar forums have taught me to just leave the thread if someone is trying to tie you up in protracted debate. I hope you understand. If we disagree that’s fine. We’ll have to agree to disagree and move on. I’m not willing to spend my time arguing about.

jm
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Than...would I be correct in inferring from your words, that you do in fact recognise that Rom 8:9 does have application regarding justification ?
No you wouldn't be.

Could you elaborate briefly on how Rom 8:9 is applicable to the doctrine of justification ?
I already did in the part you quoted in the next post.






Chapter eight of Romans is utilised by Paul to bring together the various strands of argument he has employed in previous sections into a cohesive whole. The inter-related subjects of law, guilt, justification and sanctification are all brought together in concise statements, the scope of which encompass all facets of subject matter previously discussed.

The statements made in Rom 8:1 and 8:9 are of this category and are extremely precise, and accurate, in regards their scope, which includes the law, guilt, justification and sanctification…for example

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

”There is therefore now”… is the introduction of the summary of the previous content concerning law, guilt, justification, sanctification touched on in previous discourse.

“no condemnation”…. is clearly a judicial term relating to matters of law, guilt and punishment, it must relate, primarily, to being justified and justification, the definition of which equates to a judicial finding of no condemnation because of innocence.

“to them which are in Christ Jesus”.... referencing election and sanctification and justification.

“who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”.... referencing sanctification, progressive and declarative and justification.


Can you agree with me that Paul’s use of Rom 8:1 is sufficiently broad to encompass my view above ?

If you conclude otherwise...Can you elaborate on how the phrase “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” should be understood as exclusively referencing sanctification and excluding reference to justification ?


PS - I will reply to your other comments (your misunderstanding) regarding the indwelling of the Spirit in a separate post

.

You still don't get it because you must read your presupposition into the passage. I have explained that you are misusing the passage and why it should suffice.
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
.

JM - what may appear to be argumentative to you…is not me being argumentative.

It is my method of exploring my opponents position (which I happen to believe is false doctrine)

And…the fact of the matter is that very large portions of the evangelical church hold a similar view.

Your particular view is an extreme minority… Why is that ?

Now…you have quoted from numerous sources in support of your position and I would hazard a guess that their combined writings, by which they contend for and against the things they believe and disavow…would come close to fulling up the back of your pick up truck…so I find it a little disingenuous of you to be complaining about my meagre scribbling.

In the "mess" which is your descriptor for my last post to twin1954 I elaborate a little on my thoughts and queries and ask of him just a single question…which follows below.

The proponent of justification from eternity needs to demonstrate how it is possible, that the elect and eternally justified person (envisaged) in Christ from eternity can be said to be “none of his” prior to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the temporal realm ?

Perhaps you could offer a response ?

(By that I mean)…edify us...by helping us come to understand why, what is commonly regarded as false doctrine (justification from eternity), should in fact be embraced by all of God's children.

To do less would be to despise the Spirit of Truth in you…and deprive your brethren of that which has been revealed to you.

So…contend for the faith once delivered to the saints…brother.


PS - don't forget to answer that question

.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Justification from eternity asserts that because God elected specific persons from eternity, that that election was (as they would define it) an immanent act in the mind of God...to quote from John Gill

"Now, as before observed, as God's will to elect, is the election of his people, so his will to justify them, is the justification of them; as it is an immanent act in God, it is an act of his grace towards them, is wholly without them, entirely resides in the divine mind, and lies in his estimating, accounting, and constituting them righteous, through the righteousness of his Son; and, as such, did not first commence in time, but from eternity."


The proponents of justification from eternity assert, in addition, and as a consequent, that justification is a branch of election, and likewise adoption, and that these spiritual blessings were effected in Christ who engaged to be our surety, before the foundation of the world.

Therefore the proponents of justification from eternity assert that....the elect unregenerate sinner (before regeneration) is in fact, having their sin’s imputed to Christ and the righteousness of Christ is being imputed to them, from their first breath of life.

The basis for this is that the surety (Christ) engaged in his suretyship on behalf of the elect, in the counsel of the Godhead in eternity, before the foundation of the world.



Now that I have framed the paradigm which my comments related to...(and which I thought you would grasp without explanation of the doctrine you assert is truth)…I will reproduce (below) that section of my former post which seems to have had you in some confusion in regards my meaning, for your reconsideration

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The election of specific persons (envisaged) to be enlivened by the grace of God, allows for the caveat to be enforced prior to that elect persons regeneration and consequent repentance and exercise of the faith.

However...the election, and the justification, of specific persons (envisaged) to be enlivened by the grace of God...does not allow...for the caveat to be enforced prior to that elect persons regeneration and consequent repentance and exercise of the faith.

How so ? ...because it can never be said of one who has had his sins imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness imputed to them that “he is none of his”

He most certainly can not be anything else...but his.

The logical ramifications of this unambiguous statement destroys the foundation of the justified from eternity position.

The proponent of justification from eternity needs to demonstrate how it is possible, that the elect and eternally justified person (envisaged) in Christ from eternity can be said to be “none of his” prior to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the temporal realm ?

This difficulty...is not a difficulty for those who hold to the truth revealed in scripture. The election of specific persons (envisaged)...envisages the temporal outworking of the Fathers eternal decree’s.

However the difficulty for the justified from eternity proponent is that the basis of his position is the ascendancy of the eternal over the temporal spheres...in that that which (he supposes) is fact in the eternal, is necessarily subsumed in the temporal...and so assumed to be fact also.

The truth of scripture, however, allows for the Being of God…to be Being (I Am)…...not to have been (I Was)

The orderly séquentiel revealing of the eternal, in the temporal realm...is the eternal plan/mind of God displayed.

In the mind of the Eternal Father….The Eternal Plan....was that, the Eternal Plan….would, and should be, Eternally Transient.

.
You seem to conveniently leave out and ignore portions of my posts so I will repeat the portion that most applies here.

I am not going to debate this with you and until you can see that you are misusing the passage the whole of the argument is moot. Good Day.
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,637
66
✟67,699.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
I am not going to debate this with you and until you can see that you are misusing the passage the whole of the argument is moot. Good Day.




I thought that I would leave you with an example of your incoherence and duplicity…amply demonstrated by you in this exchange over a few posts concerning Rom 8:9

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.




Twin - The context of the statement by Paul is not concerning justification but one of walking in the Spirit.

moonbeam - To suggest, as you do, that the context of Paul’s statement (regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the redeemed sinner) has nothing to do with, or, concerning justification...deserves to be dismissed with a degree of incredulousness.

twin - First of all I didn't say that the verse has nothing to do with justification I said that the context isn't justification. There is a difference. Please don't put words in my mouth.

moonbeam - Than...would I be correct in inferring from your words, that you do in fact recognise that Rom 8:9 does have application regarding justification ?

twin - No you wouldn't be.



.
 
Upvote 0