Eternal Justification?

[brightfame52]

It doesn't matter what it sounds like to you---you are wrong.

It matters to me what it sounds like. I believe Im right, you are trusting in faith for Justification b4 God and not the object of Faith who Justifies b4 God, Jesus Christ.

[MOD WARNING: Strike-through text violated rule 2.2.]
​

 

[atpollard]

Those chosen to be found in Christ shall indeed get saved, but until saved are still lost in their sins

Sort of ... but remember Romans 8 and the Golden Chain. There is a CERTAINTY in God's plan. They WILL BE saved, so they are a lost sheep that is guaranteed to be found and carried home. A strange "future perfect tense" to many of the things of God.

But I mostly agree with you ... like Ephesians 2:1-3 THEN comes the "But God ..."

 

[brightfame52]

Those chosen to be foun found in Christ shall indeed get saved, but until saved are still lost in their sins

False teaching. Never heard of get saved b4. And nobody is lost in their sins whom Christ has died for, because He purged them away Heb 1:3

; 3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high

 

[brightfame52]

So what?
Could you define "Surety" for me (so I can understand how you are using the term).

I have already so look it up. I have done that 3-4 times, please look it up yourself. In the mean time Heb 7:22 says He was made a surety of a better covenant. When do you think that suretyship began with God ?

Merriam-Webster defines it as: "one who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another".

okay

What does it mean to be "legally liable" for a debt that has not yet been incurred?
"Legally" to whom? In what court?

What about when it occurs ? Its not unusual for someone to make an agreement out of prudence. Do you know what prudence is

And are you really asking me to whom and for what ?

Thus my request for YOUR meaning for the term when you apply it to "Jesus before creation" so I can at least understand what you are attempting to claim

You know what Im claiming, eternal justification, see the OP it gives the subject. I will be posting more explaining my understanding.

 

[Arial]

No they incurred it by their actions, but the debt was laid to the account of Christ to pay it

Then they didn't actually incur it did they?

Incur: to become liable for. Bring down uon oneself (in this case the wrath of God).

Was it a time Jesus was not the Surety of the elect ?

Yes. He agreed in the CoR to become the surety. He became the surety when he performed the sureties duties. That is the eternal decree (one category) moving into history (another category) and it is applied in history (time where it becomes actual) to the dead in sin sinner through faith (another category.)

The next time you compress categories as a way of supporting your claim I am going to (once again) identify the category fallacy, explain why it is a logical fallacy, and hold you to the rules. The rules say you cannot go any farther in our conversation until you acknowledge that it is a logical fallacy or show why it is not a logical fallacy.

 

[Arial]

It matters to me what it sounds like. I believe Im right, you are trusting in faith for Justification b4 God and not the object of Faith who Justifies b4 God, Jesus Christ.

Next time I want to know what is in my mind and what it is I believe I will be sure and check with you.

 

[brightfame52]

Then they didn't actually incur it did they?

yes they did actually really incur it. Why you think Jesus came to pay their debt ? Jesus had a debt to pay Heb 2:14

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The word behoved opheiló:

behove, be bound, (be) debt(-or), (be) due(-ty), be guilty (indebted), (must) need(-s), ought, owe, should
NASB: ought, owe, owed, obligated, indebted, should, had

Surely you dont believe he actually incurred it do you ?

Yes. He agreed in the CoR to become the surety. He became the surety when he performed the sureties duties.

So you are saying He wasnt a Surety before His Incarnation, of the everlasting covenant or better covenant ? Heb 7:22

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

 

[John Bauer]

This statement is obviously false.

It is neither false nor obviously so. Observe the following.

It would disregard the previous covenantal arrangements as to who is liable.

That statement introduces a fallacious equivocation and therefore fails to refute my claim (or support yours). The equivocation is easily exposed with a simple question:

• Liable to what?

You keep changing the referent depending on where we are in the argument. Sometimes you mean liable to condemnation, and sometimes you mean liable to its penalty (death). When pressed on one, you jump to the other—and jump back again when pressed further.

(Keep in mind that rule 4.4 has now been invoked.)

It’s similar to Paul telling Philemon, “Hey, look, if your runaway slave owes you anything, take my word, lay it to my charge and I will repay you.” Let’s say Philemon took Paul at his word. Now when the slave returns to Philemon, having stolen from him and lawfully owes the debt, should Philemon—in light of the agreement he had with Paul—look for the debt to be paid by the slave ? Or just trust Paul to keep his word for the previous arrangement?

