Eternal Justification?

[brightfame52]

Yes, Jesus was imputed with out sin, and it was also transferred to him, FROM us—even off of us,

Thats wrong, it was never imputed to the elect Rom 4:7-8

7 saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

2 Cor 5 19

; 19 to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Gill writes I and I agree:

not imputing their trespasses. This was what he resolved upon from all eternity, that inasmuch as Christ was become the surety and substitute of his people, he would not impute their sins to them, or look for satisfaction for them from them; but would reckon and place them to the account of their surety, and expect satisfaction from him; and accordingly he did, and accordingly he had it. And this will, not to impute sin to his people, or not to punish for it, which existed in God from everlahttps://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/5-19.htmsting, is no other than a justification of them; for to whom the Lord does not impute sin, he imputes righteousness, and such are properly justified.

 

[Arial]

Correct, lest you believe both the elect and Jesus were legally condemned for the same sins at the same time. That doesn't make sense

You are asserting that Jesus actually became a sinner by imputation, and before the foundation of the world. That is how we become sinners so it would follow in your reasoning (and I use that word loosely) that it would be the same if our sins were imputed to him before the foundation of the world.

Jesus was never condemned He was a substitute. If he had been condemned, he would still be in that tomb. He was judicially treated as being sin-bearing. without ever being sinful or personally condemned. He was not born under the federal headship of Adam as we are, therefore, he was never in Adam. We are. And we are born under condemnation it is the condemnation that Jesus frees us from---in Him---through faith.

The gospel is not that Christ was condemned so we never were, but that we were condemned in Adam and Christ bore that condemnation at the cross to free us in union with him.

 

[Arial]

It was imputed to Christ. God looked to Christ to deal with their condemnation. When Jesus came into the world it was to pay their debt of condemnation and sin Heb 2:17


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 means:

1. to owe
   
   
   1. to owe money, be in debt for
      1. that which is due, the debt
2. metaph. the goodwill due

See Christ was charged with the debt of the Sheep, not the Sheep

Do you believe the Sheep and the indebted Shepherd both at the same time owed the debt for their sins ? Yes or no

Mod Hat: You have posted most of this thread in exact wording at least once before in this thread. There is a rule against repetitive posting of the same thing over and over. The counter to this point was also made in this thread and this shows it was ignored. You selective choose which usage to apply "behooved" to in order to fit your presuppositional interpretation. Most translations translate it according to the full counsel of God and its other comparative usages in scripture (determined by context) as "had to made like his brothers".

 

[Carbon]

Eternal Justification is the doctrine that the elect of God were justified by God in eternity past, rather than in time through faith in Christ. This is a Hyper-Calvinist doctrinal teaching and, in my opinion, is very dangerous. As it can lead to many errors.

I have had people ask me what my thoughts were about this doctrine, and I know they were hoping I would agree with it. But I do not!


John Flavel,

[The doctrine of eternal justification, a chief tenet of Antinomian Hyper-Calvinism, is dealt a crushing blow by the Puritan John Flavel in an appendix to his Vindiciarum Vindex. Flavel rightly describes it as an attempt to fight against the free grace of God under grace’s own colours. Hence its success in deceiving the unwary. The following is a summary of his arguments against it, extracted from his general condemnation of Antinomianism. Ed.]

I think it's worth a look.

@brightfame52 Your thoughts?

 

[makesends]

@brightfame52 Your thoughts?

Thanks for this return to the OP. I was just about to repost Flavel's #1 again: (your post #10)
Flavel:
1. That the elect are not justified from eternity is clear, because although their justification is purposed in eternity, it is not purchased and applied until time. We are justified by Christ’s blood and by faith. (Rom. 5.9,1) The elect sinner is not freed from condemnation nor justified till he is united to Christ, which union is by faith, and takes place during the elect’s life-time. It is both irrational and unscriptural to imagine that men can be justified before they exist. God’s purpose or intention to justify them is not the same as His actually justifying them. Besides, John 3.18 expressly declares that only "he that believeth in Him (Christ) is not condemned." Furthermore, in the great chain of salvation mentioned in Romans 8.30, the elect are first predestined and called before they are justified. Lastly, it is highly derogatory to Christ to teach eternal justification, for men had to be lost before He could save them. Justification is the fruit of His meritorious death and satisfaction given to justice. Justification is not, therefore, from eternity.

