The error of eternal justification

[Forest]

What I am saying is that eternal justification advocates takes out the law and thereby God's justice in the salvation equation. For them the sins of God's people were no real sins. This is unscriptural.



If you do not believe that the gospel is the power of God unto (eternal) salvation for everyone that believes, then what do you believe is the power of God unto (eternal) salvation? And how can somebody know that they possess this? And how do you discern and judge who is eternally saved or not? This is getting quite extreme...



This one was also very odd! Cannot recall I've ever heard anything similar before elsewhere. With your reasoning there could well have been elect that perished in the flood? Since the ark was only all about timely salvation, and not being drowned. So when Jesus said that the flood "destroyed them all" (Luke 17:27), people which 2Pet.2:5 says were "ungodly" and was not "spared", they only drowned "timely", there could still have been "eternally saved" souls among the drowned?

What person/group in church history has believed as you do on this one? Or, are you alone to believe this? Everyone before you got this all wrong?

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but not eternal salvtion. There is a salvation in coming unto a knowledge of the truth. The gospel, good news of Christ's doctrine, when it has been revealed by the Spirit saves a person from believing in a false doctrine, such as eternal salvation by the work of man. John 6:37-41 tells us who were saved eternally and how they were saved eternally, which are those that the Father gave to Christ and they were all saved by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, without the loss of one. Gen 6:24, Enoch was before the flood. And Enoch WALKED WITH GOD; and he was not; for God took him. Enoch was one of God's elect, otherwise Enoch would not have walked with God. Who are we to say that no one before the flood were not the elect of God. If Enoch was like the natural man described in 1 Cor 2:14 he would not have had a desire to walk with God. God takes the lives of some of his elect by destroying them by fisical death, but not eternally destroying them. The day of one of the elect's death is better than the day of their birth Ecc 7:1. There are others that have been shown the truth, just as I have, but we are few in number, just as Christ's church has always been.

 

[tribesman]

Gen 6:24, Enoch was before the flood. And Enoch WALKED WITH GOD; and he was not; for God took him. Enoch was one of God's elect, otherwise Enoch would not have walked with God. Who are we to say that no one before the flood were not the elect of God. If Enoch was like the natural man described in 1 Cor 2:14 he would not have had a desire to walk with God. God takes the lives of some of his elect by destroying them by fisical death, but not eternally destroying them. The day of one of the elect's death is better than the day of their birth Ecc 7:1. There are others that have been shown the truth, just as I have, but we are few in number, just as Christ's church has always been.

You ask : "Who are we to say that no one before the flood were not the elect of God". Since you make the case, this question might as well be turned back to you: How can you say that there were any elect in the days of Noah, that was not in the ark and that perished in the flood that yet still were the elect?

Jesus said that those that perished in the flood "all" were "destroyed" (Luke 17:27). And this crowd 2Peter 2:5 calls "ungodly". But you are saying that among these ungodly that were destroyed there were still some that were elect?

And, again, how can somebody know that they possess eternal salvation, as you see it? And how do you discern and judge who is eternally saved or not?

 

[Forest]

It may be that someone or some group has influenced you, even if you do not know the roots of the theories. Anyway, how does it come that you think that you interpret all scripture correct? Yes, it is obvious to many people who seriously study the Bible that there is such a thing as timely salvation and another thing is salvation for eternity. However, which of them two is being spoken of (and how it is applied) is seen in the context at hand as well as in the totality of all scripture. It is not discerned and divided to "harmonise" with any idea, pre-conceived or not. Even if scripture appears to have contradictions, we must still let scripture speak for itself and not put in a meaning in them which is not there. This thread has shown that the claims of the eternal justification advocates falls flat in the light of scripture.

I am sure that eternal justification seems to fall flat in your interpretation of scripture. Proverbs 10:6, Blessings are upon the head of the just (those that Christ justified by his work upon the cross). Ecc 7:15, There is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness. Acts 10:22, Cornelius, before Peter preached to him, was a JUST man( made just by Christ obedience to the cross) and one that feared God. A question for you, Were those that Christ died for made just by his death?

 

[Forest]

I believe on another forum Forest said he is a "Primitive Baptist".

(Forest, if my memory is incorrect, I apologize, and please correct me.)

This is true Shroom.

 

[Forest]

Well, now I begin to connect some dots here...Yes, indeed many primitive baptists believed/believes in eternal justification!

