A Visit to Justification Town - 2i

Message 91
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:31:48 +080

Pastor Lau,

I think Keach and Gill are not in agreement on this point. Although in many points they are in agreement.

I've not once heard Keach said that justification is received in the conscience by faith (strange omission isn't it?). The PB are usually very precise in their wordings (so was Gill)- if they wanted to differentiate actual justification with declarative justification, using words like "Actual Justification is not before faith" to mean Declarative would be out of character.
Based on plain reading of Keach- that's precisely what he meant and it falls very well in line with the Confession statements. Justification by faith is the statement of the Reformers, and they don't mean Declarative. Nothing to argue with the Catholics about if it is Declarative. Keach and the Particular Baptists had no fight with the Reformers on Justification. Ames para 15 talked about Declarative, and hinted at Actual (please read carefully). Actual Justification before faith is the doctrine of the 'Antinomians' which the Particular Baptists are keen to distance themselves.

sorry for the abruptness of statements, in a hurry.

Tom
========

Message 92
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:51:58 +0800

Brother Tom,

Thanks for your opinions on Keach and Gill.

God, by His grace, freely justifying the elect when in their state of condemnation and death IS THE CAUSE.
They, the justified ones, receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness by faith IS THE EFFECT.

The CAUSE is distinct and separate and prior to the EFFECT. Read 1689.11.1 and it is abundantly clear.

Brother, unless and until you get these basic and fundamental points into your head, you will keep going on in your confusion
1. God imputing the righteousness of Christ to a person under the condemnation of death is Actual Justification. (an elect under the condemnation of death, i.e. unjustified, is dead and cannot possibly believe.)
2. God imputing the faith of a believer to him for righteousness is Declarative Justification. (An elect person who believes is already in the state of grace and salvation - justified, regenerated and adopted. Faith declares and attests to that fact)

If your faith is before justification (Actual), you have made faith a federal condition of justification (Actual), the error of which is roundly condemned and censured by Keach.

Keach and Gill did not have the modern problem to deal with, i.e. reformed people mistaking Declarative Justification by faith for Actual Justification by grace. They did write to counter the false accusations leveled against them: that Actual justification occurred in eternity, and that faith is not needed at all.

They replied and insisted on two points:
- that Actual Justification takes place in time... " nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them." 1689.11.1,4c
- that faith is absolutely necessary because it is the ALONE INSTRUMENT appointed by God to declare and attest the Actual Justification that has taken place by God's free grace. 1689.11.2

Justification by grace alone is the statement of the PBs. Faith is alone the instrument to declare and attest that free grace Justification is also the statement of the PB. You don't read anywhere in the Confession that Justification (Actual) is by faith, or faith alone. Read 1689.11. real slow

-- The Catholics insisted that Actual Justification is by Faith and Works.
-- The PBs insisted that Actual Justification is by grace alone, and faith is the ALONE instrument of justification, the alone instrument to declare and attest the Actual Justification by grace.
--The RBs insisted that Actual Justification is by Faith ONLY.

I suggest to you that 1689.11.1 is Actual Justification, 1689.11.2 is Declarative Justification.

You are still misled by the 'sight' and 'sound' of the word 'actually':
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)

'Actually' in what CONTEXT? Isn't this clearly in the context of Declarative justification? Read 1689.11.1 and see what role faith plays in the Actual Justification of a condemned man. It plays no role in Actual Justification. It is true that a justified man receives and rest in Christ and his righteousness. But that receiving and resting FORM NO PART of his Actual justification. It is the fruit and effect of the Actual justification.

The PBs were dealing with the pernicious misrepresentation that 'faith' is no longer needed because of their biblical doctrine that Actual justification is before and without faith - 1689.11.1. Faith receiving and resting in Christ and His righteousness is the EFFECT of Actual Justification.

The other pernicious misrepresentation they dealt with is Justification (Actual) occurred in eternity. They replied that no man is actually Justified "until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.(13)"

No man is justified UNTIL the Holy Spirit does in due time ACTUALLY apply Christ to him is in the CONTEXT of Actual Justification.
No man is justified UNTIL he ACTUALLY believes in Jesus Christ is in the CONTEXT of Declarative Justification.

