Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:51:37 +0800
Repeating his phrase: every believer, as soon as he believes, is pardoned and accepted of God. Perhaps in a catechism class Buchanan would ask:
Q. When is a sinner pardoned?
A. As soon as he believes
Q. When is a sinner accepted of God?
A. As soon as he believes
Brother Tom,
No problem at all.
You insist that this is Actual Justification by faith. I believe it is Declarative Justification by faith.
[As soon as a sinner believes, he declares and attests to the prior Actual Justification by God’s free grace. Declarative Justification presupposes the prior Actual Justification.] I believe Actual justification by God's free grace is presupposed and precedes Declarative justification by faith. Quite simple, to me anyway.
I am sorry that the five fold aspects of justification do not help you in the least to rightly divide the word of truth.
sing
Message 72
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:51:38 +0800
"The moment you believe, your sins shall be washed away in Christ's blood"
"O what encouragement is here for great sinners, old sinners, backsliding sinners Jer.3.12 to believe in Christ! ..What though you are the worst of men, the greatest of sinners, and under matchless guilt; let it be so, and you are under the blackest character, yet there is hope; Isa 1.8 ie they (thy sins) shall be washed away in Christ’s blood that very moment that you believe in him."
Brother Tom,
No problem here at all.
The moment you believe... I assume that you do believe that the work of God's in the effectual call to grace and salvation MUST PRECEDE before there is any possibility of believing. If you don't, please state it clearly for me to hear, and I will show you that you have just repudiated many plain statements of Scriptures and the statements of Keach [affirmed and signed] in the 1689.
If the work of free sovereign grace has preceded to make believing possible, then Keach must be understood, and correctly and consistently understood, as speaking in the Declarative aspect of justification and salvation.
By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
Message 73
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:03:20 +0800
Brother Sing,
Perhaps I misunderstood your definition of Actual Justification. I understood it this way:
Actual justification is the time when God declares the sinner just in His sight by pardoning him of all his sins (past, present and future) and imputes to him the righteousness of Christ. Declarative justification is when a sinner's works & faith declares to himself and others the justification (actual) that is already present.
When anyone says "your sins shall be washed away the moment you believe" means simply this: sins shall be washed away at the time of belief (no merit- in case you are stumbled by the Arminian thorn that is pricking you).
Similarly a person is actually justified, in real possession of Christ's righteousness when he believes. The Sins of all the Elect, while they remain in Unbelief, are charged upon them by the Law; and that the Righteousness of Christ is not actually imputed to them, until they do believe in Jesus Christ. Every believer, as soon as he believes, is pardoned and accepted of God. That justification (wholly of the free grace of God) is through the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ by faith. God imputes the complete and perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to a believing sinner, though ungodly in himself, absolving him from all his sins, and accepting him as righteous in Christ. He that believes is perfectly justified, and freed from the curse of the law, and accepted, and accounted righteous in the sight of God, and hereby hath a certain title to eternal life.
I can say no more. The statements are clear as a bell. It is only when a sinner believes that righteousness of Christ is imputed and sins are pardoned.
Q. How can a sinner believe, you ask?
A. Through the quickening work of the Holy Spirit.
Q. What happened when the sinner believe (through the quickening work of
the Spirit)
A. He is accounted righteous in the sight of God (accounted righteous in
the sight of men will follow), freed from the curse of the law.
tom
Message 74
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:00:12 +0800
Brother Tom,
Tom: Perhaps I misunderstood your definition of Actual Justification. I understood it this way: Actual justification is the time when God declares the sinner just in His sight by pardoning him of all his sins (past, present and future) and imputes to him the righteousness of Christ. Declarative justification is when a sinner's works & faith declares to himself and others the justification (actual) that is already present.>>
When anyone says "your sins shall be washed away the moment you believe" means simply this: sins shall be washed away at the time of belief (no merit- in case you are stumbled by the Arminian thorn that is pricking you).
Is this your latest definition of Actual Justification? Please tell, where does your faith figure in this new definition? Is your Actual justification by your faith or WITHOUT your faith? [Your further statements below provide the answers.]