Your analogy hangs on an unanswered question: When Onesimus returned, had the debt been paid yet? This aligns with the point I have been making all along: Shouldering the responsibility for x does not accomplish x. Paul’s word shifted who would pay, not whether the debt existed. Consider the following that underlines the point: If Paul didn’t pay the debt, Onesimus would have remained the debtor. Paul becoming the surety is not what discharged the debt. Payment did that.

And even then, Onesimus remained liable not only until Paul paid (redemption accomplished) but also until Philemon declared the debt cleared (redemption applied). That corresponds to the cross as once-for-all satisfaction, after which comes the creditor’s reckoning—“no longer counted”—which corresponds to justification. The elect are freed from condemnation when God no longer counts their sins to them in union with Christ. Satisfaction removes the ground of condemnation; justification removes its reckoning. Again, there is justification only in Christ. Apart from that union, condemnation remains.

No, because the condemnation they did incur was covenantally charged to Christ to come under condemnation for. Both the elect and their surety can’t both come under their condemnation—that's injustice.

You previously said that the elect “incurred condemnation by their actions.” Now you say they were never under real condemnation. In what sense, then, did they incur condemnation? If it was not real, then what exactly did Christ bear as substitute?

Are they eternally justified, or are they condemned at some point?

Sir, what is this thread about ? Haven't you read anything I previously posted?

Everyone can see that you did not answer the question.

That works for me.

Explain how they incur condemnation for their sins if their guilt is never juridically reckoned to them.

By the fall in Adam, for 2000th time …

So their guilt IS juridically reckoned to them at some point? When?

(Answer: Prior to the Spirit uniting them with Christ.)

… and the condemnation of theirs fell on Christ.

Yes, the condemnation was ours and it was real. Christ is said to be “made a curse for us” and to “bear our sins,” which presupposes that the liability was truly ours before it was borne by Christ on the cross—and therefore denies eternal justification.

Were the elect ever, in God’s court, under real condemnation? If no, then what does “incurred condemnation” mean?

lol you joking arent you. Read this Rom 5:18

Everyone can see that you did not answer the question.

Again, that works for me.

Who incurred this condemnation, according to Rom 5:18a? And how ?

1. Humanity.

2. Covenantal imputation.

 

[brightfame52]

Christ a Surety Heb 7:22

The late Don Fortner wrote a commentary on Hebrews, explaining Heb 7:22 he writes:

