Eternal Justification?

[John Bauer]

But it secured his suretyship responsibility, therefore relieving the elect from it.

Two things:

1. Since the elect never had suretyship responsibility, they cannot be relieved from it.
   
   ​
2. Shouldering the responsibility for x does not accomplish x.

So, the elect who incurred the condemnation by their actions …

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

… are nevertheless not responsible to pay the debt themselves.

Explain how they incur condemnation for their sins if their guilt is never juridically reckoned to them? If it is and they are justly condemned, then they are liable by definition.

Furthermore, that the elect never have to pay for their sins doesn’t mean they are never liable for their sins. They are liable but they will never have to pay, for Christ their substitute already did. They are liable until the Spirit unites them with Christ, then they are justified. There is only condemnation outside of Christ; there is justification only in Christ.

Scripture speaks of a real transition. As unbelievers condemned apart from Christ, we are hostile to God. As believers justified in Christ, we have peace with God.

God is looking for the Surety to pay the debt

Suretyship establishes who will pay the debt; it does not accomplish the payment of the debt.

Christ is the guarantor of a better covenant because he actually accomplishes what the covenant requires—obedience unto death, propitiation, resurrection. If the elect were already relieved of liability in eternity, the cross would not be the moment of propitiation but merely its manifestation. Yet the New Testament consistently presents the cross of Christ as the decisive, justice-satisfying event (Rom 3:25–26; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 John 2:2).

 

[John Bauer]

Does "eternity" have any real meaning in a state in which "time" does not exist?

Yes—because the absence of temporal order does not mean the absence of logical order.

Even in the absence of time, decree and execution are not conflated or indistinguishable.

Your response is still framed in a human-centered framework, in the reality that we experience.

—the reality God created in the execution of his eternal decree.

Let’s not forget that Scripture itself is “framed in a human-centered framework.” I am comfortable using this kind of language because God was comfortable using it. If he thought it was adequate, who am I to argue?

Even in quantum and relativistic frames of reference, our temporal perceptions begin to fail. How much more so in the divine external frame of reference? Is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead?

Your quantum analogy is a category error. Schrödinger’s cat is about epistemic indeterminacy within a physical system. God’s decree involves no indeterminacy, no probability cloud, and no superposition. Divine knowledge is not observer-dependent, nor does reality remain ontologically unresolved until “measured.” Trying to import quantum metaphors into classical theism produces confusion, not clarity. There is a reason why the Creator–creature distinction resists mapping creaturely physics onto divine ontology.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Nobody said the promise was not binding, nor was its fulfillment in any doubt.

So God held Christ responsible to pay the sin debt the elect would incur and not them

Great Sweeping Statements Alive, man!!! When, where, what, which, why, how? If you don't mean to trap anyone with this kind of statement, if this is really how your logic works, then you need to take a Bible College course in Hermeneutics, and stop looking at only the terms you like and can use for your thesis. Your connections of the dots, your 'a little here, a little there', needs some serious regulation.

Have you missed all the posts before this? —Look at @Arial 's posts about the Pactum Salutis. Do you think the Son had to be held responsible? Look at @John Bauer 's very logically and clearly laid out posts about the necessarily temporal fulfillment of the Pactum Salutis.

 

[QVQ]

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 been rather following this thread and what I have to say is more of a question than a insert into the postings

If anyone had asked me before I read this thread, "when is a person created?" I would have answered without a thought,
"at the moment of conception."

There are three words here that I would define to reach that conclusion

Eternal: definition Without beginning or end

Immortal: definition a state of grace or condition of being that is within time, thus having a beginning and possible end based on conditions, (the will of God)

Justification would occur within time. The condition bestowed would be immortality or not.

Now, God is eternal, man is said to have an "immortal soul" conditonal on the grace and mercy of God.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Is this Christian theology? It is what I would have answered based on my understanding.

Eternal Justification is from God's point of view, being in all time and outside of all time. He would have eternal knowledge of justification but in time, who would be justified is as yet to be or has been in man's perception.

Interesting concept. I never thought about "when is a particular man created." I would say, at the moment of conception from man's point of view but in God's eternal knowledge, from the foundation of the world

 

[brightfame52]

Two things:

1. Since the elect never had suretyship responsibility, they cannot be relieved from it.

You don't understand, the elect before God were never responsible to pay the debt of sin[death] they incurred via Adam and their sins they would commit after birth, after conversion. Think on that

 

[brightfame52]

Nobody said the promise was not binding, nor was its fulfillment in any doubt.