Actual Justification occurs at the time when God effectually calls an elect out of the state of sin and death to grace and salvation... this involves Actual justification, regeneration and adoption of an elect. No faith is involved here - for an elect in the state of sin and death CANNOT and WILL NOT believe because there is NO grace of faith worked in him without the indwelling Spirit. After he is justified (Actual), regenerated and adopted, an elect is enabled to believe and perform works of obedience.
Declarative Justification is the time when a regenerated elect is brought to faith and obedience. Faith and works declare and attest the Actual justification; faith and works are graces that accompanied a justified (Actual) elect. Faith and works declare and attest the justified state of a believer.
tom: When anyone says "your sins shall be washed away the moment you believe" means simply this: sins shall be washed away at the time of belief (no merit- in case you are stumbled by the Arminian thorn that is pricking you).
Brother, I have no Arminian thorn but Calvinist's irrationalism! You still don't see the point after all these exchanges. "The moment you believe" MUST necessarily presuppose the prior Actual Justification, without which "the moment you believe" is just an UTTER impossibility. "The moment you believe" has to do with Declarative justification alone!!! Your believing declares and attests and proves the Actual justification that HAS ALREADY taken place – all by God’s free grace.
tom: Similarly a person is actually justified, in real possession of Christ's righteousness when he believes. The Sins of all the Elect, while they remain in Unbelief, are charged upon them by the Law; and that the Righteousness of Christ is not actually imputed to them, until they do believe in Jesus Christ.
Without the righteousness of Christ imputed in [Actual Justification], an elect is in a state of condemnation (unjustified) and death (spiritually dead) and alienation (in enmity against God). You have not answered my questions on 1689.11.4 yet. Think about it. Don't have to reply. I had always thought only the Arminian expect such a condemned, dead and alienated person to believe in order to be justified (Actual)?
sing
"And some believed the things which were spoken,
and some believed not" Acts 28:24
Message 75
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:59:53 +0800
tom: This is also clear from his subsequent statements, and I quote:
Since it is clear to you, let me ask you some questions concerning his statements. You should have no trouble answering since they are clear to you.
tom: "The relation which subsists, in respect of order, between Regeneration and Justification, is sufficiently determined, for all practical purposes, if neither is held to be prior or posterios to the other, in point of time…..then it follows,- _that no unrenewed sinner is justified,- and that every believer, as soon as he believes, is pardoned and accepted of God_./
Q1. The relation which subsists, in respect of order, between Regeneration and Justification... which Justification do you think Buchanan has in mind - the Actual OR the Declarative? The answer should be very plain to all - since he said it "is sufficiently determined"!
I suggest to you this answer to 'mislead' and 'deceive' you:
Actual justification > Regeneration > Faith > Declarative justification.
The biblical order is an answer to much of your confusion. Don't dismiss it lightly.
RBs folks like you INSIST regeneration before Actual justification... and would not deal with the moral question of how a man under the just condemnation of God, i.e. unjustified, is also already regenerated by the Spirit of God, and therefore can believe in order to be justified (Actual). Why do you keep on insisting believing such a notion when you have a big MORAL issue with such notion??? Why Brother???
Only a justified (Actual) elect already imputed with the righteousness of life by the Father is regenerated with eternal life by the Spirit. This regenerated elect is enabled to believe... believing, his faith declares and attests and evidences his prior Actual justification by God's free grace.
Buchanan says, ""Actual Justification comes first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative." Declarative justification by faith necessarily presupposes, and is preceded by the Actual justification by God's free grace. That which is necessarily presupposed is that which must necessarily be prior logically and chronologically.
Q2. What does Buchanan mean, 'for all practical purpose'? How does this shed light on the nature the first question?
Actual Justification is in the legal and forensic realm.
Declarative justification is in the practical realm.
It seems your reading of Buchanan has not help you to understand him!
Nothing further needed be said.
Q3. When he said, "... that no unrenewed sinner is justified..." which justification is he speaking of - Actual or Declarative, assuming that by 'unrenewed' he meant 'unregenerated'?
[I may assume wrongly. You are free to suggest what you think it means... and then answer the question.]
Will any unrenewed person believe and be justified (declarative) by faith?
