Which happens first, regeneration or justification?

[JIM]

Logically, everything follows sovereign regeneration (Jn 3:6-8) -- faith, forgiveness (salvation), justification, sanctification.

Logically, everything happens at the same time -- forgiveness (justification), regeneration (born again), (initial) sanctification. Justification, regeneration, and initial sanctification are the three acts of God which constitute salvation. Such was first described at Pentecost by Peter in Acts 2:38. Justification and regeneration are single one-time acts of God in the life of the repentant baptized believer. Sanctification is a lifelong work of the Justified and regenerated believer which was initiated by God at the same instant he was justified and regenerated.

 

[Mr GLee]

Logically, everything happens at the same time -- forgiveness (justification), regeneration (born again), (initial) sanctification. Justification, regeneration, and initial sanctification are the three acts of God which constitute salvation. Such was first described at Pentecost by Peter in Acts 2:38. Justification and regeneration are single one-time acts of God in the life of the repentant baptized believer. Sanctification is a lifelong work of the Justified and regenerated believer which was initiated by God at the same instant he was justified and regenerated.

I would agree at the same time. Faithfully let there be and it was so

But why use Pentecost the time of reformation as some sort of beginning of the gospel .

 

[Rella]

Under the law, which Jesus was born under, they went only to the house of Israel, after Acts 10, that all changed, showing the hidden mystery of God being made known to the world. But, not sure what your scripture has to do with what I said to Jim.

You had said:

"Jim, you my friend are so wrong. The mystery hidden in the OT is that Jews and Gentiles were to come together to made ONE HOLY TEMPLE for an habitation of God through the Spirit!"

While this coming together did happen, I have always been confused by Jesus being sent only to the house of Israel...

A mystery? Yep! Seemingly that it might have been delayed if that woman had not come begging to Jesus.

And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.”

But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.”

But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”

And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”

Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.

Up until that time wasn't it true that Jesus was not going to mingle with anyone other then the lost of Israel?
I mean, in Matt 10:5 it is said These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;

That was before Matt 15:24 and the woman whose daughter He did reluctantly heal.

 

[Mr GLee]

To state that the Bible teaches that faith is a precondition that must be met by God in order for him to regenerate a person, is to deny every scripture that states and demonstrates that we can do nothing to gain merit or reward for his grace and mercy in our salvation. Including but not only John 3

Faith= power

Faith (let there be )is a precondition to (it was God alone good) . The law of faith. Power to believe God not seen .

Faith is a work of Christ' labor of love that works in us to both give us understanding (Let there be) and empower us. . (it was God alone good.)

He gives us little faith pouring out his Spirit life on dying flesh calling us you of little faith .

Not faulting them for not having enough but did revealing they have no power (faith) of there own . He freely gives us that power .Never of us dying mankind Then knowing the source of faith of the father the apostles said increase that power. Or give us our daily bread. .

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[Mr GLee]

While this coming together did happen, I have always been confused by Jesus being sent only to the house of Israel...

A mystery? Yep! Seemingly that it might have been delayed if that woman had not come begging to Jesus.

Hi I would offer.

Yes without mysteries as parables the signified understanding of Christ using the things seen as a sign to things not seen . Christ from the beginning Genesis spoke not with mysteries .

In Luke 9 and Mark 9 the lord uses a series of parables as mysteries hiding the unseen spiritual understanding .

Therefore using the temporal historical dying things compared to the unseen eternal things .Mixing or blending the two .

Time after time hiding the understanding of the mystery . . .parable .Leaving them in a state of confusion .

In the end parables are designed to teach us how to walk by faith the unseen things of Christ .

Once in their un-belief the apostles must of thought Jesus went of his rocker and they took a vote which one will be the greatest new Alfa dog. Even his own family at times thought he had gone to far . Jesus a very lonely person save the fellowship with the father.

Luke9 :44-45 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.

They leaned how to rightly divide parables the hard way

Moving to the last parable of the series below. It helps us to understand how the word Israel is used it is used in two ways just like the word Jew inward and outward. . Remember not all Israel is not born again Israel some remained unredeemed after the name of Jacob.

The historical Jerusalem Israel is used to represent the new Jerusalem, Christian, the new name the father renamed his bride in Acts .