So many good points. @brightfame52 , the thread is unlocked. Can you deal with each of these points one-at-a-time?

That the elect are not justified from eternity is clear, because:
a) Although their justification is purposed in eternity, it is not purchased and applied until time.
b) Scripture says we are justified by Christ's blood and by faith.
c) The elect sinner is not freed from condemnation nor justified till he is united to Christ, which union is by faith, and takes place during the elect's life-time.
d) It is irrational and unscriptural to imagine that men can be justified before they exist.
e) God's purpose or intention to justify them is not the same as His actually justifying them.
f) John 3:18 expressly declares that only "he that believeth in Him (Christ) is not condemned."
g) Furthermore, in the great chain of salvation mentioned in Romans 8:30, the elect are first predestined and called before they are justified.
h) It is highly derogatory to Christ to teach eternal justification, for men had to be lost before He could save them.
j) Justification is the fruit of His meritorious death and satisfaction given to justice. Justification is not, therefore, from eternity (and makesends adds [while (to my memory) you do claim at various points it was both—now from the time of Christ's substitution, now from eternity].

 

[brightfame52]

So many good points. @brightfame52 , the thread is unlocked. Can you deal with each of these points one-at-a-time?

Most puritans are opposed to eternal justification, I disagree with them. I believe John Brine and or John Gill can explain our view and defend it better than I.

See John Brine argument against Bragg

Eternal Justification - John Brine

 

[brightfame52]

That the elect are not justified from eternity is clear, because:
a) Although their justification is purposed in eternity, it is not purchased and applied until time.

See where I disagree here is when in eternity when Justification was purposed, Christ was then made Surety, that fact alone discharged the elect from their sin condemnation legally they would incur in time.

Now Brine in answer to Bragg writes:

4. When Christ, as a surety, engaged for the elect, they were justified. "At the same time in which Christ became a surety for us, and our sins were imputed to him, we were absolved from guilt, and reputed just; that is, actively justified": (Armin., Johannes Maccovius, or Makowsky, c. 10, p. 120.) which was from everlasting, or before the foundation of the world.

5. God eternally decreed not to punish sin in His people, but in His Son. His decree to punish sin in His Son, includes His will to impute it to Him; and His purpose not to punish it in His elect, takes in His will not to impute it to them, and must be their Justification from all sin in His sight.

 

[brightfame52]

You are asserting that Jesus actually became a sinner by imputation, and before the foundation of the world.

No Im not asserting that, thats an unjust accusation. Christ becoming Surety b4 the world began did not make Him become a sinner, I never said that. Even in time when sin was laid upon Him by Imputation, it didnt make Him a sinner, He was a sin offering, which was required to be spotless and pure and without blemish. 2 Cor 5:21

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Imputation of sin isnt the same thing as impartation of sin anyway. The elects sins were imputed to Christ not imparted in Him.

Jesus was never condemned He was a substitute.

You have to be kidding me, Jesus was made a curse Gal 3:13

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

He was condemned/cursed because He was a substitute. To be made a curse speaks to being condemned, theyre synonyms

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
That the elect are not justified from eternity is clear, because:
a) Although their justification is purposed in eternity, it is not purchased and applied until time.

See where I disagree here is when in eternity when Justification was purposed, Christ was then made Surety, that fact alone discharged the elect from their sin condemnation legally they would incur in time.