A Surety A surety is one who approaches one person on the behalf of another person. He is a representative man who lays himself under obligation to another person for the one he represents. It is in this sense that Christ is our Surety. He drew near to his Father on our behalf, and laid himself under obligation to God for us (Ps. 40:7-8). A Matter of Honor Suretyship is, to a man of honor, a voluntary bondage (Pro. 6:1-2). A surety is one who strikes hands with another in solemn agreement. He gives his word that he will fulfill his agreement. Thus he binds his honor to the fulfilment of that which he has agreed to do. When the Lord Jesus Christ became our Surety, he voluntarily placed himself in bondage to his Father until his service was performed (Isa. 50:5-7; John 10:16-18). The Son of God, as our Mediator, as our covenant Surety, assumed total responsibility for the everlasting salvation of God’s elect, and willingly bound himself to the work of saving us. An Eternal Surety This is what the Lord Jesus Christ did as our Surety in the Covenant of Grace before the world began. He drew near to God on the behalf of his elect. He promised to faithfully perform all that God required for the salvation of his people. He struck hands with the Father in solemn agreement. A Trusted Surety God the Father trusted Christ as our Surety from eternity. He entrusted his elect people into the hands of his Son as our Surety, and the matter of our salvation was then and there settled forever. This is exactly how the Word of God describes the eternal aspect of salvation (Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:3-6, 12; 2 Tim. 1:9-10).God the Father put his chosen into the hands of his own dear Son, who volunteered to bring in everlasting righteousness for them, and to put away their sins by the sacrifice of himself. The Father, trusting the Son as our Surety, looked upon his people in him as redeemed, justified,sanctified, called, and glorified from everlasting. As such, he has, from eternity, made his elect to be “accepted in the Beloved.” He has blessed all his chosen with all the blessings of grace and salvation in Christ the Surety. Hebrews 7:22 “Made A Surety” How did the Lord Jesus Christ become our Surety? The Holy Spirit tells us, “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” He was made our Surety by the oath of God himself (v. 21), by the eternal decree of the Almighty, who accepted him for us and accepted us in him. An Absolute Surety With men a Surety is a mere guarantor, a co-signer who is jointly responsible with the principle debtor for the payment of a debt. Not so with Christ! Our Lord Jesus Christ did not merely agree to meet our obligations to God’s law if we, by some circumstance or condition, became incapable of meeting our own obligations. Our blessed Savior, as our Surety, took the whole of our obligation before the law of God upon himself. A Voluntary Surety With men a surety may be legally forced into suretyship. A man is legally responsible for the debts of his wife. A father is legally responsible for the debts and legal liabilities of his minor children. But Christ voluntarily, cheerfully placed himself in servitude to God’s law and will as the Surety of his own elect. From the instant he became Surety for his people, he became servant to his Father (Isa. 42:1; 49:3; John 10:17-18). The Lord Jesus Christ is an absolute Surety by voluntary consent. Transferred Responsibility When he became our Surety, Christ took the whole of our debt upon himself. He became responsible for our obligations. As soon as he was accepted as our Surety, we were released from all of our debts and obligations to God’s holy law. As soon as God accepted his Son as our Surety, he set us free. He ceased looking to us for satisfaction. He freed us from all bondage, all curse, all penalty, and all obligation; and looked to his Son for satisfaction of our debts (Job 33:24; Phile. 1:18). When Christ became Surety for us, our sins were imputed to him. By divine imputation, our sins were placed to his account. He became responsible for them. Christ was made to be sin for us when he hung upon the cursed tree. But he became responsible and accountable for sin when he became our Surety (2 Cor. 5:21; Isa. 53:6; Ps. 40:12; 69:5). The Result When Christ became our Surety, we were then and there redeemed, justified, pardoned, and made righteous in the sight of God (Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:3-6; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). God’s forbearance, patience, and long-suffering with this world are due to the suretyship engagements of Christ. God’s eye has always been on the blood. It is the blood of Christ our Surety that held back the hand of God’s judgment when Adam sinned. The Old Testament saints were pardoned, justified, and forgiven upon the basis of Christ’s obedience as our Surety, though he had not yet actually rendered that obedience (Isa. 43:25; 45:24-25; Heb. 11:13-16). Those saints of old, like believers today, had knowledge of and faith in Christ as their Surety (Job 19:25-27; Ps. 32:1-4; 119:122; Isa. 38:14) https://grace-ebooks.com/library/Don Fortner/DF_Discovering Christ In Hebrews.pdf

This Brother was more learned and able to convey these mysteries than I

 

[brightfame52]

You previously said that the elect “incurred condemnation by their actions.”

They did, which became Christs responsibility to pay and not theirs

 

[brightfame52]

1. Humanity.

2. Covenantal imputation.

Okay and Jesus became responsible for the elects condemnation they incurred in Rom 5:18a He was their covenant Head and not for the non elect

 

[atpollard]

Since the “surety” [G1450] appears only once in one verse, it is worth examining EXACTLY what is stated and what is not in Hebrews 7:22 …

(Hebrews 7:22) Jesus: our guarantee of a better covenant.​

By so much more Jesus has become a surety [G1450] of a better covenant.​

a. Jesus has become a surety: The ancient Greek word translated surety (egguos) described someone who gave security, who cosigned a loan to guarantee payment, or put up bail for a prisoner. Jesus Himself is the guarantee of a better covenant.​

b. A better covenant: The Old Covenant had a mediator (Moses), but no one to guarantee the people’s side of the covenant. Therefore they continually failed under it. But the New Covenant — a better covenant — has a cosigner to guarantee it on our behalf. Therefore, the New Covenant depends on what Jesus did, not on what we do. He is the surety and we are not.​

c. Covenant: The word used for covenant (the ancient Greek word diatheke) is not the usual term for “covenant” (syntheke). The literal meaning of diatheke is closer to the idea of a “testament” in the sense of a “last will and testament.” Perhaps the writer is trying to stress that while a covenant might be thought of as an agreement that two equal parties arrive at, the testator dictates a testament. The “agreement” under which we meet with God through Jesus is not something we have negotiated with Him. He has dictated the terms to us, and we will accept or reject the terms.​

d. By so much more: This much more — the overwhelming superiority of Jesus Christ — proves He is worthy and able to be our guarantee, our cosigner of a better covenant.​

[commentary from David Guzik]

Thus, the New Covenant is a one-sided covenant (God does all, like a last Will and Testament) rather than a two-party “agreement” and Jesus guarantees that man will uphold the human side of the new covenant (thus it will not fail like the old covenant). Given this data on “biblical surety”, Jesus could not have fulfilled the “human” portion of the agreement prior to becoming human. However, once God became a man, the conditions of the covenant COULD be fulfilled … our requirements fulfilled by HIM and in HIM … guaranteeing that WE could not fail God’s new “diatheke”.