These two are distinct and separate, the former precedes the latter, and the latter necessarily presupposed the former. May the Lord gives you eyes to see the difference even though the word 'ACTUALLY' appear in both of them. Brother, don't go by the *sound* and *sight* of a word. Go for the SENSE of a word and in its context. Either I am a poor pastor teacher, or I have a dull sheep.

I am dealing with a modern BUT no less pernicious error among the step-children of the PBs of mistaking and confounding the Declarative justification by faith for the Actual Justification by grace.

I hope you get the big picture by now.

That's my understanding. Thanks for sharing yours.

By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing

-------

Message 93
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:39:37 +0800
Subject: Keach's Confession of Faith 1697 - XIII Justification


Tom: I think Keach and Gill are not in agreement on this point. Although in many points they are in agreement.
I've not once heard Keach said that justification is received in the conscience by faith (strange omission isn't it?). The PB are usually very precise in their wordings (so was Gill)- if they wanted to differentiate actual justification with declarative justification, using words like "Actual Justification is not before faith" to mean Declarative would be out of character.
Based on plain reading of Keach- that's precisely what he meant and it falls very well in line with the Confession statements. Justification by faith is the statement of the Reformers, and they don't mean Declarative. Nothing to argue with the Catholics about if it is Declarative. Keach and the Particular Baptists had no fight with the Reformers on Justification. Ames para 15 talked about Declarative, and hinted at Actual (please read carefully). Actual Justification before faith is the doctrine of the 'Antinomians' which the Particular Baptists are keen to distance themselves.

-------
Brother Tom,

Actual Justification before faith is the doctrine of the Particular Baptists. Actual Justification in eternity is a doctrine of those commonly labelled as 'Antinomians.' The Particular Baptists who believed in Actual Justification by grace in time, and without and before faith, were wrongly and commonly caricatured and maligned as believing in Actual Justification in eternity. Therefore the PBs were keen to distance themselves from Antinomians.

Your observation that the PBs are usually very precise in their wordings is true indeed. That's is why you should read them with more care.

Actual Justification by grace is logically and chronologically PRIOR to Declarative Justification by faith. This is SO PLAINLY STATED in Keach's CoF, 1697.

Of Justification
XIII. We do believe Justification is a free Act of God's Grace, through that Redemption which is in Christ, (who, as our Head, was acquitted, justified, and discharged, and we in him, when he rose from the Dead) and when applied to us, we in our own Persons are actually justified, in being made and pronounced righteous, through the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us; and all our Sins, past, present, and to come, for ever pardoned; which is received by Faith alone. And that our Sanctification, nor Faith itself, is any part of our Justification before God; it not being either the Habit, or Act of Believing or any Act of Evangelical Obedience imputed to us, but Christ, and his active and passive Obedience only, apprehended by Faith: and that Faith in no sense tends to make Christ's Merits more satisfactory unto God; but that he was as fully reconciled and satisfied for his Elect in Christ by his Death before Faith as after; otherwise it would render God only reconcilable, (not reconciled) and make Faith part of the Payment or satisfaction unto God, and so lessen the Merits of Christ, as if they were defective or insufficient. Yet we say, it is by Faith that we receive the Atonement, or by which means (as an Instrument) we come to apprehend and receive him, and to have personal Interest in him, and to have our free Justification evidenced to our own Consciences.
(Rom 3:23-26; Eph 1:6,7; Tit 3:7; Rom 5:15-18; 1 Co 1:30; 2 Co 5:21; Acts 3:39; 2 Co 5:21; Phil 3:7-9; Rom 10:5)

I hope you have read Keach's word carefully.
The part I highlighted as red, ending with the word 'pardoned' and SEMICOLON (the PBs are VERY PRECISE in their punctuation too!) - this portion speaks of when an condemned ACTUALLY receives Actual Justification... when the righteousness of Christ is applied to him personally by God's free grace, when he was INCAPABLE of faith. (see 1689.11.4 - thrid aspect mentioned there). The semicolon (;) after the word 'pardoned' informs us that Actual Justification is distinct and separate and is prior to what follows. The CAUSE is distinct, separate and prior to the EFFECT. There is no place whatsoever for faith in the Actual Justification.