Will any one in the state of sin and death believe and be justified (declarative) by faith?
tom: "Repeating his phrase: every believer, as soon as he believes, is pardoned and accepted of God."
Please tell, what MUST happened before an elect in the state of sin and death is able to believe? Shouldn't there be that prior sovereign and free grace work of effectaul calling from out of the state of sin and death to grace and salvation?
Please tell, what must take place in the effectual call from out of sin and death to grace and salvation?
Can there be effectual call from out of sin and death to grace and salvation without the Actual removal of the condemnation of death and the Actual imputation of Christ's righteousness to the elect personally?
Can there be effectual call from out of sin and death to grace and salvation without the Actual imputation of Christ's righteousness to the elect personally and the regeneration unto eternal life of the elect?
Can there be believing without the person having been justified (Actual) and regenerated?
These are simple questions RBs do not wish to answer.
tom: Perhaps in a catechism class Buchanan would ask:
Q. When is a sinner pardoned?
A. As soon as he believes
Q. When is a sinner accepted of God?
A. As soon as he believes
Buchanan is right... he is speaking of the practical Declarative justification by faith. You want to make it the forensic Actual justification by faith.
Your reading of Buchanan's statement, "Actual Justification comes first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative" has not helped you at all because you are still insisting that Buchanan is speaking of Actual Justification while he was in fact speaking of Declarative Justification, with the Actual Justification necessarily presupposed and taken for granted. Without Actual Justification presupposed, there can be NO - NO - NO believing to speak of. Those under the condemnation of death CANNOT possibly believe. There Actual Justification MUST be presupposed if you are going to talk about sinners believing.
Gill put it nicely: I quoted it before... you may have missed it. Here it goes... "and this is readily allowed, that no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes." I believe Buchanan's questions are saying exactly the same, BUT you insist that Buchanan is speaking of justification in the Forensic and Actual sense.
Slow down and read some. Enjoy your… You may learn something.
By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
---
Message 76
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:11:59 +0800
Pastor Lau,
Your questions are answered by Buchanan (without me having to 'read into' the sentence- which I think you are trying to do in order to 'justify' your position).
Read further and you will find this: "that no unrenewed sinner is justified,- and that every believer, as soon as he believes, is pardoned and accepted of God". The justification that Buchanan refers to is that Justification when person is pardoned and accepted of God. That is certainly Active Justification. One is pardoned and accepted of God at the time of Active Justification. One receives the assurance and sense of his justification (both before himself and men) during Declarative Justification.
I believe the Particular Baptists and Puritans are known for being careful with words: To be pardoned and accepted of God means Actual Justification; to receive a sense and comfort or assurance of their justification = Declarative Justification. Otherwise their arguments against the 'heresy' of eternal justification falls into total confusion because their opponent will not be sure what it is they are saying.
Should try reading Keach's sermon on the Marrow of Justification, and the Narrative that the Particular Baptist pastors wrote in support of Henry Coleman. FYI no one has held to a heresy called Declarative Justification before faith in the history of the church (that I know of- but my reading is limited, so please advise if you have come across). So the article "Actual Justification Rightly State proving there is no justification or actual union with Christ before Faith" refers to Actual Justification (just like the title says).
a justified sinner
regards
Tom
Message 77
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:45:39 +0800
Pastor Lau,
No wonder we are going around in circles. Your definition (quoted below): confuses Actual Justification with Effectual calling, or you have not defined Actual justification.
sing: Actual Justification is the time when God effectually calls an elect out of the state of sin and death to grace and salvation... this involves Actual justification, regeneration and adoption of an elect.
The confession: 1. Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous.........
Question: Is the confession here talking about Actual or Declarative? i.e. when God pardons their sins and account/accept them as righteous. Same words as Buchanan used, because he was talking about Actual Justification. Nobody argues over Declarative Justification as before or after faith- it has never been a point of contention.