God’s success may have been certain from the foundation of the world, and the Word may have always been fully God, but the Great High Priest (Jesus) was not our Great High Priest and the second Adam until he was (incarnate) … not from “the foundation of the world”. The “surety” (egguos) had a date when it was first signed.

 

[John Bauer]

Okay and Jesus became responsible for the elects condemnation they incurred in Rom 5:18a He was their covenant Head and not for the non elect

This has already been addressed—several times. Stop ignoring it.

And as per rule 4.4, your next post must address the fallacy allegation.

 

[brightfame52]

This has already been addressed—several times. Stop ignoring it.

And as per rule 4.4, your next post must address the fallacy allegation.

As far as Im concerned its been addressed, so do what you need to do, it will be the Lords will

 

[Arial]

yes they did actually really incur it. Why you think Jesus came to pay their debt ? Jesus had a debt to pay Heb 2:14

If they incurred the debt, then they owed the debt, didn't they? If they never owed the debt, then they never incurred the debt. If they were already justified before they were born, they were always justified even without being in union with Christ.

Yet the NT constantly used the phrase "in Christ". What does that mean? How do we become united to Christ? Why must we be united to Christ.

You are affirming real debt-incurrence while denying real liability. That destroys all meaning of debt entirely and it also makes union with Christ and faith unnecessary. Changing the definition of faith to "awareness of our position" as you do, does not make the problem of the necessity of union with Christ disappear. Awareness of our position as not guilty is internal in us and creates no union with Christ. Being guilty and not guilty at the same time is illogical. Your position has union with Christ already existing before we were even born and before the cross---faith or no faith. Or as your definition of faith would have it---awareness or no awareness.

And I suggest you be more careful of your wording. Christ never had a debt to pay. He paid our debt.

So, the question you must answer now is: What does union with Christ actually accomplish in your system?

 

[Arial]

As far as Im concerned its been addressed, so do what you need to do, it will be the Lords will

It has not been addressed, your opinion notwithstanding.

This is the fallacy:

That statement introduces a fallacious equivocation and therefore fails to refute my claim (or support yours). The equivocation is easily exposed with a simple question:

• Liable to what?

You keep changing the referent depending on where we are in the argument. Sometimes you mean liable to condemnation, and sometimes you mean liable to its penalty (death). When pressed on one, you jump to the other—and jump back again when pressed further.

 

[John Bauer]

As far as Im concerned its been addressed, so do what you need to do, it will be the Lords will

Show me where. Link and use quotes.

 

[Arial]

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The word behoved opheiló:

behove, be bound, (be) debt(-or), (be) due(-ty), be guilty (indebted), (must) need(-s), ought, owe, should
NASB: ought, owe, owed, obligated, indebted, should, had

That is Heb 2:17, not 14 but 14 shows exactly what it is saying. The "behooved" is not referring to the debt or Christ's surety. It refers to his incarnation. So, you are misusing the scripture. He had to become like one of us in order to become a merciful and faithful high priest and make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Propitiation is the satisfying of God's wrath against the elect sinner so that he could extend mercy. Look at the language. "Share in the flesh and blood", "had to be made like". All are historic, in time, events that had to take place before he could be a surety, even though he came as a surety. So once again you collapse the historic into the eternal. Two separate categories. That is a category confusion fallacy.

Here are the categories being treated as though they are the same thing.

What he agreed to be: eternal agreement between Father and Son.

What he became in order to fulfill the agreement: temporal and historic.

And that is if Heb 2: 17 were even speaking his surety as you claim, which it isn't. That becomes a category mistake. It treats an incarnational requirement as though it were a forensic or covenantal mechanism. Heb 2 grounds necessity in shared nature, not shared liability.

Rule 4.4 invoked.