The few words after the SEMICOLON - 'which is received by Faith alone’ - this portion describes when a child of God ACTUALLY receives Declarative Justification... it is ONLY when by faith he receives the righteousness of Christ.

In the rest of the paragraphs he painstakingly excludes 'faith' from having the remotest role in the Actual Justification, and painstakingly acknowledges the absolute necessity of faith in the Declarative Justification.

You said, "I've not once heard Keach said that justification is received in the conscience by faith (strange omission isn't it?)."

In the Confession above, Keach declares, "Yet we say, it is by Faith that we receive the Atonement, or by which means (as an Instrument) we come to apprehend and receive him, and to have personal Interest in him, and to have our free Justification evidenced to our own Consciences." Keach plainly states here that our free Justification (i.e. Actual) is evidenced to our own Consciences by Faith. I don't know if this is exactly what you have in mind.
Now you have heard!


I have not read them saying "Actual Justification is not before faith." Those are your words - and I know what you want them to mean. I have read the PBs saying "Actual Justification rightly stated... proving, none of the elect are Actually Justified before Faith."

'Actual Justification' [as used by Buchanan, and clearly distinguished from Declarative Justification] is a technical term stating what God does in pronouncing a condemned dead person righteous... Actual Justification actually/really takes place in time, and not in eternity, by God's free grace and without faith.

Actual Justification by grace is logically and chronologically PRIOR to Declarative Justification by faith. I have read them saying "Actual Justification rightly stated... proving, none of the elect are Actually Justified before Faith" - This was written in answer to those who raised the objection against them and falsely attacked them as Antinomians, "that if justification is before faith, then faith is needless and useless." They write in reply, affirming that Actual Justification is before and without faith, and that Declarative Justification is by faith alone; therefore faith is NOT needless or useless. It is needful and useful, it being the alone instrument to declare and attest Actual Justification.

'Declarative Justification' actually takes place in time too, and by faith alone. Therefore no one is ACTUALLY Declared Justified until he believes - that is the subject dealt with in the 'Narrative.' The words 'Actual Justification' in the title is about when the Declarative Justification ACTUALLY happens, by faith, and not without or before faith. It is important to see the SENSE of the words used in its context... not their sound or sight.

May the Lord bless you to see the truth!

By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
---

Message 94
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:45:29 +0800
To:
Cc: SDC
Subject: keach and justification

Brother Tom, (and members of your church),

This is one last attempt to show you that you have gravely misunderstood Benjamin Keach, and remain in error.

You quoted Keach thus,

Quest. But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?
1. Yea as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another (as our author observes) in logic, if a creature be a man, he is a rational creature; or if God be the first cause, he is the _Creator of all things. and in this sense (saith he) 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 connexion_, a state of grace, is thus a condition of a state of glory, by way of connexion in the promise, but one is not the federal condition of another, but both come in as the gift of grace. In this sense the covenant contains all the conditions of order and dependence in the exhibition and performance; the hearing the word is the condition of faith, but hearing is not a federal condition; so the giving the Spirit is the condition of our union with Christ and of faith, and faith the condition of our receiving of pardon, and living a holy life - and holiness the condition of seeing God, and of having eternal life; but these kinds of conditions are federal entitling conditions to the promise, but are contained in the promise, and denote the connexion and dependence of one promise benefit with another.

2. Though faith be required of them that are saved, yea, and repentance, regeneration, holiness, and a new heart also; yet these blessings are all promised in the covenant, as part thereof. but faith itself is no federal condition, but only serves to show what God will do for, and work in such that he as an act of free grace will save.