Where is faith in all these? Keach's reply to the Question below is instructive:
/Quest. But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?/
/Ans. Yea as a condition of connection by way of order...and in this sense creation is a condition of salvation, if a man be saved, he must be created; so if a man believe, he shall be saved; _believing is a condition of connection_./
He went so far as to exhort his readers: /Such who receive this sacred pearl by faith, though they were dead, it immediately quickens them; and raiseth them from the dead to a state of spiritual life, Eph ii 1 /
There is no need to compile these things into a booklet. Get hold of Keach's exposition of the parables and read him. It is edifying. There is too much strife and conflict within the Church of Christ already. People are already discouraged by schisms. The Actual Justification controversy has been dealt with in 1696. Reading Keach's 2 sermons on the Marrow of Justification, and the Particular Baptist's defense of their colleague Henry Coleman re: Justification has enough material to give a sense of their beliefs.
walking the weathered path of the Particular Baptist ;-)
Tom
Message 78
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:56:43 +0800
Brother Tom,
tom: No wonder we are going around in circles. Your definition (quoted below): confuses Actual Justification with Effectual calling, or you have not defined Actual justification.
That's not the reason we are going in circle. [Your mistaking the Declarative Justification for the Actual Justification is.]
I said: Actual Justification is the time when God effectually calls an elect out of the state of sin and death to grace and salvation... this involves Actual justification, regeneration and adoption of an elect.
There is no confusion either.
My purpose was not to define Actual Justification. You looked for a definition of AJ when there is none. What I did state is the TIME when Actual Justification occurs - and that you will not see. See 1689.11.1 for my definition of Actual Justification... which is necessarily presupposed when there is faith to receive it, for Actual justification is declared and attested by faith.
I deliberately placed Actual Justification in the CONTEXT of Effectual Calling because that's where the CRUX of the matter is: Actual Justification takes place when FAITH is NOT POSSIBLE, when an elect under the condemnation of death is justified (Actually). Where do you find faith in a condemned and spiritually dead elect... 'in his state of sin and death'? You seem to ignore or reject this simple biblical fact.
tom: The confession: “1. Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous.........”
I am glad you are quoting the 1689 now.
Please tell, when God effectually calls an elect out of his state of sin and death to grace and salvation, and justifies (Actual), regenerates and adopts him, is he able to exercise faith? Is a condemned, dead and alienated elect able to exercise faith in order to be justified (Actual)?
tom: Question: Is the confession here talking about Actual or Declarative? i.e. when God pardons their sins and account/accept them as righteous.
My answer: the Actual justification at effectual calling to grace and salvation.
Actual justification is by free grace, and WITHOUT and BEFORE faith.
Actual justification is then received by faith... which is the instrument attesting and declaring the PRIOR Actual Justification.
tom: Same words as Buchanan used, because he was talking about Actual Justification. Nobody argues over Declarative Justification as before or after faith- it has never been a point of contention.
Buchanan's point is that Actual Justification is necessarily presupposed in Declarative justification by faith. He is talking about Declarative justification that takes place at believing. Whenever there is believing on the part of the believer involved, the subject and context is Declarative justification. The Actual justification which HAS TAKEN place by free grace is received by faith... declared and attested by faith.
Nobody [i.e. among the old school Baptists] ever believe that Actual Justification is BY faith. [Many of their step children, the RBs do!]
Many [all those that signed the 1689 CoF] believe that Actual Justification by God's free grace.
And this Actual justification by God's free grace is received, attested or declared through faith.
Faith is NOT possible without PRIOR Actual Justification. This biblical fact is ignored and rejected by
Nobody [i.e. among the old school Baptists] ever believe that Declarative Justification is BEFORE faith even though many like Gill and Buchanan were accused of believing that nonsense because they believed Actual Justification is BEFORE faith.
Those like Buchanan and Gill who taught that Actual Justification IS BEFORE faith were MISUNDERSTOOD and maligned and misrepresented as teaching that Declarative Justification is BEFORE faith. So they have to emphatically state and defend that Declarative justification is through faith. [They were defending against such perverse charge against them, and it was in that context that they said “no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes.” The standard reformed folks pervert their words and make them say “no man is Justified (Actual) until he believes.”]