Now Brine in answer to Bragg writes:

4. When Christ, as a surety, engaged for the elect, they were justified. "At the same time in which Christ became a surety for us, and our sins were imputed to him, we were absolved from guilt, and reputed just; that is, actively justified": (Armin., Johannes Maccovius, or Makowsky, c. 10, p. 120.) which was from everlasting, or before the foundation of the world.

5. God eternally decreed not to punish sin in His people, but in His Son. His decree to punish sin in His Son, includes His will to impute it to Him; and His purpose not to punish it in His elect, takes in His will not to impute it to them, and must be their Justification from all sin in His sight.

I'd have to read the rest of what Brine said to follow how what he says necessarily implies eternal justification in the sense that you employ, as though there is therefore rationally no need for them to be justified after all, seeing as how they were never even imputed with Adam's guilt.

 

[makesends]

Most puritans are opposed to eternal justification, I disagree with them. I believe John Brine and or John Gill can explain our view and defend it better than I.

See John Brine argument against Bragg

Eternal Justification - John Brine

Looking at Brine and then by others, I see a LOT of differing on just what they mean by it, and what it denies. I myself have no problem with it—that is, I have no problem with God decreeing it from eternity, and that decree being immediately effective —from God's perspective. That does not deny that it is still dependent on Christ's actually justifying us, nor that it is effected upon us by faith.

It certainly does not relegate us into the quandary of "any which way one might choose to light himself anywhere within a range of implications": It does not mean that Christ had no reason to die, it does not mean that we are without sin, it does not mean that Adam's sin is not imputed to us, it does not mean that I need not repent, etc. It does mean that God's word is omnipotent and eternal. It does mean that it is a sure thing, that the elect will indeed be saved, and born again.

If the claim against "eternal justification" is that God did not decree it, nor does he see it as spoken into fact, then I disagree with that claim against eternal justification. But, as is abundantly evident in this thread, I do not even begin to see the implications that you infer from the fact of God's decree. You may as well say that we don't even exist, but are only figments of God's imagination, and the whole history of Creation-to-Heaven only an abstract thought.

 

[brightfame52]

as though there is therefore rationally no need for them to be justified after all, seeing as how they were never even imputed with Adam's guilt.

Maybe you dont quite understand the vicarious nature of Christs Suretyship, He was imputed with their guilt, so Yes they needed to be Justified, hence the reason why Jesus had to die. It was gracious of God to already have in place a Surety so when they did actually in time incur the guilt. So Christ was imputed with Adams guilt on their behalf. Rom 5:15-16

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 ;And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

And yes I encourage you to read John Brine thoroughly in that article, he defends it much more ably than I

 

[brightfame52]

I have no problem with God decreeing it from eternity, and that decree being immediately effective —from God's perspective.

Well Justification is primarily good when it is in His Perspective Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth, there is no need for Faith if Justification wasnt a reality first in Gods perspective. Faith is given to believe the things that God declares true

That does not deny that it is still dependent on Christ's actually justifying us,

Yes Christs Death was pivotal, but with God time is swallowed up in eternity and everything from the beginning to the end is one abiding present before Him, hence Rom 4:17

17 (as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Thats why God could count Abraham Justified and righteous b4 the Cross Rom 4:1-3

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Do you believe Abraham was Justified by the Person and Work of Christ and had His Righteousness charged to him ? Well if so, Christ had not yet came and died.

it does not mean that Adam's sin is not imputed to us,

Adams sin could not have been justly imputed to the elect and Christ at the same time

it does not mean that we are without sin,

Yes the elect are born sinners, just not condemned for those sins

it does not mean that I need not repent,

mans act of repentance has nothing to do with Justification b4 God, b careful with that, thats Arminianism
to bring mans acts in this equation

It does mean that God's word is omnipotent and eternal. It does mean that it is a sure thing, that the elect will indeed be saved, and born again

Yes because all legal obstacles have been taken care of, God will grant Spiritual life

. You may as well say that we don't even exist, but are only figments of God's imagination, and the whole history of Creation-to-Heaven only an abstract thought.