From hence we may see how woefully blind they are, who assert faith, repentance, and sincere obedience are not only federal conditions of justification, but also are the matter or material cause thereof. And this is to buy the pearl indeed with our own money.

[empahsis bold is mine, sing]
------------

First, let me say that I don't claim to understand everything Keach said in the quotes above. However, certain things are quite plain and without controversy.

Let me make one final attempt to reason with you concerning what Keach said is the biblical relationship between faith and actual justification.

Keach mentioned at least THREE ways in which faith is seen as related to Justification.

1. Faith is understood by some as the "matter or material cause" of justification. Simply stated, this view elevates faith to the same level with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Of course, you are wise enough to reject this as error. Those who see faith in this manner is described by Keach as 'woefully blind' concerning the gospel truth of Justification.

This view may be indicated as: Righteousness of Christ AND Faith -- Justification


2. Faith is seen by others as the "federal condition" of Justification. Faith is a necessary condition that the unjustified condemned dead sinner must have in order to be justified before God. This view does distinguish faith from the righteousness of Christ, but this view insists that there must be faith first before the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the condemned for his justification before God. From all that you have written, I understand that you hold to this view.

Keach plainly declares, "faith itself is no federal condition." Those who see faith in this manner is described by Keach as 'woefully blind' concerning the gospel truth of Justification. How woefully blind they are who assert that faith is a federal condition of justification - only the woefully blind believe that the unjustified condemned person can meet this federal condition.

This view may be indicated as: Faith -- Righteousness of Christ imputed -- Justification (Faith is the federal condition of Justification before God).

All your reading of Keach has not led you to the truth. Instead, you have misrepresented Keach in many ways.


3. Faith is seen by Keach as the "condition of connexion by way of order" of Justification. Put simply, faith is a condition of connection by way of order to declare and attest the Justification that has taken place by God's free grace. In exactly the same SENSE, faith is a condition of connection by way of order to declare and attest the eternal life that has been born by God's free grace. Faith is a condition to show or manifest justification and eternal life… SO SIMPLE.

This view may be indicated as: Righteousness of Christ imputed -- Actual Justification + Eternal Life -- Faith (the instrument) -- Declarative Justification (attesting and declaring the Actual Justification and Eternal life already bestowed by God's free grace.)

SDC holds to this third view.


God, by His grace, freely justifying the elect when in their state of condemnation and death IS THE CAUSE.
They, the justified ones, receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness by faith IS THE EFFECT.
The CAUSE is distinct and separate and prior to the EFFECT. Read 1689.11.1 and it is abundantly clear.

Brother, unless and until you get these basic and fundamental points into your head, you will keep going on in your confusion.
1. God imputing the righteousness of Christ to a person under the condemnation of death is Actual Justification. (an elect under the condemnation of death, i.e. unjustified, is dead and cannot possibly believe.)
2. God imputing the faith of a believer to him for righteousness is Declarative Justification. (An elect person who believes Declares and Attests that he is already in the state of grace and salvation - justified, regenerated and adopted. Faith declares and attests to that fact)

If your faith is before justification (Actual), you have made faith a federal condition of justification (Actual), the error of which is roundly condemned and censured by Keach.

A representative of the early Particular Baptist and respected by Calvinistic men of other denominations declared, "... no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes." And this is nothing about Actual Justification by grace. This is all about Declarative Justification by faith.

Thanks for listening. I have discharged my duty.

sing
"And some believed the things which were spoken,
and some believed not" Acts 28:24

----------

Message 95
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:31:41 +0800
To: Tom's church
Cc: SDC
Subject: A Circular Letter on Justification by Philadelphia Baptist Association in 1785

Members of ... Church, and Brother Tom particularly,

You may wish to read a Circular Letter on Justification issued by the Philadelphia Baptist Association (with the 1689 BCoF as its doctrinal standard) - the first and the most influential Baptist Association of Particular Baptist churches in North America - to all its member churches in Oct 1785. The whole Letter is pasted below after my signature. It is also attached.

