Eternal Justification?

[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.

 

[Carbon]

Flavel first concedes that the notion of justification from eternity is not as great an error as the Popish view, which depresses the righteousness of Christ and exalts inherent righteousness. He further believes that some who hold this error in their heads have the truth in their hearts, a fact which thankfully "will not suffer them to reduce their own opinions into practice."

 

[Carbon]

Nevertheless, he sees it as dangerous teaching that needs to be exposed. Six of the grave errors connected with it are:

1. The elect were justified in eternity (or at the time of Christ’s death).
2. In justification the elect are persuaded of Christ’s love for them.
3. We ought no more to question our faith than to question Christ.
4. Believers should not confess sin or pray for its forgiveness, because all their sins being pardoned from eternity, they are no longer sins.
5. God sees no sin in believers, whatever sins they may commit.
6. To say that God is angry with the elect is a reflection on His justice.
These, says Flavel, are principal errors, and are "of a very dangerous nature."
Despite the whole "scope and current of Scripture" and the "experience and
practice of the saints" being against them, they nevertheless gain great sway
over people.

 

[Carbon]

Flavel first concedes that the notion of justification from eternity is not as great an error as the Popish view, which depresses the righteousness of Christ and exalts inherent righteousness. He further believes that some who hold this error in their heads have the truth in their hearts, a fact which thankfully "will not suffer them to reduce their own opinions into practice."

I can see his point here.

 

[Carbon]

Nevertheless, he sees it as dangerous teaching that needs to be exposed. Six of the grave errors connected with it are:

1. The elect were justified in eternity (or at the time of Christ’s death).

I have been asked this, or a similar question, a few times. I don't believe I ever fully answered it. Not sure I can now either.
I believe what happens with God, and it being applied to us physically, is different than God declaring it and it being done in eternity. He works with His creatures in time, because we are subject to time. When the gift of faith is given to an elect, and they believe, they are then justified. Not before.

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

 

[Carbon]

2. In justification the elect are persuaded of Christ’s love for them.

Maybe I am just misunderstanding this altogether?

I think this would be saying (teaching) that since one is eternally justified, since the day they are physically born, God starts to let them know through different ways that He loves them.

But when I think of John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
. . . . I see this as where it all starts.

 

[Carbon]

Maybe I am just misunderstanding this altogether?

I think this would be saying (teaching) that since one is eternally justified, since the day they are physically born, God starts to let them know through different ways that He loves them.

But when I think of John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
. . . . I see this as where it all starts.

After saying this, I want to say I do not believe in a providential grace, but I do, in a certain way, believe in a preparatory grace.

 

[Arial]

I have been asked this, or a similar question, a few times. I don't believe I ever fully answered it. Not sure I can now either.
I believe what happens with God, and it being applied to us physically, is different than God declaring it and it being done in eternity. He works with His creatures in time, because we are subject to time. When the gift of faith is given to an elect, and they believe, they are then justified. Not before.

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

We have one on the forum. . I am sure you will be hearing from him.

The sad thing is how it can become so ingrained that no matter how one words the correct view of justification by faith alone in time by application of the work of Christ to a person through faith, or the twisted and illogical the conclusion of eternal justification is shown to be, or how many times it is done so, the response is aways nothing more than a repeat of the position of eternal justification. And eventually personal insults.

If the doctrine itself were not a giant red flag, the response would be. It is the exact same thing that happens when any false doctrine is presented and the poster is unable to actually refute the rebuttal against eternal justification or whatever false teaching is being presented.

 

[Carbon]

We have one on the forum. . I am sure you will be hearing from him.

The sad thing is how it can become so ingrained that no matter how one words the correct view of justification by faith alone in time by application of the work of Christ to a person through faith, or the twisted and illogical the conclusion of eternal justification is shown to be, or how many times it is done so, the response is aways nothing more than a repeat of the position of eternal justification. And eventually personal insults.