Okay so by Christ being in a covenant agreement with the Father to pay the debt for the sins of the elect, when in time the elect actually incurred the debt by their sin, Christ was responsible to pay the debt, howbeit was yet future when He would do it, the elect were free from paying the debt, they weren't even condemned for it, Christ was.

 

[makesends]

I have been rather following this thread and what I have to say is more of a question than a insert into the postings

If anyone had asked me before I read this thread, "when is a person created?" I would have answered without a thought,
"at the moment of conception."

There are three words here that I would define to reach that conclusion

Eternal: definition Without beginning or end

Immortal: definition a state of grace or condition of being that is within time, thus having a beginning and possible end based on conditions, (the will of God)

Justification would occur within time. The condition bestowed would be immortality or not.

Now, God is eternal, man is said to have an "immortal soul" conditonal on the grace and mercy of God.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Is this Christian theology? It is what I would have answered based on my understanding.

Eternal Justification is from God's point of view, being in all time and outside of all time. He would have eternal knowledge of justification but in time, who would be justified is as yet to be or has been in man's perception.

Interesting concept. I never thought about "when is a particular man created." I would say, at the moment of conception from man's point of view but in God's eternal knowledge, from the foundation of the world

One of our problems as creatures existing within this temporal reality is our mind's inability to think outside of this reality. While we know something of the eternal, we think of it from within this temporal. We really can't help it. Our very words to describe the eternal are in relation to the temporal—that is, by contrast to the temporal. I'm guessing that this temporal frame is in some ways more like the eternal than we realize, but is also so unlike it that we will be overwhelmed by the strength, the solid reality, of the eternal. An analogy: Waking out of a dream, I often wonder how, in that dream, I couldn't tell it wasn't real, when my woken mind sees how ridiculous and ethereal it was. So with the eternal economy: We may wonder how we considered this temporal to be "the way of things".

I'm trying to learn not to deal with different overlapping categories as necessarily separate categories. My mind automatically takes the words and concepts I use in thinking of the eternal, and does math with them, as though I understood what I'm handling. We rightly say that the eternal is not the temporal, and the temporal is not the eternal. But maybe we are looking at it all wrong. Maybe this temporal isn't outside the eternal, as much as it is a subset, or an envelope, within the eternal. It is right that we should speak of the one in contrast to the other, but look at the constructions we have to form in order to deal with the facts. One of my favorites, is, "Already, but not yet". Another, "We do so because it is so". But does God see it that way?

By the way, I think you rightly describe the eternal—an adjective—as without beginning and not just our experience of it without end. I think it is important to bear in mind that the eternal—a noun—is GOD's doing, and that while it is our home, it will not be ours in the same sense as it is God's, who alone was without beginning. We will be there, clothed with it, even. But he alone has been there all along. Implied within that thought, is that God does not live there as we will, but that it exists through, or from him.

The eternal is not just God's creation in the same sense that this temporal is. It is a place we might now see as when we get there we will be guests, but for that strange fact that we will be "in him", and so, naturally made to live there. It is our home.

 

[makesends]

Okay so by Christ being in a covenant agreement with the Father to pay the debt for the sins of the elect, when in time the elect actually incurred the debt by their sin, Christ was responsible to pay the debt, howbeit was yet future when He would do it, the elect were free from paying the debt, they weren't even condemned for it, Christ was.

Huh? I'm having a bit of trouble deciphering your run-on sentence there. He paid the debt at the cross. Fact. We are released from our debt (current time) by faith because of what he did at the cross. Not WHEN he did it. And the whole business was decreed from the foundation of the world.

 

[brightfame52]

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

They sinned in Adam and themselves and incurred the guilt.

Suretyship establishes who will pay the debt; it does not accomplish the payment of the debt.

Correct, when the elect sinned and incurred the debt, it was already preestablished who would pay the debt they incurred. And it wasn't them. When they sinned, God the Righteous Judge immediately looked their Surety in the face, and said, its on you.