I quote a short paragraph here:
Third. Our justification is by some ascribed to faith as an instrumental cause. Strictly speaking, we apprehend faith as no cause at all in this momentous procedure, but rather an effect. It is true, the scriptures frequently mention a justification by faith. By such expressions it is evident the object, and not the act, of faith is designed; the object of faith is Christ and his righteousness; this the believing soul lays fast hold on. Faith is the eye which discovers, the hand which receives; espying a Saviour's worth, charmed with his merit, the believer is so enraptured as to cast away all his heavy burden, falls at Messiah's feet, confides in the promise, and pleads atoning blood: "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness," Rom. x. 10. It is beautifully noticed by one of our very first and most orthodox writers. "The reason why any are justified is not because they have faith; but the reason why they have faith is because they are justified." If justified faith as a work performed by us or a grace wrought within us; where would have been the necessity of the death and resurrection of Jesus? Faith is that precious grace, by which we do in a certain manner put on the righteousness of the Lord's anointed, and receive the greatest of all blessings from the God of our salvation. "It is grace (saith one) which quarrels much with human pride and make its only boast of Sharon's rose; and never was meant to be our justifying righteousness in the sight of God, else it would learn to boast." Faith says, "In the Lord have I righteousness;" and tells a sinner, "I cannot save thee; thou are saved by grace through faith." The grace of Jesus, and that alone brings salvation; and the sinner, through faith as an instrument, puts in his hand, is enabled to reach the rich donation; just as a beggar, by his empty cap stretched forth, receives an alms. We proceed,"
[red bold emphasis mine, sing]

May the Lord enlighten you what the Particular Baptist forefather DID ACTUALLY believe. Whether you agree with them or not is a separate matter.

[The complete article is found online… so not included here.]

By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
---


Concluding remark:

Relative to the doctrine of justification, Particular Baptists have two classes of opponents in history

The contemporary opponents of the Particular Baptists (Framers of the 1689 CoF) wrongfully accused them of holding to Eternal Justification (Actual/Personal/Vital Justification took place in eternity) because they believed that Actual/Personal/Vital Justification is by grace, without and before faith. The elect were justified legally when “Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification.” “Nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.” [1689.11.4] Because the PBs believe in Actual Justification in time before and without faith, they were also wrongfully accused of denying the necessity of faith in Declarative Justification.

They refuted these misguided accusations by stating that Actual Justification is by God’s free grace applied to each elect in time, without and before faith. NEVERTHELESS, they also insist that “no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes” (Gill). They slandered the Particular Baptists as Antinomians because they believed in Actual Justification by God's grace and without and before faith.

The new opponents of the Particular Baptists (Framers of the 1689 CoF) are somewhat different. These new opponents (the 'standard reformed' folks) of the Particular Baptists are ignorant of the distinction between Actual Justification by God’s free grace and the Declarative Justification by the believer’s faith. This ignorance causes them to grievously mistake the Particular Baptists’ teaching on the Declarative Justification by faith as Actual Justification before God by faith. These new opponents are COMPLETELY ignorant that the Particular Baptists held to a clear distinction between Actual Justification by God’s free grace and Declarative Justification by believer’s faith. The few who seem to appreciate the distinction, cannot distinguish God’s free grace as the CAUSE of Actual Justification from the believer’s faith as the EFFECT and fruit of that Actual Justification by God’s free grace.

These new opponents similarly slander and malign the true descendants of the Particular Baptists who believe in Actual Justification without and before faith as Antinomians. These modern opponents are as woefully blind [Keach’s words] to the biblical truth of Actual Justification by God's free grace. They are acquainted with only the Declarative/Evidential Justification by their faith – and even this they mistake it as their Actual/Personal Justification before God by their faith.

All this is despite the fact that a representative old school theologian stated it so clearly: "Actual Justification comes first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative; and hence, if any one is declared to have been justified [i.e. by faith], we conclude that he was actually justified [i.e. by grace], or accepted as righteous in the sight of God." (Buchanan.)

