The error of eternal justification
- Thread starter tribesman
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
And your hostility is no better... I just was reading the thread and saw the distinct connection of eternal justification, and Calvinism's U and L... Having been raised in a home that taught not only Calvinism, but also eternal justification, I grew up wih that mindset.
So, from personal experience, yes, eternal justification has a lot to do with Calvinism.
Now, concerning eternal justification, I'm not convinced that faith is a gift from God, because 1.) the gift of God is eternal life, not faith, through Christ Jesus, and 2.) Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by grace through faith, and that it is salvation by grace which is a gift from God, not faith...
And concerning free will, the ante-Nicene church held to free will... Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of the disciple of John The Apostle, believed in free will... I don't see why we shouldn't. Even AW Tozer understood that we were made in the image of God, and given free will to choose good or evil, so that we may be held accountable for our own actions... Because of His prevenient grace in my life.
So, from personal experience, yes, eternal justification has a lot to do with Calvinism.
Now, concerning eternal justification, I'm not convinced that faith is a gift from God, because 1.) the gift of God is eternal life, not faith, through Christ Jesus, and 2.) Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by grace through faith, and that it is salvation by grace which is a gift from God, not faith...
And concerning free will, the ante-Nicene church held to free will... Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of the disciple of John The Apostle, believed in free will... I don't see why we shouldn't. Even AW Tozer understood that we were made in the image of God, and given free will to choose good or evil, so that we may be held accountable for our own actions... Because of His prevenient grace in my life.
[Although I am not fully sure about the intents of the user Zilla64007 I will post these replies as they still may be of use for anyone interested in the very important topic at hand.]
I am sure many eternal justification advocates came from calvinist background, though some of them appear to have come from the general baptists. But no one would have denied that for example Gill was seen a calvinist. When one is referring to calvinism proper however, one refers to historical calvinism, i. e. genevan and creedal calvinism. To place the hyper-calvinists beside these and compare beliefs and doctrine would mean seeing differences.
Many of the primitive baptists do not consider themselves as calvinists. And for good reason, as there really are many things they teach that either stretches calvinist concepts to extreme ends or clearly deviate from it. So-called calvinistic teachings (like hyper-calvinism, whose advocates mostly are baptists) may thus have very little to do with historical calvinism.
I am sure many eternal justification advocates came from calvinist background, though some of them appear to have come from the general baptists. But no one would have denied that for example Gill was seen a calvinist. When one is referring to calvinism proper however, one refers to historical calvinism, i. e. genevan and creedal calvinism. To place the hyper-calvinists beside these and compare beliefs and doctrine would mean seeing differences.
Many of the primitive baptists do not consider themselves as calvinists. And for good reason, as there really are many things they teach that either stretches calvinist concepts to extreme ends or clearly deviate from it. So-called calvinistic teachings (like hyper-calvinism, whose advocates mostly are baptists) may thus have very little to do with historical calvinism.
Last edited:
Arminians and other synergists will make faith a condition here, implying that natural man has the ability to believe, or to choose to believe. If one believes faith is something that a natural man can choose to have at will, then where's the scripture for that? Eph.2:8 is not such a scripture. Eternal justification advocates will say it is grace that saves "by no means", meaning that there is in reality no "through" here. Or they will say, like Forest, that the faith that saves here is Christ's faith, not the faith of the believer. The verse itself says in its context that also faith is a gift, or part of the gift, by which the saving grace of God is received. Hence, through. Meaning in the instrumental and not conditional sense.
This is not to limit God's sovereignity at all, as eternal justification advocates would have it. While God "could" have done this without the elect's personal faith, it has pleased Him to use faith as an instrument by which the called receives justification. In 1Cor.2:12-14 we see that only regenerated souls will receive that which is the things of the Spirit of God, while a unregenerate, natural man, does not receive it, neither can he understand it. Another proof text for this position is Gal.5:22 which says that faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Obviously, only regenerated souls have any fruit of the Spirit. And any unregenerate soul has no fruit of the Spirit, rather he manifests works of the flesh. So here we see that a person must be regenerated before he believes, and a sign of this is that he believes the gospel, conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.
This is not to limit God's sovereignity at all, as eternal justification advocates would have it. While God "could" have done this without the elect's personal faith, it has pleased Him to use faith as an instrument by which the called receives justification. In 1Cor.2:12-14 we see that only regenerated souls will receive that which is the things of the Spirit of God, while a unregenerate, natural man, does not receive it, neither can he understand it. Another proof text for this position is Gal.5:22 which says that faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Obviously, only regenerated souls have any fruit of the Spirit. And any unregenerate soul has no fruit of the Spirit, rather he manifests works of the flesh. So here we see that a person must be regenerated before he believes, and a sign of this is that he believes the gospel, conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.