Not understanding the parable the unbelieving outward Jew followed thier true foundation of fools (out of sight out of mind) They were trusting what there eyes saw and not what the Spirit revealed . Then the Lord rebuked them revealing their foundation ..."Out of sight out of mind" They demanded. . Bring fire and consume all the gentiles .Out of sight out of mind

God is not a racist .

Luke 9:51-55 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,
And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Jesus being sent only to the born again house of Israel...

.

 

[JIM]

I would agree at the same time. Faithfully let there be and it was so

But why use Pentecost the time of reformation as some sort of beginning of the gospel .

The beginning of the gospel and the new covenant actually began with the death,, burial and raising of Jesus Christ. However the inauguration of it is generally acknowledged to have been at Pentecost. Until that time, not even the twelve really knew and understood what it was. It took the filling with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) to bring that to them.

 

[JIM]

You had said:

"Jim, you my friend are so wrong. The mystery hidden in the OT is that Jews and Gentiles were to come together to made ONE HOLY TEMPLE for an habitation of God through the Spirit!"

While this coming together did happen, I have always been confused by Jesus being sent only to the house of Israel...

A mystery? Yep! Seemingly that it might have been delayed if that woman had not come begging to Jesus.




Up until that time wasn't it true that Jesus was not going to mingle with anyone other then the lost of Israel?
I mean, in Matt 10:5 it is said These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;

That was before Matt 15:24 and the woman whose daughter He did reluctantly heal.

The New Covenant was made with the House of Isreal. Gentiles have been adopted (Romans 11 -- grafted) into the covenant.

 

[Red Baker]

I agree that was certainly a part of the mystery hidden in the OT. But the simple truth is that while we can look back on the OT scriptures and see the prophecies concerning Jesus Christ and the gospel, the apostles who walked, worked and lived with Jesus for nearly three years on a daily basis did not know and understand the gospel message until after His ascension and were given that knowledge and understanding by divine inspiration beginning at Pentecost. How much more of a (biblical) mystery could that have been?

Barnes has this concerning Matthew 13:11

The mysteries of the kingdom - The word “mystery,” in the Bible, properly means a thing that is “concealed,” or that “has been concealed.” It does not mean that the thing was “incomprehensible,” or even difficult to be understood.
The thing might be “plain” enough if revealed, but it means simply that it “had” not been before made known. Thus the “mysteries of the kingdom” do not mean any doctrines incomprehensible in themselves considered, but simply doctrines about the preaching of the gospel and the establishment of the new kingdom of the Messiah, which “had not” been understood, and which were as yet concealed from the great body of the Jews. See Rom_16:25; Rom_11:25; Eph_3:3-4, Eph_3:9. Of this nature was the truth that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles; that the Jewish polity was to cease; that the Messiah was to die, etc. To the disciples it was given to know these truths. This was important for them, as they were to carry the gospel around the globe. To the others it was not “then” given. They were too gross, too earthly; they had too, grovelling conceptions of the Messiah’s kingdom to understand these truths, even if communicated to them. They were not to preach the gospel, and hence our Saviour was at particular pains to instruct his apostles in the system which they were to preach. The Pharisees, and Jews generally, were not prepared to receive the system, and would not have believed it, and therefore he purposely employed a kind of teaching which was intended for his apostles only.

Good morning Jim~I agree somewhat with Barnes here, but not totally. The truth was by no means only intended for the apostles as far as the revelation of it being revealed, even though the prophets and the apostles at that time for the most part, were used by God to convey these truths.

Ephesians 3:5​

“Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;”

Luke 2:25​

“And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.”

 

[Arial]

A mystery? Yep!

Not a mystery at all. See post #143. It is only a mystery when one has not yet learned that Israel has a purpose in God's restoration of the world through the redemption of a people of the world. Not just Israel separately and then because of their rejection, the Gentiles, and then a return to national, geographic, ethnic Israel through the same way (Christ) but by different means.

Some may not want to learn that and so won't bother to even read posts by those they have deemed unworthy, let alone discuss the content of those posts. But the truth is, the old and new covenants are distinct but not separate from the covenant of redemption that was with the members of the Trinity before the creation of the world, and declared in Gen 3 with the curse on the serpent and the promise of a seed that would crush his head. Keep your eye on the ball. Keep your eye on that Seed and those divisions will not be made and what is clear will no longer seem like a mystery, but an awe at the glory and perfection of all of God's ways.