So you undervalue the seriousness of the establishment of who would pay the debt. The covenant the moment it was agreed upon became binding. Suretyship is so serious scripture cautions about it Prov 6:1

My son, if thou be surety for thy friend,
if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger,
thou art snared with the words of thy mouth,
thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.

Get the picture ? I hope so

 

[brightfame52]

He paid the debt at the cross. Fact.

Yes. The elect were never indebted, they never had to pay the debt, they were free from it, God waited or was longsuffering for their debt to be paid by Christ at the Cross.

 

[John Bauer]

You don't understand.

Clearly, I do understand because I have already addressed this in my responses. You are simply reasserting your position in slightly different language. You need to answer my direct criticism:

Furthermore, that the elect never have to pay for their sins doesn’t mean they are never liable for their sins. They are liable but they will never have to pay, for Christ their substitute already did. They are liable until the Spirit unites them with Christ, then they are justified. There is only condemnation outside of Christ; there is justification only in Christ.

And you continue to oscillate between two incompatible claims. You say the elect “incurred condemnation by their actions”—and “the debt of sin (death) they incurred via Adam”—which presupposes real juridical reckoning of guilt. But you also insist that they were never, in any sense, responsible before God. Those cannot both be true unless “condemnation” is being used in a merely hypothetical or phenomenological way—but then your own argument about debt, law, and suretyship would lose forensic meaning.

1. Were the elect ever, in God’s court, under real condemnation?
   
   ​
   • If yes, then eternal justification is false.
     
     ​
   • If no, then what does “incurred condemnation” mean?
   ​
2. Was their guilt ever juridically reckoned to them prior to union with Christ?
   
   ​
   • If yes, then they were truly liable.
     
     ​
   • If no, then what exactly did Christ bear as substitute?
   ​
3. When, precisely, was the debt paid?
   
   ​
   • If in eternity, then the cross is not propitiatory.
     
     ​
   • If at the cross, then liability persisted until payment.
   ​
4. Are persons justified “in Christ” or apart from union?
   
   ​
   • If in Christ, then justification cannot precede union.
     
     ​
   • If apart from union, then the Pauline framework is abandoned.
   ​

They sinned in Adam and themselves and incurred the guilt.

You did not answer the question: “Explain how they incur condemnation for their sins if their guilt is never juridically reckoned to them?”

When the elect sinned and incurred the debt, it was already preestablished who would pay the debt they incurred. And it wasn't them. When they sinned, God the Righteous Judge immediately looked their Surety in the face, and said, its on you.

Your answer here clearly demonstrates that you highlighted the wrong portion. Let's try again, but this time I will highlight the portion that exposes the problem with your view:

• Suretyship establishes who will pay the debt; it does not accomplish the payment of the debt.

As I said in that post, “Shouldering the responsibility for x does not accomplish x.”

Your position will not survive if you take these questions seriously and answer them, and that explains why you keep skipping over them and simply reassert your position.

 

[brightfame52]

They are liable until the Spirit unites them with Christ, then they are justified.

This statement is obviously false. It would disregard the previous covenantal arrangements as to who is liable.

Its similar to Paul telling Philemon hey look if your run away slave owes you anything, take my word, lay it to my charge and I will repay you. Now lets 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?

Phil 1:17

17 ;If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. 18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; 19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it:

 

[brightfame52]

Were the elect ever, in God’s court, under real condemnation?

No because the condemnation they did incur, was covenantally charged to Christ to come under condemnation for. Both the elect and their surety both cant come under their condemnation, that's injustice.

 

[brightfame52]

Are they eternally justified

Sir what is this thread about ? Havent you read anything I previously posted

 

[brightfame52]

You did not answer the question: “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, and the condemnation of theirs fell on Christ. Why do you think Christ came in the flesh to die ?

 

[Arial]

Yes. The elect were never indebted, they never had to pay the debt, they were free from it, God waited or was longsuffering for their debt to be paid by Christ at the Cross.

That is self-contradictory. It denies indebtedness. At the same time, it affirms a debt that must be paid. And speaks of longsuffering toward a liability that supposedly never existed.

If the elect were never indebted, then there was no debt for Christ to pay. no judgment for God to delay, and no sense in which the cross accomplished satisfaction rather than mere symbolism.