Last edited:
I'd say negative for John the baptist. Irenaeus? Yes. But free will in the arminian sense? Most doubtful. Do you agree with all that Ireneaus said? I don't. Some of the ante-nicene fathers? Yes. Yet many early church fathers also affirmed God's sovereignity in salvation. Before Augustine there were no doubt some who held to a view which included free will of man. This proves that free-willism is biblical, orthodox and correct? Would you agree with all that the ante-nicene fathers taught on for instance the atonement, the trinity and the canon of scripture as well? I would doubt that. Or should they be trusted just because they were "early"? The earlier, the better?
It took some time for some dogma and beliefs to be accurately articulated in church history. Some beliefs were a matter of argument for hundreds of years before they were duly articulated. This does not prove any such certain belief as articulated relatively late to be incorrect or error. For gospel believers it matters not so much if a core doctrine has been traceable articulated in every generation since the apostle's death. What matters is that there is a credible testimony throughout the ages that this doctrine has been taught and believed in the church. We have substantial reason to believe that the soteriology that is known by the name of Augustine was nothing that originated first with him.
It took some time for some dogma and beliefs to be accurately articulated in church history. Some beliefs were a matter of argument for hundreds of years before they were duly articulated. This does not prove any such certain belief as articulated relatively late to be incorrect or error. For gospel believers it matters not so much if a core doctrine has been traceable articulated in every generation since the apostle's death. What matters is that there is a credible testimony throughout the ages that this doctrine has been taught and believed in the church. We have substantial reason to believe that the soteriology that is known by the name of Augustine was nothing that originated first with him.
Last edited:
Yes, it is bizarre if PBs refers to groups who taught various heresies such as works salvation, conditionalism, free-willism, universal atonement etc and then claims to be these people's spiritual descendants. It's false too. Who taught the same doctrine as the PBs do in church history? Is there any group before the 1700s? Did not the founders of the PB groups come from calvinist and general baptists circles? Or do you mean they came from amish groups (they are anabaptists)?
As I said, in order for the statement of literally being "the church that Christ set up" you would have to have a succession of known and named fathers who passed on the very same doctrine from the days of the apostle's until today. Otherwise it is just a fantastic claim with no bearing whatsoever in reality.
It is remarkable that you ask me to read a booklet when you have refused to even look at the link I provided you earlier about eternal justification. You do not want to read others material but you want that they read yours? You said "I do not take John Calvin's thoughts or any othe man's thoughts as athority, only the inspired scriptures of the KJV and Greek transulaters". (as seen in this post: http://christianchat.com/598729-post26.html <-link). So, why do you take a man's word, J.M. Carroll's words, as authority in church history matters?
I know about The Trail of Blood. As for its claims they are not undisputed, not even among likeminded baptist groups. From this booklet it is clear that the groups that these PBs want to call its "ancestors" did not have the same faith and doctrine as the PBs. Even the arminian methodists are named in the booklet in positive words, called "genuine... spiritual religion". Do the methodists have the same doctrine as the PBs? Bah! The case of "baptist sucession" simply cannot be made.
As I said, in order for the statement of literally being "the church that Christ set up" you would have to have a succession of known and named fathers who passed on the very same doctrine from the days of the apostle's until today. Otherwise it is just a fantastic claim with no bearing whatsoever in reality.
It is remarkable that you ask me to read a booklet when you have refused to even look at the link I provided you earlier about eternal justification. You do not want to read others material but you want that they read yours? You said "I do not take John Calvin's thoughts or any othe man's thoughts as athority, only the inspired scriptures of the KJV and Greek transulaters". (as seen in this post: http://christianchat.com/598729-post26.html <-link). So, why do you take a man's word, J.M. Carroll's words, as authority in church history matters?
I know about The Trail of Blood. As for its claims they are not undisputed, not even among likeminded baptist groups. From this booklet it is clear that the groups that these PBs want to call its "ancestors" did not have the same faith and doctrine as the PBs. Even the arminian methodists are named in the booklet in positive words, called "genuine... spiritual religion". Do the methodists have the same doctrine as the PBs? Bah! The case of "baptist sucession" simply cannot be made.
I have replied to this post in due thread:
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...lling-mark-1-14-15-repent-believe-gospel.html <.link
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...lling-mark-1-14-15-repent-believe-gospel.html <.link
F
Christ's church is not known by a title. It was just called "the church" in the apostles time. Christ's church that he set up can only be idenified by the doctrine that it teaches, which is the teachings of Christ. Do you believe that Christ's church does still exist even today, and if so, can you identify it? I am assuming that you think you are teaching Christ's doctrine. Do you think it is idendified as a small group or a few?
Again, a straw man. This is not a question of titles or names of churches. There must be a sucession of known persons who have taught the same doctrine throughout the ages, who have passed on this same doctrine. This is not the case with the PBs. The PBs originate in the 1700s and most of its pioneers were people who broke off from protestant backgrounds. The groups that PBs claims are their spritual ancestors did not have the same beliefs and doctrine as the PBs. In fact, many of these groups taught many things that are diametrically opposed to the ideas of the PBs. Any PB claims of "baptist sucession" has no foundation whatsoever in reality.