Actually, John Gill is quite an authority in these circles. The PBs are not confessional calvinists, they even distance themselves from the reformed baptist creeds. They are a kind of "calvinistic" baptists who put pretty much emphasis on differing timely and eternal salvation. They are often called hyper-calvinists.

I got interested in the PBs for a while some years back and read up on it, and then I discovered the antinomian leanings (which most of them have). Thanks for sharing. Even if Forest may not be affiliated with this group, there really are some similarities.

Yes I am a member of the Primitive Baptist. I am also not a highly educated person and had to look up the meaning of the word "antinomian" and according to Webster's diffinition means, a member of a christian sect which held that faith alone, not obedience to the moral law ia necessary for salvation. I do not hold to the fact that we are a sect. One of the meanings of a sect is, a religious denomination, especially a small group that has broken away from an established church. I believe that we are the church that Christ set up and have never been a part of a denomination that has broken away from the roman catholic church in the reformation period. Christ's church was in existance many years before the roman catholic was established after one of the elders broke away from Christ's church. The roman catholic church grew in number very fast and persecuited Christ's church to the extent that they had to go into hiding to keep from being killed, which was called "the dark ages". The church that Christ set up has always been in existance, but have always been but a few. Another thing that I do not hold to is "that eternal salvation is by faith alone". Eternal salvation is by GRACE alone, not faith.

 

[tribesman]

Yes I am a member of the Primitive Baptist. I am also not a highly educated person and had to look up the meaning of the word "antinomian" and according to Webster's diffinition means, a member of a christian sect which held that faith alone, not obedience to the moral law ia necessary for salvation. I do not hold to the fact that we are a sect. One of the meanings of a sect is, a religious denomination, especially a small group that has broken away from an established church. I believe that we are the church that Christ set up and have never been a part of a denomination that has broken away from the roman catholic church in the reformation period. Christ's church was in existance many years before the roman catholic was established after one of the elders broke away from Christ's church. The roman catholic church grew in number very fast and persecuited Christ's church to the extent that they had to go into hiding to keep from being killed, which was called "the dark ages". The church that Christ set up has always been in existance, but have always been but a few. Another thing that I do not hold to is "that eternal salvation is by faith alone". Eternal salvation is by GRACE alone, not faith.

The theory of eternal justification is basically labeled antinomian hyper-calvinism because of its rejection of the judicial or legal aspect of justification and its related implications. Although primitive baptists (PB) correctly cannot be rightly called protestants, the claim that they would be "the church that Christ set up" is extreme yet not seldom heard, we have groups like the mormons and JWs saying the same thing. If such a claim is to be taken seriously, then there must be a sucession of fathers who has passed on the same beliefs and doctrines since its foundation. Do we find that with the PBs? No.

Another question is who set up the first PB churches, and what were these people's background? It cannot be too far to guess that many of them came from protestant background and thus schismated away from it. On a certain PB website we find notes about the history and origins of their group. As their "spiritual ancestors" they name Donatists, Novationists, Albigenses, Waldenses and Anabaptists. I wonder if those people who wrote that really knows what these groups believed. Consider what these said groups taught and compare that to what the PBs teaches. it does not line up. That aside it is but noteworthy that the PBs identify with groups like the waldenses who taught many bizarre things.

And just to get this right, the Bible says "by grace ... THROUGH faith" (Eph.2:8).

 

[tribesman]

Forest,

I posted a related and relevant thread the other day about Mark 1:14-15 and the call to God's people to repent and believe the gospel. You may read it and discuss it at this link:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...lling-mark-1-14-15-repent-believe-gospel.html <-link

 

[Zilla64007]

concerning eternal justification, it sounds like what John Calvin and Augustine believed in...

 

[tribesman]

concerning eternal justification, it sounds like what John Calvin and Augustine believed in...

Surely neither Augustine nor Calvin held to this view. Apart from the various posts in this thread that would have shown this you can do your own web research on it to see that, if interested.

 

[Zilla64007]

Seeing that John Calvin was a supralapsarian, modern Calvinists call John Calvin a Hyper-Calvinist... So, saying Calvin taught ultimate absolute predestination is accurate.

 

[tribesman]

Seeing that John Calvin was a supralapsarian, modern Calvinists call John Calvin a Hyper-Calvinist... So, saying Calvin taught ultimate absolute predestination is accurate.