 

[Arial]

I disagree. Jesus excluded the Gentiles while on earth with minor exceptions.

• Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Is that a statement of national/ethnic exclusion, or is it a statement of mission?

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritan [half Jew/half Gentile], 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And proclaim as you go, saying, “The kingdom of heaven [Christ’s governing for 1,000 years on earth] is at hand.”

Is that a statement of national/ethnic exclusion, or is it a statement of mission and purpose? And your parenthetical is written into the scripture and is a eschatological presupposition.

Matthew 2:2 saying, “Where is he [Jesus] who has been born king of the Jews? (Not king of everyone)

Well Jesus is King of everyone, even the unbeliever. The unbeliever is simply a treasoness servant. So the statement is simply a misunderstanding of who the Messiah would be. It was their misunderstanding that the Messiah would be an earthly king who would deliver them from all enemies and make them the supreme national power. (Sound familiar?)

John 1:11 He [Jesus] came to his own [Israel], and his own people [Israel] did not receive him.

Is that a statement of ethnic exclusion or is it a statement of his being born in Israel, therefore under the Law, making it not exclusivie in meaning, but purpose in meaning?

Peter who was trained by Christ will have nothing to do with the Gentiles for years till he has a vision that going to the Gentiles is OK now

Is that showing ethnic exclusivity or does it show that Peter, being a Jew and at a time I might add when the Pharisees had added a great deal to the law that God did not give as law; that Peter had to learn some things about the new covenant that he could not know until God revealed it to him?

Matt 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's [Israel] bread and throw it to the dogs. [Gentiles]” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” Analogy compared Israel to His lost sheep and Gentiles to dogs.

Is that a statement of ethnic exclusivity that Jesus was adhering to or was it a statement of purpose being illustrated by an event? Jesus responded positively to her request. 28. Then Jesus answered her, "o woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. That is inclusive, not exclusive, and introduces the means of a covenant relationship----faith.

Christ's choice of disciples was 0 for 12 when it came to selecting Gentiles.

Does that translate to ethnic exclusivity or is it mission and divine purpose.

Eph 1:7-10 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Eph 2:14-16 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two so making peace and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross thereby killing the hostility.

Mission. Purpose.

 

[fastfredy0]

Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Is that a statement of national/ethnic exclusion, or is it a statement of mission?

I'd say both. It is obviously a statement of mission and at a minimum a statement of preference which resulted in exclusion. Lots of other verses that I cited to promote the idea of exclusion. Yet another:
Premise 1: Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
Premise 2: Ezekiel 44:9 “Thus says the Lord God: 9 “Thus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.
Conclusion: Jesus came to fulfill the law and a portion of the law was to EXCLUDE Gentiles from worship of God in His sanctuary.


Re: Matthew 2:2 saying, “Where is he [Jesus] who has been born king of the Jews? (Not king of everyone)

Well Jesus is King of everyone, even the unbeliever. The unbeliever is simply a treasoness servant. So the statement is simply a misunderstanding of who the Messiah would be. It was their misunderstanding that the Messiah would be an earthly king who would deliver them from all enemies and make them the supreme national power. (Sound familiar?)

Is Christ the King of everyone? Is Christ the King of those who do not follow Him, the sons of Satan? I think not but perhaps depending upon one's definition of "King". The unbeliever is a servant of satan, not Christ, for he serves Satan and who you serve determines who you are a servant of. Note: I am dealing with the time of Jacob to Christ's death when I say Christ excluded the Gentiles


Re: John 1:11 He [Jesus] came to his own [Israel], and his own people [Israel] did not receive him.

Is that a statement of ethnic exclusion or is it a statement of his being born in Israel, therefore under the Law, making it not exclusivie in meaning, but purpose in meaning?

Again, I'd say both. It is obviously a statement of mission and at a minimum a statement of preference which resulted in exclusion.


Re: Peter who was trained by Christ will have nothing to do with the Gentiles for years till he has a vision that going to the Gentiles is OK now

Is that showing ethnic exclusivity or does it show that Peter, being a Jew and at a time I might add when the Pharisees had added a great deal to the law that God did not give as law; that Peter had to learn some things about the new covenant that he could not know until God revealed it to him?