If the doctrine itself were not a giant red flag, the response would be. It is the exact same thing that happens when any false doctrine is presented and the poster is unable to actually refute the rebuttal against eternal justification or whatever false teaching is being presented.

Thanks for posting this. I always appreciate your understanding of these false teachings and the wisdom God has given you in explaining (dealing with) them.
Yes, the enemy has a few different ways of dealing with God's church, making it a stupid-looking joke as telavangelism expresses it, or making it look like Hyper-Calvinism has as well.

 

[Carbon]

I believe it is worth seeing what the Puritan John Flavel wrote concerning these. 1. The elect were justified in eternity (or at the time of Christ’s death).

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.

 

[Carbon]

I believe it is worth seeing what the Puritan John Flavel wrote concerning these. 1. The elect were justified in eternity (or at the time of Christ’s death).

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.

I couldnt agree more. Amen!

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.

Again, amen!

It is both irrational and unscriptural to imagine that men can be justified before they exist.

Irrational indeed. Lol.

God’s purpose or intention to justify them is not the same as His actually justifying them.

He helps me to understand this a bit more by clarifying it a bit. Makes sense to me.

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.

This guy makes a whole lot of sense. Very logical.

 

[Arial]

I believe it is worth seeing what the Puritan John Flavel wrote concerning these. 1. The elect were justified in eternity (or at the time of Christ’s death).

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.

That is the predestination of the equation. Christ did the work of redemption on the cross, defeating the power of sin and death, and the elect are predestined to come to Christ. Which kicks "choosing" to be redeemed in the teeth also. The only way they could be predestined to come to Christ is if God does what is necessary for that to happen. And that according to John 3 and John 1:12-12, is regeneration which holds in its hands so to speak, the faith to believe.

 

[makesends]

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.

I don't even consider it Hyper-Calvinist. It certainly isn't what I believe and people call me hyper-Calvinist because I'm a monergist and believe in meticulous determination, to include God determining who goes to hell.

 

[makesends]

I think it's lazy thinking, frankly. But it is something I could have unintentionally indicated by explaining that God spoke the final product into being.

 

[fastfredy0]

Eternal Justification?​

Not that I have a firm belief one way or the other. My thoughts, if I was to play devil's advocate (hmmm, no pun intended):


Roman 9:11-13 ... speaks of God loving Jacob and hating Esau before they were born .... if God can loves/hate someone before they exist, then why can't he justify them before they exist.

God is eternal which means he is not confined to time, that He has no "succession of moments" or or any progress from one state of existence to another. If God doesn't change then why would His verdict to justify change?


John Gill (1697–1771) taught that
justification is an eternal, immanent act of God occurring before faith, viewing it as inseparable from eternal election and the covenant of grace. He argued that God, being outside of time, decreed the righteousness of the elect from eternity, meaning they were justified in His mind before they believed.
Key aspects of Gill’s view on eternal justification include:

• Antecedent to Faith: Gill believed justification does not begin when a person believes, but is an eternal decree, stating, "It does not begin to take place in time, or at believing, but is antecedent to any act of faith".
• Connection to Election: He linked justification closely with election, arguing that because the objects of justification are the elect, they were "justified in Christ... before the foundation of the world".
• Suretyship of Christ: Gill viewed this justification as grounded in the eternal covenant, where Christ acted as the surety for the elect.
• Distinction in Time: While justification is eternal in the divine mind (an immanent act), it is only made known or experienced by the believer in time through faith.
• Not Actively Justified Before Faith: He distinguished between the eternal purpose (as esse representativum—being represented in Christ) and the actual application, holding that individuals are not actively justified in their own consciences until they believe.

Gill maintained that this doctrine was essential to understanding the completeness of salvation in Christ.

 

[makesends]

Eternal Justification?​

Not that I have a firm belief one way or the other. My thoughts, if I was to play devil's advocate (hmmm, no pun intended):


Roman 9:11-13 ... speaks of God loving Jacob and hating Esau before they were born .... if God can loves/hate someone before they exist, then why can't he justify them before they exist.