Not sure what you are aiming at? Absolute or double predestination is not really the topic here. For the record though, most eternal justification advocates, like the primitive baptists, are not supralapsarian. Calvin did not teach eternal justification, but justification through faith. But Gill taught eternal justification. That's on-topic.

&#8220;God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.&#8221; - John Calvin

 

[Zilla64007]

... so when it comes to eternal justification, unconditional election plays no part?

 

[tribesman]

... so when it comes to eternal justification, unconditional election plays no part?

Again, eternal justification is not biblical, nor is it a calvinistic doctrine proper.

As for justification, it is clear that there is a close relationship between election and justification. God's people however is justified through faith, not by election. Nevertheless, their justification can't be separated from their election. Eph.1:4-5 speaks of the decree of their justification, it goes on in verse 6-10 to describe how Christ's work has fully accomplished the foundation for same, and verses 11-14 describes how it is received in them.

Justification can well be said to be of eternity, as the elect are drawn with an eternal love by God, but is applied in time, both by Christ's satisfaction for them at the cross and by the elect themselves freely receiving their declaration of lawfully being made righteous. Eternal justification advocates will deny the inseparable connection between faith/regeneration and justification and say that those who affirm this believes in some kind of condition to be fulfilled in man. But this is baloney, of course, since this is all about what the elects receives by the order and through the means which God has chosen to be glorified.

Since you have asked me, may I ask you in return what your view is on this?

Eph.1

[4] According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
[5] Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
[6] To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
[7] In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
[8] Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
[9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
[10] That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
[11] In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
[12] That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
[13] In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
[14] Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

 

[Zilla64007]

it says "chosen us in Him", not "chosen us to be in Him"...

nowhere does it say that we are chosen "to be" in Him before the foundation of the world... when we come to Him, and continue to turn to Him and obey Him, we are predestined to be IN Him... as i read verse 4, it doesn't say anything about the individual's personal identity... only the character, purpose and plan.

this tells us that God has had a plan in mind since the beginning of the world: that it should find redemption through His son, Jesus Christ

verse 5 cannot be held by itself without comparing it with other scripture:

Romans 8:15
For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, &#8220;Abba, Father.&#8221;

Galatians 4:4-6
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, &#8220;Abba, Father!&#8221;

we become children of God by our faith in Christ and our obedience to Christ... and when we continue in Christ, we are predestined to become LIKE Christ

 

[Forest]

The theory of eternal justification is basically labeled antinomian hyper-calvinism because of its rejection of the judicial or legal aspect of justification and its related implications. Although primitive baptists (PB) correctly cannot be rightly called protestants, the claim that they would be "the church that Christ set up" is extreme yet not seldom heard, we have groups like the mormons and JWs saying the same thing. If such a claim is to be taken seriously, then there must be a sucession of fathers who has passed on the same beliefs and doctrines since its foundation. Do we find that with the PBs? No.

Another question is who set up the first PB churches, and what were these people's background? It cannot be too far to guess that many of them came from protestant background and thus schismated away from it. On a certain PB website we find notes about the history and origins of their group. As their "spiritual ancestors" they name Donatists, Novationists, Albigenses, Waldenses and Anabaptists. I wonder if those people who wrote that really knows what these groups believed. Consider what these said groups taught and compare that to what the PBs teaches. it does not line up. That aside it is but noteworthy that the PBs identify with groups like the waldenses who taught many bizarre things.

And just to get this right, the Bible says "by grace ... THROUGH faith" (Eph.2:8).

Yes, through faith, but through who's faith? I affirm that it is Christ's faith (Gal 2:16) and not man's faith, even though man likes to take credit by saying that it is through their faith. When man comes to the understanding that they are justified by "faith of Christ and not faith in Christ", their understanding of this fact gives them a timely salvation from believing falsly that their faith justifies them. You seem like you have researched many things, so, have you ever read "The trail of blood"? I think that you can pull it up on the internet. John Calvin broke away from the Catholic church during the reformation period and so did the founders of the Luthren church. Christ's church was before the catholic church ever came into excistence. You think that the PB teach bizarre things and so did the scoffers so believe that Christ's church believed bizarre things.