I dont know where u get all that, sounds like your imagination running wild

 

[atpollard]

So, no, I do not agree with eternal justification. Whenever I see this teaching its always in time.
I am very interested in everyone's understanding of these things, so please, share

God is not "inside" his creation [subject to its limitations]. If one were speaking of a POTTER from the P.O.V. of the clay being formed into a vase, it would be meaningless to ask "Where in the lump is the POTTER?" The potter has complete control over the lump - entering and exiting it at will to mix and kneed and shape the clay.

It is meaningless to ask "What did God do for the BILLIONS of years before God created the universe?" TIME is part of the "universe" that God created ... there were no "billions of years" before God created TIME. There was something incomprehensible to us (like the "lump of clay" contemplating existence beyond the lump).

So "eternal justification" is conflating Gods timeless "eternal now beyond creation" with "time inside creation". Conflating the LUMP OF CLAY that is reality with the hands of the POTTER and asking "Where in the lump is the POTTER?".

 

[brightfame52]

Imputation is satisfactory for the justification of God’s elect. Again in connection with Christs Suretyship undertaking that commenced from everlasting, the sins of His people were charged or imputed to Him. When He came the first time, He came with sin imputed to Him versus when He comes the second time its without sin, meaning without sin imputed to Him Heb 9:28

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The first time He appeared sin was imputed to Him because He came to be a sacrifice Heb 10:5-10

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

So with the sins of Gods elect already imputed to Christ even when He came into the world the first time as Surety, then they, by this imputation of sin to Christ, meant their Justification before God from them.

 

[Arial]

No Im not asserting that, thats an unjust accusation. Christ becoming Surety b4 the world began did not make Him become a sinner, I never said that. Even in time when sin was laid upon Him by Imputation, it didnt make Him a sinner, He was a sin offering, which was required to be spotless and pure and without blemish. 2 Cor 5:21

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Correct. You did not assert it, and I am not saying you did. But your position logically requires legal condemnation or sin-imputation to Christ prior to incarnation, which Scripture never teaches. It is the logic of your position that places the sins of the elect as imputed to Christ outside of time.

Your statement "Christ becoming surety before the world began did not make him become a sinner" is a correct statement. But that is not the issue.

A surety, biblically. is a commitment to bear liability, not the immediate transfer of liability. It establishes intent and obligation, not legal imputation.

You are correct again when you say, "Even in time when sin was laid upon him by imputation, it didn't make him a sinner." But that imputation occurred at the cross, not before the foundation of the world. Scripture consistently locates sin-bearing, curse-bearing, and liability-bearing at the cross (Isa 53; 1 Pet 2:24), not in eternity.

2 Cor 5:21 actually supports my position. A sin offering must be offered, requiring incarnation, and must be an historical act. As a a sin offering, Christ bore sin when he was offered, not when he was appointed.

Imputation of sin isnt the same thing as impartation of sin anyway. The elects sins were imputed to Christ not imparted in Him.

That is a correct statement. However, the imputation of Adam's sin to humanity is by covenant federal headship imputation that makes the human a real sinner. We are placed under legal guilt which results in inherent corruption. We are sinners by status and nature. The imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ at the cross is a substitutionary and forensic. It does not place him under Adamic headship, does not involve moral corruption, and does not make him a sinner. He bears sin judicially as a substitute, not federally as a participant. He becomes a sin-bearer not a sin-doer.

You have to be kidding me, Jesus was made a curse Gal 3:13

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

See above.

He was condemned/cursed because He was a substitute. To be made a curse speaks to being condemned, theyre synonyms

They are not synonyms.

Condemnation is a judicial verdict on a guilty person. If it is not removed, it results in a final judgement (Rom 5:16; 8:1).

Curse is the penal sanction of the law and can be borne by a substitute. It does not require personal guilt.