To continue to put forth illogical assertions when the logical conclusion to the illogical assertion is constantly presented by a number of people in a number of consistent ways, simply shows that it is not Scripture that is important at all, or truth, but only their being right, even if they have to be foolish in order to appear to maintain that ground.

 

[Arial]

This statement is obviously false. It would disregard the previous covenantal arrangements as to who is liable.

Its similar to Paul telling Philemon hey look if your run away slave owes you anything, take my word, lay it to my charge and I will repay you. Now lets 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?

Phil 1:17

17 ;If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. 18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; 19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it:

Hilarious. What if Paul did not keep his word? Does the slave still owe the debt? Or did Paul's word/promise pay the debt?

 

[brightfame52]

Clearly, I do understand because I have already addressed this in my responses. You are simply reasserting your position in slightly different language. You need to answer my direct criticism:

Furthermore, that the elect never have to pay for their sins doesn’t mean they are never liable for their sins. They are liable but they will never have to pay, for Christ their substitute already did. They are liable until the Spirit unites them with Christ, then they are justified. There is only condemnation outside of Christ; there is justification only in Christ.

And you continue to oscillate between two incompatible claims. You say the elect “incurred condemnation by their actions”—and “the debt of sin (death) they incurred via Adam”—which presupposes real juridical reckoning of guilt. But you also insist that they were never, in any sense, responsible before God. Those cannot both be true unless “condemnation” is being used in a merely hypothetical or phenomenological way—but then your own argument about debt, law, and suretyship would lose forensic meaning.

1. Were the elect ever, in God’s court, under real condemnation?
   
   ​
   • If yes, then eternal justification is false.
     
     ​
   • If no, then what does “incurred condemnation” mean?
     
2. Was their guilt ever juridically reckoned to them prior to union with Christ?
   
   ​
   • If yes, then they were truly liable.
     
     ​
   • If no, then what exactly did Christ bear as substitute?
     
3. When, precisely, was the debt paid?
   
   ​
   • If in eternity, then the cross is not propitiatory.
     
     ​
   • If at the cross, then liability persisted until payment.
     
4. Are persons justified “in Christ” or apart from union?
   
   ​
   • If in Christ, then justification cannot precede union.
     
     ​
   • If apart from union, then the Pauline framework is abandoned.
     

You did not answer the question: “Explain how they incur condemnation for their sins if their guilt is never juridically reckoned to them?”



Your answer here clearly demonstrates that you highlighted the wrong portion. Let's try again, but this time I will highlight the portion that exposes the problem with your view:

• Suretyship establishes who will pay the debt; it does not accomplish the payment of the debt.

As I said in that post, “Shouldering the responsibility for x does not accomplish x.”

Your position will not survive if you take these questions seriously and answer them, and that explains why you keep skipping over them and simply reassert your position.

This morning I read something that may better explain my POV

I presume it will not be denied, that imputation invariably follows relation. There could be no justice in imputing the transgression of Tom to Gilbert and holding the latter responsible in the absence of legal union, or relation.

If I mistake not, the record God has given is that; Christ sustained relation to his church, as shepherd, husband, and head, “ere sin was born, or Adam’s dust was fashioned to a man.” Now, when a flock of sheep commits a trespass, by which damages are incurred, I have never heard of a case in our jurisprudence where the sheep have appeared in court as defendants in action for trespass. The action is maintained against the shepherd. Hence we hear it said, “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts; smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn my hand upon the little ones,” Zech.13:7; again, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so, know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep,” John 10:14-15; and yet again, “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” John 10:16 THE MEDIATORIAL WORK OF CHRIST (DUDLEY) 1872

 

[brightfame52]

That is self-contradictory. It denies indebtedness.

No it doesnt, the indebtness was charged to Christ, hence this confirms why Christ must die, the indebtness of the Sheep. As soon as Christ came out of Mary He was indebted to the Justice of God for the sins of the Sheep, not the Sheep, that would be double jeporady

 

[brightfame52]

. What if Paul did not keep his word?

Then he failed, he was found a liar,, found to be untrustworthy

Does the slave still owe the debt?

If the surety failed. Yes because justice must be satisfied, the debt hasn't been satisfied

Do you suppose Christ may have proved a failure, even the remotest possibility? Could the Father been less than 1000% His Son would pay the debt ? In fact b4 the Surety ever literally died, the Father said this Matt 3 17

: 17 and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.