Peter was one of the most learned people of God's sheep on earth as he has spent three years as Christ's discipline. Yet, years after Christ has died Peter says this about going to the Gentiles: Acts 10:28 He said to them, “You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with or befriend a Gentile, or to visit him; and yet God has shown me [in a vision expounded up in the previous verses] that I am not to call anyone common or [ceremonially] unclean. God's law that Jesus came to fulfill and said law that Christ's trainee Peter has been following clearly shows Peter will have nothing to do with the Gentiles. Only when God changes the rules after Christ's death does Peter change his mind and now goes to the Gentiles.


Re: Matt 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's [Israel] bread and throw it to the dogs. [Gentiles]” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” Analogy compared Israel to His lost sheep and Gentiles to dogs.

Is that a statement of ethnic exclusivity that Jesus was adhering to or was it a statement of purpose being illustrated by an event? Jesus responded positively to her request. 28. Then Jesus answered her, "o woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. That is inclusive, not exclusive, and introduces the means of a covenant relationship----faith.

It is severely stretching the meaning of "inclusive" when Jesus helps ten of thousands of Jews during His ministry on earth and only a few Gentiles. The verses point out the the people of Israel were His children and by comparison the Gentile woman was a "DOG". If you define "inclusive" as giving scraps to dogs from one's abundance then you have a valid point. I am not saying God did nothing for the Gentiles from Jacob till Christ's death. I am saying God did NEXT TO NOTHING for the Gentiles in that time period.


Re: Christ's choice of disciples was 0 for 12 when it came to selecting Gentiles.

Does that translate to ethnic exclusivity or is it mission and divine purpose.

Well, I'll put it another way. You're in Vegas and the odds or 5 to 1 that the next person Christ chooses as a disciple will be a Jew. Where do you put your money? Those are great odds if you think during Christ's reign He didn't greatly favor the Jews.

Eph 1:7-10 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Eph 2:14-16 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two so making peace and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross thereby killing the hostility.

Mission. Purpose.

Agreed. But again, my thesis is the time period of Jacob till Christ's death and these verses do not apply to that thesis.
Show me some verses showing God favored the Gentiles in that period. (Yeah, I am sure the is the odd example like the gal that helped the Jewish spies in some town ... too lazy to look up the specifics.

Eph 2:12 remember that at that time you were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God. AMP

Well, I give you props for responding to my points. You can have the last word if you wish.

 

[Eleanor]

Logically, everything happens at the same time -- forgiveness (justification),

Logically, there is cause and effect; actually, not necessarily.

Sovereign regeneration-->faith-->salvation (forgiveness of sin which saves from the wrath of God)-->justification (declaration of not
guilty)-->imputed righteousess (Ro 4:3-5).

regeneration (born again), (initial) sanctification. Justification, regeneration, and initial sanctification are the three acts of God which constitute salvation. Such was first described at Pentecost by Peter in Acts 2:38. Justification and regeneration are single one-time acts of God in the life of the repentant baptized believer. Sanctification is a lifelong work of the Justified and regenerated believer which was initiated by God at the same instant he was justified and regenerated.

The gift of faith (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3) in the person and work of Jesus Christ is the
first Spiritual (of the Holy Spirit) act of those sovereignly (Jn 3:6-8, as unaccountable as the wind) regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5).

That faith is salvation (by forgiveness of sin, Lk 1:77), which salvation is from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) at the Final Judgment.
By that faith (which is the forgiveness of sin, Lk 1:77), one is justified (declared not guilty, in right standing with God, sinless) and
righteousness is imputed to one (Ro 4:3-5).

 

[Arial]

Is Christ the King of everyone? Is Christ the King of those who do not follow Him, the sons of Satan? I think not but perhaps depending upon one's definition of "King". The unbeliever is a servant of satan, not Christ, for he serves Satan and who you serve determines who you are a servant of. Note: I am dealing with the time of Jacob to Christ's death when I say Christ excluded the Gentiles

I don't need the last word on the subject as we are pretty much talking sideways of each other, each viewing the def of exclusion differently. But I want to say one thing about the above quote.