​

​

​

 

[brightfame52]

They are not synonyms

Cursed:

Synonyms:

Synonyms & Similar Words Thesaurus results for CURSED

• condemned
• denounced
• anathematized
• imprecated
• beshrewed
• damned
• jinxed
• execrated
• maledicted
• hexed
• reviled
• reprobated
• danged
• darned
• voodooed
• fulminated (against)
• cussed (out)
• railed (against)
• dashed

 

[Arial]

Imputation is satisfactory for the justification of God’s elect. Again in connection with Christs Suretyship undertaking that commenced from everlasting, the sins of His people were charged or imputed to Him. When He came the first time, He came with sin imputed to Him versus when He comes the second time its without sin, meaning without sin imputed to Him Heb 9:28

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The first time He appeared sin was imputed to Him because He came to be a sacrifice Heb 10:5-10



So with the sins of Gods elect already imputed to Christ even when He came into the world the first time as Surety, then they, by this imputation of sin to Christ, meant their Justification before God from them.

See post #155. Try and post without collapsing categories. Surety, imputation, justification, eternal purpose, historical application---are all distinct categories in salvation and the work of Christ. When you treat them like synonyms you come up with a mish mash, inconsistent, contradictory, theology the logic of which, presents a sinful, condemned Christ (and that before the foundation of the world) and a non-sinful, non-condemned elect. Of interest in the arguments, you put forth is the complete lack of the imputation of righteousness to the elect, and that through faith. The very thing that justifies.

Read your own words, slowly, and in logical sequence and see if there is a single person who would read that (including Gill) and not recognize the same thing as I have stated.

 

[Arial]

Cursed:

Synonyms:

Synonyms & Similar Words Thesaurus results for CURSED

• condemned
• denounced
• anathematized
• imprecated
• beshrewed
• damned
• jinxed
• execrated
• maledicted
• hexed
• reviled
• reprobated
• danged
• darned
• voodooed
• fulminated (against)
• cussed (out)
• railed (against)
• dashed

Notice the "and similar words"?

Cursed and condemned biblically, are related, but they are not synonyms. Jesus was never cursed. And he was never condemned. He bore in his flesh our condemnation and our curse---on the cross. Not before the cross.

 

[makesends]

Yes Christs Death was pivotal, but with God time is swallowed up in eternity and everything from the beginning to the end is one abiding present before Him, hence Rom 4:17

How do you not see this contradicting the other things you have said? In another thread you claim we were justified at the cross, before we were born (without consideration of the (in the context of justification) necessity and merit of God's Spirit's comprehension —i.e. the Gospel— as he indwells us, producing valid, active, causal faith). You placed that fact of Christ's substitution as a temporal matter, there and done at the cross, not effective before, necessarily effective after. But NOW you are saying it was all of it effective even before the cross! —done before the foundation of the earth.

Again, ad nauseum, that God pronounced it so, decreed it, even 'spoke it into fact', does not mean that God did not immanently bring it into reality at the cross, and, later, upon our regeneration and faith. The WHEN is a temporal question. WHEN is not a relevant eternal question. The WHAT happened—the WHAT God did—is the eternal question.

Paul insists, and the rest of the Bible is clear, that, like the rest of the lost, temporally we were not safe, not saved, but bore our sin, until we were justified by faith via regeneration. That the temporal will be swallowed up into the eternal does not imply that the temporal 'comprehends' the eternal. Quite the opposite is true.

 

[makesends]

Notice the "and similar words"?

Cursed and condemned biblically, are related, but they are not synonyms. Jesus was never cursed. And he was never condemned. He bore in his flesh our condemnation and our curse---on the cross. Not before the cross.

In the sense that you intend it, you are correct, but Gal 3:13 does say, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole".

But whether or not he was cursed, or even condemned, is irrelevant to the question of WHEN it happened, and, certainly, irrelevant to the question of when it is effected upon us.