Here's their words of defence:
"What scriptures may be thought to speak of faith, as a prerequisite to justification, cannot be understood as speaking of it as a prerequisite to the being of justification; for faith has no causal influence upon it, it adds nothing to its being, it is no ingredient in it, it is not the cause nor matter of it; at most, they can only be understood as speaking of faith as a prerequisite to the knowledge and comfort of it, and to a claim of interest in it; and this is readily allowed, that no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes; that is, he cannot have the knowledge of it, nor any comfort from it; nor can he claim his interest in it, without faith; and this being observed, obviates another objection, that if justification is before faith, then faith is needless and useless. It is not so; it is not of use to justify men, which it is never said to do; but it is of use to receive the blessing of justification, and to enjoy the comfort of it." [Gill - Body of Divinity, bk 2, chapter 5)
The words highlighted imply several things:
- Actual Justification is BEFORE and WITHOUT faith.
- Those teaching 'Actual Justification is BEFORE and WITHOUT faith' are often and still misunderstood and maligned as teaching 'Declarative Justification is BEFORE faith’ and Actual Justification in eternity.
- Faith is NEVER SAID to do so - has any place in Actual Justification. Faith 'is not the use to justify men' - obviously in the Actual sense.
Buchanan said virtually the same thing in his paragraph.
"…The Protestant doctrine affirms that a sinner is made or constituted righteous by having Christ’s righteousness imputed to him; and that, being thus justified actually, he is also justified declaratively, when his acceptance is proved or attested, so as to be made manifest to his own conscience, or to his fellow-men. In both cases it is one and the same Justification that is spoken of:– his acceptance as righteous in the sight of God; but in the one it is considered simply as a fact, in the other as a fact that is attested and proved. Actual Justification comes first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative; and hence, if any one is declared to have been justified, we conclude that he was actually justified, or accepted as righteous in the sight of God…" [Buchanan - Justification, Lecture 8, Proposition 2]
- Actual Justification comes first - when faith was not possible.
- Actual Justification by God's free grace is then attested and proved by faith in the Declarative Justification. WCF says faith is a grace found in a justified (Actual) man.
The CRUX of the whole controversy is this: The Declarative Justification by faith taught by the old school has been misunderstood and perverted into Actual Justification by faith. Those old school men like Gill and Buchanan clearly distinguished the two... but very many standard reformed men have confused the two.
When the old school speaks of Declarative Justification by faith, they are seen and understood by the modern standard reformed folks as speaking about Actual Justification by faith.
When the old school speaks of Declarative Justification presently, and NOT that which (AJ) is necessarily presupposed, the modern standard reformed folks make them to speak presently of Actual Justification, which is necessarily presupposed, already happened.
Until this cross-eyed vision is realized, you and I will read and understand the old school men differently. Until then, the parallel roads are not likely to meet.
By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
Message 79
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:24:06 +0800
Brother Tom,
tom: /Quest. But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life.
Ans. Yea as a condition of connection by way of order...and in this sense creation is a condition of salvation, if a man be saved, he must be created; so if a man believe, he shall be saved; _believing is a condition of connection_/
This is a 'powerful' quote... let's see what Keach is saying.
Don't misread Keach.
He did not say, 'The gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life.' I fear only those words attracted your attention. He did say, 'Yea, [gospel requires faith as a condition of justification and eternal life, but only] AS A CONDITION OF CONNECTION BY WAY OF ORDER... believing is a condition of connection.' Did you give any consideration to Keach's words, 'as a condition of connection by way of order'? I quite doubt it, Brother. You only want to read, 'as a condition.' You have no use for the words that QUALIFY the condition.
Your treatment of Keach words is a classic illustration of what I stated before: "When the old school [Baptists] speaks of Declarative Justification, they are seen and understood by the modern standard reformed folks as speaking about Actual Justification. When the old school speaks of Declarative Justification presently, and NOT that which is necessarily presupposed, the modern standard reformed folks make them to speak of Actual Justification which is necessarily presupposed, already happened."
If you want to take Keach's answer in the Actual sense, then you make him to contradict everything he affirmed and signed in the 1689 CoF. You are making Keach to say that those spiritually dead in sin is able to believe to have eternal life (i.e. faith is a condition to eternal life), those under the condemnation of death is able to believe to be justified (Actual) before God (i.e 'faith is a condition to Actual justification.)