God is eternal which means he is not confined to time, that He has no "succession of moments" or or any progress from one state of existence to another. If God doesn't change then why would His verdict to justify change?


John Gill (1697–1771) taught that
justification is an eternal, immanent act of God occurring before faith, viewing it as inseparable from eternal election and the covenant of grace. He argued that God, being outside of time, decreed the righteousness of the elect from eternity, meaning they were justified in His mind before they believed.
Key aspects of Gill’s view on eternal justification include:

• Antecedent to Faith: Gill believed justification does not begin when a person believes, but is an eternal decree, stating, "It does not begin to take place in time, or at believing, but is antecedent to any act of faith".
• Connection to Election: He linked justification closely with election, arguing that because the objects of justification are the elect, they were "justified in Christ... before the foundation of the world".
• Suretyship of Christ: Gill viewed this justification as grounded in the eternal covenant, where Christ acted as the surety for the elect.
• Distinction in Time: While justification is eternal in the divine mind (an immanent act), it is only made known or experienced by the believer in time through faith.
• Not Actively Justified Before Faith: He distinguished between the eternal purpose (as esse representativum—being represented in Christ) and the actual application, holding that individuals are not actively justified in their own consciences until they believe.

Gill maintained that this doctrine was essential to understanding the completeness of salvation in Christ.

Lol, you should talk with @brightfame52 about it. Maybe you'd start to see why it doesn't work to describe it that way.

 

[brightfame52]

Exactly what is the timing of Justification? When is one for whom Christ died Justified before God ? John Gill gives reasons why he believes that the saint is Justified before God, from everlasting. I concur with his sentiment and here's why, and of course in ursuit it is reasonably concluded why Justification before God is before Faith:

1. Faith is not the cause, but the fruit and effect of justification. The reason why we are justified, is not because we have faith; but the reason why we have faith is because we are justified. Was there no such blessing of grace as justification of life provided for the sons of men, there would be no such thing as faith in Christ bestowed upon them, nor, indeed, would there be any use for it; and though it is provided, yet since not for all men, therefore all men have not faith. The reason why some do not believe, is, because they are not of Christ's sheep; (John 10:26) they never were chosen in him, nor justified by him, but are justly left in their sins, and so to condemnation; the reason why others do believe, is, because they are ordained to eternal life, (Acts 13:48) have a justifying righteousness provided for them, and are justified by it, and shall never enter into condemnation and, in asserting this, I say no more than what Dr. Twisse, the famous Prolocutor to the Assembly of Divines, has said before me. His words are these: "Before faith the righteousness of Christ was ours, being in the intention of God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, wrought out for us; and, because wrought out for us, therefore God, in his own time, gives us grace of every kind, and among others, faith itself, and, at last, the crown of heavenly glory." And, a little after, he says: "Before faith and repentance the righteousness of Christ is applied unto us; since it is on the account of that, that we obtain efficacious grace, to believe in Christ and repent." Likewise the judicious Pemble writes to the same effect, when, observing a two-fold justification, he says, the one is "In foro divino, in God's sight, and this goes before all our sanctification; for even whilst the elect are unconverted, they are then actually justified, and freed from all sin, by the death of Christ, and God so esteems of them as free, and, having accepted of that satisfaction, is actually reconciled to them. By this justification, we are freed from the guilt of our sins; and because that is done away, God, in due time, proceeds to give us the grace of sanctification, to free from sin's corruption still inherent in our persons." The other is, "In foro conscientiae, in their own sense, which is but the revelation and certain declaration of God's former secret act of accepting Christ's righteousness to our justification." And Maccovius says, "That because that God justifies us, therefore, he gives us faith, and other spiritual gifts." Now, if justification is the cause, and faith the effect; then, as every cause is before its effect, and every effect follows its own cause, justification must be before faith, and faith must follow justification.