A Visit to Justification Town - 2h

Message 81
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:59:44 +0800

Dear Pastor Lau,

For the sake of being objective, let me put on your glasses and try read Keach's statements the way you do: i.e.

“I understand Keach answer as, "The gospel requires faith as a condition to declare and attest and prove justification and
eternal life."

Therefore: "Yea, faith is a condition to declare and attest and prove justification and eternal life (by way of order), and in this sense creation is a condition to declare, attest and prove salvation..."

It is not about declaring or attesting or evidencing- it is by way of order. The pieces are put in place- faith is one of those pieces that God has placed as a condition of connection, in a particular order. So Effectual calling (quickening, regeneration, faith) - justification - sanctification - glorification: by way of order Faith is there purely by way of order (not causality) God has ordained that for faith to be given and manifested before justification and eternal life is actually and fully given to the elect.

Keach's analogy: If a man is to be Actually justified faith must be there in this order: Faith - Justification - Eternal life If a man is to be Saved, he must first be created in this order: Creation (existence) - salvation

There is no contradiction to the CoF. I fear you are the one jumping to conclusion the moment you read justification-faith being in the same sentence, viz /it has to mean declarative otherwise there goes my theology!! ;-)

Please read Keach again, not as if Keach is writing a systematic theology book, but as a preacher to his congregation in plain English.

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.

To the ears of his (Keach) hearers, "if a man believe, he shall be saved" means just that. Do you honestly think that his hearers will understand him to mean, "if you believe it is an evidence that you have already be saved"? (just in case you are ready to draw your 'temporal salvation' guns- note the question refers to eternal life).

simple-minded pew hearer
Tom


Message 82
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:02:32 +0800

Brother Tom,

I hope you are not tired of reading. I have devoted much attention to write. Reciprocate and express your disagreement freely where needed. Have more white coffee to say alert...

> 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)?

Actual justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ by God's free grace. Faith receives and rests on Christ and His righteousness. Faith receives and rests on Christ and His righteousness declares and attests the prior Justification (Actual) of the person by God's free grace.

Faith that receives and rests in Christ and His righteousness DECLARES and ATTESTS and PROVES that the Actual Justification, Regeneration and Adoption HAVE taken place at effectual call to grace and salvation. None other can exercise faith for Declarative Justification. This is self-evident, too, I thought.

tom: God imputes, faith receives the righteousness of Christ- all happened at Actual Justification.

This is where the problem lies – ‘God imputes… faith receives… all happened at Actual Justification.’
Imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Actual justification) MUST necessarily logically and chronologically precede the reception of the righteousness of Christ. Here is the plain reason:
Christ's righteousness is imputed to a CONDEMNED, DEAD ALIEN sinner. Without it, he is under the condemnation of death and remains in spiritual death. There is no possibility of believing in that state.

When Christ's righteousness is imputed (applied i.e.), an elect is regenerated and adopted, and given the Holy Spirit to dwell in him. The resident Spirit works the graces of salvation in this child of God... When he hears the gospel... he receives and rests in the good news of what God has done.

Isn't it obvious in all this that Actual justification is BEFORE and WITHOUT your faith... since Actual justification occurs logically prior to your regeneration, and chronologically to your receiving and resting in Christ and His righteousness through the ministry of the word??????? Why is it so hard to believe?

For Abraham, Actual justification happened in Ur when God called him out of his state of sin and death. His Declarative justification took place in Gen 15... he receives and rests in the good news of the promised seed.

tom: 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.

All very true... but you and I understand the last quite differently.
Faith is the means/instrument to declare and attest and evidence our Actual Justification. Faith which receives and rests in Christ is a faith that lays hold on Christ's merits, such faith is the instrument that declares and attests our Actual Justification.
Faith is the means of your Declarative Justification.
Faith is the means/instrument to declare and attest and evidence your Actual Justification.
[Actual Justification -- Faith -- Declarative Justification. Faith points backwards to past Actual Justification, and forward to present Declarative Justification.]