Either you are right... in which case I conclude that Keach is grossly inconsistent and self-contradicting with what he has affirmed in the 1689 CoF. Or you are plainly wrong and are FORCING a Particular Baptist to speak and believe like an full-blown Arminian!
However, if Keach's answer is understood in the Declarative sense, then it makes perfect sense and is in complete harmony with what he affirmed and signed in the 1689 CoF. I understand Keach answer as, "The gospel requires faith as a condition to declare and attest and prove justification and eternal life." This way a Particular Baptist is understood as he should.
One can either choose to read Keach as an inconsistent and self-contradicting man, or as a consistent and logical Particular Baptist. I choose the later.
I have often cautioned against reading by the *sight* and *sound* of words. Learn to read the *sense* of the word. Scriptures declare in so many places, "Whoever believes has eternal life." This statement which declares a simple fact is so often understood as a statement offering eternal life on condition of faith.
"Believing is a condition by connection, by way of order..."
What is the connection spoken of? What is the way of order spoken of?
What is the connection, by way of order?
Is it: Believing > Justification (Actual) > Regeneration (eternal life),
Or is it: Justification (Actual) > Regeneration (eternal life) > Believing > Declarative Justification (faith declaring, attesting, proving the prior Actual Justification).
You insist that Keach speaks of the first connection by way of order. So, you make Keach to believe that the spiritually dead can believe in order to be given eternal life, and make him to contradict and denounce what he affirmed and signed in the 1689 CoF.
Just for the record...
sing
Message 80
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:27:14 +0800
Pastor Lau,
Here's a modification of your statements:
Actual justification at effectual calling to grace and salvation.
Actual justification is by free grace, and WITHOUT and BEFORE faith.
Actual justification is then received by faith... which is the instrument /of/ attesting and declaring the PRIOR Actual Justification.
What is it that faith receives ( fr your third statement)?
God imputes, faith receives the righteousness of Christ- all happened at Actual Justification
/Is faith the cause of justification - no, it is free grace
Is faith the ground of justification-no, it is the satisfaction made by Christ
Is faith the means/instrument of our justification- yes, the dignity is not in faith as a grace, but relatively,as it lays hold on Christ’s merits. /
How is faith the means/instrument of justification?
/Faith justifies a sinner _in the sight of God,_ not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness./ (Larger Catechism)//
/None can be said to be actually reconciled, justified, or adopted, until they are really _implanted into Jesus Christ_ by Faith. (/From the General Assembly of the Particular Baptist Churches in 1689)
/14. This justification comes about because of Christ, but not in the absolute sense of Christ's being the cause of vocation. It happens be-cause Christ is apprehended by faith, which follows calling as an effect. //Faith precedes justification as the instrumental cause, laying hold of the righteousness of Christ from which justification being apprehended follows; //therefore, righteousness is said to be from faith, Rom. 9:30; 10:6. And justification is said to be by faith, Rom. 3:28. /
/15. This justifying faith is not the general faith of the understanding by which we give assent to the truth revealed in the Holy
Scriptures, for that belongs not only to those who are justified, nor of its nature has it any force to justify, nor produce the effects which are everywhere in Scripture given to justifying faith. / (from William Ames)
Statement 14 is Actual Justification - by (justifying) faith.
Statement 15 is Declarative Justification by faith.
To be honest, I doubt very much that the puritans and Particular Baptists wrote a great deal about Declarative Justification (by faith & works)- that has never been an issue of great contention. Therefore to read into statements of Justification by faith to make it say 'Declarative' Justification is biased.
btw you have asked repetitively how a sinner dead in trespasses and sin can exercise faith- you know the answer as well as I do. /Faith is a gift of God, given at the time of effectual calling where He enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly (quickening- I presume) to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone and giving to them a heart of flesh (in regeneration) and renewing their wills and determining them to that which is good (faith)
Then, those whom God effectually calls (above) He also freely justifies./..........I'm sure you can rattle of the rest by now. Sounds like good sound theology to me - these 1689 people.
Your cuppa must be adulterated coffee. Does not taste like original… white. ;-) (sorry! can't resist a dash of sanctified sarcasm- must be fr my ... younger days)
tom