 

[makesends]

Exactly what is the timing of Justification? When is one for whom Christ died Justified before God ? John Gill gives reasons why he believes that the saint is Justified before God, from everlasting. I concur with his sentiment and here's why, and of course in ursuit it is reasonably concluded why Justification before God is before Faith:

1. Faith is not the cause, but the fruit and effect of justification. The reason why we are justified, is not because we have faith; but the reason why we have faith is because we are justified. Was there no such blessing of grace as justification of life provided for the sons of men, there would be no such thing as faith in Christ bestowed upon them, nor, indeed, would there be any use for it; and though it is provided, yet since not for all men, therefore all men have not faith. The reason why some do not believe, is, because they are not of Christ's sheep; (John 10:26) they never were chosen in him, nor justified by him, but are justly left in their sins, and so to condemnation; the reason why others do believe, is, because they are ordained to eternal life, (Acts 13:48) have a justifying righteousness provided for them, and are justified by it, and shall never enter into condemnation and, in asserting this, I say no more than what Dr. Twisse, the famous Prolocutor to the Assembly of Divines, has said before me. His words are these: "Before faith the righteousness of Christ was ours, being in the intention of God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, wrought out for us; and, because wrought out for us, therefore God, in his own time, gives us grace of every kind, and among others, faith itself, and, at last, the crown of heavenly glory." And, a little after, he says: "Before faith and repentance the righteousness of Christ is applied unto us; since it is on the account of that, that we obtain efficacious grace, to believe in Christ and repent." Likewise the judicious Pemble writes to the same effect, when, observing a two-fold justification, he says, the one is "In foro divino, in God's sight, and this goes before all our sanctification; for even whilst the elect are unconverted, they are then actually justified, and freed from all sin, by the death of Christ, and God so esteems of them as free, and, having accepted of that satisfaction, is actually reconciled to them. By this justification, we are freed from the guilt of our sins; and because that is done away, God, in due time, proceeds to give us the grace of sanctification, to free from sin's corruption still inherent in our persons." The other is, "In foro conscientiae, in their own sense, which is but the revelation and certain declaration of God's former secret act of accepting Christ's righteousness to our justification." And Maccovius says, "That because that God justifies us, therefore, he gives us faith, and other spiritual gifts." Now, if justification is the cause, and faith the effect; then, as every cause is before its effect, and every effect follows its own cause, justification must be before faith, and faith must follow justification.

If, as you concur above, one is justified before God from everlasting, then you have countered your own claim that Christ's death is the point at which one is justified before God.

 

[brightfame52]

then you have countered your own claim that Christ's death is the point at which one is justified before God.

No since the Cross of Christ has been pivotal in the eternal purpose of God befoe the world began 1 Pet 1:20

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Rev 13:8

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The Cross of Christ has always been the focal point for Justification.

Let me ask you this. Jesus was setup to be Surety of the better covenant Heb 7:22

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

When was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant ?

 

[Arial]

No since the Cross of Christ has been pivotal in the eternal purpose of God befoe the world began 1 Pet 1:20

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Rev 13:8

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The Cross of Christ has always been the focal point for Justification.

Let me ask you this. Jesus was setup to be Surety of the better covenant Heb 7:22

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

When was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant ?

That is category confusion. You collapse three distinct categories into one.

• God's eternal decree/purpose
• The historical accomplishment of redemption
• The temporal application of justification to persons

1 Pet 1:20 and Rev 13:8 speak of God's eternal purpose but not to the forensic act of justification applied to sinners. You have it saying that Christ being foreordained is the same thing as saying sinners were already justified. Divine intention is being confused with judicial execution.

In Heb 7:22 you have the surety already being discharged. A surety is one who guarantees a future obligation--not one who has already discharged it. If suretyship itself equals justification them the cross becomes redundant. In Romans 5:9 "justified by his blood" loses meaning. Faith becomes merely epistemic, not instrumental. You confuse covenantal guarantee with forensic declaration.

You treat the objective work of Christ and the subjective reckoning of righteousness as if they are the same act, and they are not. You collapse redemptive history into eternity.