 

[tribesman]

it says "chosen us in Him", not "chosen us to be in Him"...

nowhere does it say that we are chosen "to be" in Him before the foundation of the world... when we come to Him, and continue to turn to Him and obey Him, we are predestined to be IN Him... as i read verse 4, it doesn't say anything about the individual's personal identity... only the character, purpose and plan.

this tells us that God has had a plan in mind since the beginning of the world: that it should find redemption through His son, Jesus Christ

verse 5 cannot be held by itself without comparing it with other scripture:

Romans 8:15
For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”

Galatians 4:4-6
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

we become children of God by our faith in Christ and our obedience to Christ... and when we continue in Christ, we are predestined to become LIKE Christ

This is a straw man. Seen in context, the scriptures regarding predestination to election does intent an act of God for certain individuals to be the full recipients of the promises of the covenant. This is not something that they can attain to themselves, it is something that God has done for them (Rom.8:28-39, 9:6-33). God was not merely foreseeing who was using his "free will"/ability to come to Christ, He was actively redeeming the elect and securing their salvation..

This all based and conditioned on the work of Christ alone. This central truth is not being discussed in this thread, what is discussed here is how and when God see His elect as righteous or just. Clearly, you are into arminianism or some other form of synergism. Back on-topic, the scriptures you gave nevertheless serves as additional proof against the error of eternal justification. Even the people of God were sinners under the law before they were adopted to sonship.

 

[Forest]

Forest,

I posted a related and relevant thread the other day about Mark 1:14-15 and the call to God's people to repent and believe the gospel. You may read it and discuss it at this link:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...lling-mark-1-14-15-repent-believe-gospel.html <-link

As I have said before, you are not fully understanding the depravity of man. Before the elect were quickened by God they were totally depraved and even after they were quickened to a spiritual life they still carry the baggage of sinful flesh, thus the warfare within us that Paul explains. All of the many scriptures that you have quoted were all directed to his elect. The natural man, according to 1 Cor 2:14, will not take notice of any commandment from a spiritual God. There is no plan given to man as to how he can get eternal life anywhere in the scriptures. All of the elect were saved eternally by Christ's sacrifice on the cross. The inspired scriptures were given as instructions as to how God's elect should live their lives while here on earth, and therefore were not directed to those that are not his elect. The elect before God quickened them were not given a command from God to repent and believe. The elect after they are quickened are commanded by God to repent and believe. Because we still fight the battle of the flesh against the Spirit after we are quickened, we have to keep repenting as we are persuaded by the flesh to turn to the things of the world. God chastens those that he loves, but He does not chasten those that are not his. It might throw your thinking off guard when the scriptures say that God gave commandments to Israel, Isarel, being a type and figure of God's elect and not the unregenerate. Jacob's name was even changed from Jacob to Israel,Gen 32:28.

 

[Zilla64007]

This is a straw man. Seen in context, the scriptures regarding predestination to election does intent an act of God for certain individuals to be the full recipients of the promises of the covenant. This is not something that they can attain to themselves, it is something that God has done for them (Rom.8:28-39, 9:6-33). God was not merely foreseeing who was using his "free will"/ability to come to Christ, He was actively redeeming the elect and securing their salvation..

This all based and conditioned on the work of Christ alone. This central truth is not being discussed in this thread, what is discussed here is how and when God see His elect as righteous or just. Clearly, you are into arminianism or some other form of synergism. Back on-topic, the scriptures you gave nevertheless serves as additional proof against the error of eternal justification. Even the people of God were sinners under the law before they were adopted to sonship.

if it were CONDITIONED upon Christ alone, then WHY did Demas, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, and King Saul fall away?

the Bible says SALVATION IS CONDITIONAL UPON FAITH. WE HAVE FAITH IN CHRIST, WE ARE SAVED. WE DONT HAVE FAITH, WE ARE NOT SAVED. Why do you think 1 Peter 1:5 says we are kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH!? or Ephesians 2:8 when it says "we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH!?"...

you YOURSELF pointed out we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH in post 26...


the Bible WARNS of apostasy countless times, and you know which verses talk of them... from the sound of it, you say that God fore-ordains some men to heaven and others to hell... that's not only non-scriptural, but heretical. If God did not come to save ALL men, then He does not love ALL men... so if you're advocating Limited Atonement OR Unconditional Election, then i have nothing else to discuss with you, because both are Calvinistic, and both are nothing more than man-made doctrines.


by all means, tribesman, we should be agreeing with one another, because if by eternal justification, you mean that "their[the sinner's] justification is not made actual or complete in time but in eternity past"
or "though a given elect sinner is yet unregenerate and unbelieving, he is justified"

as i find nothing absolutely and unequivocally nonbiblical AND heretical... and when you speak of Antinomianism, this is EXACTLY where Calvinism leads us to when we take Calvinism to the logical conclusion!

it's why i reject and continue to reject Calvinism in all forms

 

[tribesman]

Yes, through faith, but through who's faith? I affirm that it is Christ's faith (Gal 2:16) and not man's faith, even though man likes to take credit by saying that it is through their faith. When man comes to the understanding that they are justified by "faith of Christ and not faith in Christ", their understanding of this fact gives them a timely salvation from believing falsly that their faith justifies them.