That Christ is everyone's King goes to the Doctrine of God, specifically the deity of Christ. That is why I said unbelievers are treasoness subjects of the King---he owns it all--- and they will receive the sentence "off with their heads." because they neither obeyed or served the King but some other. They had other gods and worshiped and obeyed them.

 

[Carbon]

Logically, everything happens at the same time -- forgiveness (justification), regeneration (born again), (initial) sanctification. Justification, regeneration, and initial sanctification are the three acts of God which constitute salvation. Such was first described at Pentecost by Peter in Acts 2:38. Justification and regeneration are single one-time acts of God in the life of the repentant baptized believer. Sanctification is a lifelong work of the Justified and regenerated believer which was initiated by God at the same instant he was justified and regenerated.

They have all been purchased at the same time (You forgot glorification). But they are all applied in time. And there is an order.

 

[Mr GLee]

Is that a statement of national/ethnic exclusion, or is it a statement of mission?

Remember not all Israel are born again Israel Just as a Jew is not one outwardly but one not seen inwardly

The house of Israel the father renamed her Christian in Acts .A more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations Literally means residents of the heavenly city of Christ .Prepared by its founder and husband Christ..

God is not a Jewish man as King of kings . When the veil was rent there was no dying Jewish man as King of kings siting in the holy place. Satan fell and could no longer deceive all the nations God is a Jewish man as King of kings

Satan the antichrist another teaching authority other than sola scriptura. As the legion he deceives many antichrists' false apostles false prophets.

In Mathew 16: Satan used Peter as one of the many antichrists. false prophets. Peter rebuked eternal God and fobid jesu the Son of man form doing the will of the Father. Peter was forgiven of his v blasphemy against the son of man drying mankind

 

[prism]

But the truth is, the old and new covenants are distinct but not separate from the covenant of redemption that was with the members of the Trinity before the creation of the world,...

I would receive that as truth if shown by Scripture. Have any?

 

[JIM]

They have all been purchased at the same time (You forgot glorification). But they are all applied in time. And there is an order.

There are two spiritual conditions of mankind; one is either a sinner or a saint. For the saint, there is a single instant in time when he was changed from being a sinner to being a saint. At that instant in time it is said that one has been saved.

Salvation includes Justification, regeneration, and initial sanctification and I guess anything else you wish to claim to be pertinent. But the truth is that if one is saved, then he has been justified, regenerated and initially sanctified. There is no instance in the NT discussions of being saved or being given, i.e., inheriting, eternal life in which it can be said that justification and regeneration has not occurred. There is no transition period; it happens in an instant.

The only order is to hear, believe, repent and then to be baptized. At that point God, saves.

I understand that stands in stark contrast to your view of the situation. So be it.

 

[Red Baker]

(As a side not, I would like for anyone to explain to me, how God was a friend of Abraham before Christ actually paid for his sins, not only Abraham, but all of the children of God mentioned in the OT testament before Christ actually paid the sin debt they owed God's law. David knew that God justified the ungodly based upon what God had purposed to do through his Son ~ being also the son of David ~ and David even described this blessing that he enjoyed THEN while he lived.)

Still waiting on someone to explain this seemly dilemma~if, it is true, there's no such doctrine as eternal justification in the sense in which God revealed Himself to Abel, and millions of others before Christ actually and legally paid for their sins.

 

[Red Baker]

The only order is to hear, believe, repent and then to be baptized. At that point God, saves.

In post #118 I said:

Jim, regeneration is a instance act of God's power, just as the creation of the heavens, earth, and light, etc., but, I can see how you and others believe it is a process, because of your theology you hold to ~ like a five step process, that I have heard others attempt to explain~ hearing, believing, repentance, baptism, and then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc.

I debated the church of Christ back in the late seventies over this very heresy.

 

[JIM]

Still waiting on someone to explain this seemly dilemma~if, it is true, there's no such doctrine as eternal justification in the sense in which God revealed Himself to Abel, and millions of others before Christ actually and legally paid for their sins.

The effect of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was retroactive back to the very beginning. If not then there could have been no one prior to that sacrifice that was saved. How could that be? I believe that is the result of God's foreknowledge of Jesus' sacrifice. God could justify someone before the cross knowing from the very beginning that Jesus would give Himself up as the perfect once for all sacrifice.