Your use of the word credit here makes no sense at all. How can someone take credit for freely receiving something, without even asking for it?

Can somebody who has something done to them outside of their control take credit for what is 0% in their own power and 100% in the power of the one in control? Can any man take credit for being born, for having a certain kind of hair type or for even having two hands? If you believe in regeneration, is that something you can take credit for?

If God has ordained a certain way to accomplish things thru which He is glorified, then let us respect that. Let us not take something to its very extreme and jeopardize the belief in the revealed word of God.

 

[tribesman]

Zilla64007, for the sake of order, this will be the last post (at least here) where I respond to questions that are not strictly on-topic. If you want to discuss certain other issues, then no problem for me, just start a new thread for it, if so. But no more off-topic please, as I will ignore any such further inputs. The same goes for repeated questions about the same thing.

if it were CONDITIONED upon Christ alone, then WHY did Demas, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, and King Saul fall away?

This is a presumptuous conclusion. Is it clear that all of the named fell away to damnation? But, yes, the Bible does use the term "fall away" about false brethren and professing hypocrites that are found among the Saints, or tares among the wheat. It does not mean they necessarily were ever saved, or that one comes and goes in salvation as he pleases. Let alone that salvation is considered to be conditioned on the sinner. Those who God saves He will also preserve.

the Bible says SALVATION IS CONDITIONAL UPON FAITH. WE HAVE FAITH IN CHRIST, WE ARE SAVED. WE DONT HAVE FAITH, WE ARE NOT SAVED. Why do you think 1 Peter 1:5 says we are kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH!? or Ephesians 2:8 when it says "we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH!?"...

you YOURSELF pointed out we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH in post 26...

Yes, but I have also made it abundantly clear numerous times that this faith does not originate in the old or unregenerate man. The new man possesses this faith because of it being a gift from God and fruit of the Spirit in regeneration. Faith is then instrumental, not conditional, in receiving salvation.

the Bible WARNS of apostasy countless times, and you know which verses talk of them... from the sound of it, you say that God fore-ordains some men to heaven and others to hell... that's not only non-scriptural, but heretical. If God did not come to save ALL men, then He does not love ALL men... so if you're advocating Limited Atonement OR Unconditional Election, then i have nothing else to discuss with you, because both are Calvinistic, and both are nothing more than man-made doctrines.

From the sound of your ranting it sounds as if you are just mad that someone happens disagree with you. How and why should I respond to this? If I don't agree with you, there's nothing to discuss? Has anyone forced you to discuss anything with me? *sighs* For the record, I have given my view on both questions elsewhere.

by all means, tribesman, we should be agreeing with one another, because if by eternal justification, you mean that "their[the sinner's] justification is not made actual or complete in time but in eternity past" or "though a given elect sinner is yet unregenerate and unbelieving, he is justified" as i find nothing absolutely and unequivocally nonbiblical AND heretical... and when you speak of Antinomianism, this is EXACTLY where Calvinism leads us to when we take Calvinism to the logical conclusion! it's why i reject and continue to reject Calvinism in all forms

Maybe in your own thinking and its conclusions. But such would only show that you have not yet read up enough on the reformed tradition and its view of the law. I don't know exactly where you are coming from, but it just so happens, often, that many arminians will dump all reformed teachings in one single sack together with hyper-calvinism and other deviations, and call it all the same thing. In fact, not a few non-reformed people would accuse calvinism of legalism. And there actually are legalist calvinist errors too, some of which have been touched elsewhere at this forum.

Finally on-topic again. Yes, arminians and other synergists would agree to the statement that justification is by or through faith. But, as shown, they basically see this faith as something that is conditional in man to perform at his "free will" and by his own strength, as a natural man. With this in mind it stands to reason that if man can receive salvation by his own choice he can also lose salvation by his own choice. By such reasoning it is obvious who the freewillers think is their savior.