With all due respect, if you don't know the difference between the two last statements, then remember that "distinction is the essence of sound theology."

tom: 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)

Faith is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and His righteousness. As an instrument, faith declares and manifests the Actual justification that has taken place. If there had been no prior Actual justification, such a person would still be in the state of condemnation and death - with no possibility of faith.

tom: 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)

This is Declarative Justification BY FAITH... stated in the CONTEXT of battling against those who falsely accused and slandered them of believing Actual Justification in eternity (they did believe in Decretal justification in eternity, Legal Justification at the cross, Actual Justification at effectual call by God's free grace WITHOUT and BEFORE faith). Actual Justification by the free grace of God at effectual calling WAS NEVER disputed among them - it was a settled truth. It was not an issue with the Framers of the 1689 CoF – [even though they were grievously misrepresented to believe in Actual Justification in eternity – i.e. Eternal Justification.]

However this plain and biblical truth of Actual Justification by God's free grace alone has been misunderstood and mistaken by many standard reformed folks. They misunderstand and mistake Actual Justification by God's free grace as Declarative Justification by their faith. This is the CAUSE of much the inconsistencies and confusion, and serious errors.

tom: 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 ef-fect. Faith precedes justification as the instrumental cause, laying hold of the righteousness of Christ from which justification being appre-hended 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.

Do you know what is meant by - "But NOT in the absolute sense of Christ's being the cause of vocation"? Brother, I sometimes wonder whether you actually study what you quoted. Do you actually study what you quoted? I hope you don't mind me asking. Let's think through slowly. You are an intelligent thinking man - at least to me.

What does "But NOT in the absolute sense of Christ's being the cause of vocation" imply? What is your answer? Would you read my suggestion carefully. You did say... the PB and Puritans worded their words VERY carefully. You should give it the same care in reading them.

To me, it implies that the justification spoken of is NOT Actual Justification, why?
FOR Actual Justification "comes about because of Christ in the absolute sense of Christ's being the cause of vocation" (i.e. effectual calling), Actual Justification takes place at effectual calling.

Declarative Justification "comes about because of Christ, BUT NOT in the absolute sense of Christ's being the cause of vocation" Put simply, it is Declarative Justification being spoken of. It is the Declarative Justification that comes by the apprehending of Christ BY FAITH.

Your quote says "Faith follows calling as an effect." Why? This is because at calling (i.e. effectual calling out of sin and death to grace and salvation), justification (Actual) regeneration and adoption occurs by God's free grace. A justified (Actual), regenerated and adopted elect has the Holy Spirit residing in him, working the grace of faith, thus enabling him to believe. Faith follows effectual call as an effect, THEREFORE Actual Justification have to be WITHOUT and BEFORE your believing. "Faith is a grace in the person justified (Actual)." 1689.11.2.

Your quote further says, "Faith precedes justification as the instrumental cause."
Yes, faith PRECEDES Declarative Justification as the instrumental cause.
But faith FOLLOWS Actual Justification as an effect.
Distinction is the essence of sound theology - always remember this.
You should know the difference whether you agree or not.

Your quote says, "from which justification being apprehended follows; //therefore, righteousness is said to be from faith, Rom. 9:30; 10:6." Declarative justification follows faith... Through faith, Declarative Justification is apprehended; the experience of our righteousness before God is through the instrument of faith. Yes, Declarative Justification is by faith.

tom: 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.

You are quite mistaken, and confidently deceived. I do think you need these blunt words to wake you up a bit. Let me explain.

Statement 14 is about Declarative Justification, followed by
Statement 15 that defines the kind of faith that is required for Declarative Justification.

The faith that secures Declarative Justification is NOT the general faith... what theologians term as 'historical faith.'

This kind of 'general faith... belongs NOT ONLY to those who are justified' (Actual) BUT ALSO to those who are UN-justified (Actual), i.e. still in the state of condemnation and dead in sin. Some among those still dead in sins and trespasses also possess this kind of general faith. But this historical faith does not justify (Declarative). [Why? It is not a fruit of Actual Justification.]

This kind of 'general faith'... by its very nature is devoid of "any force to justify (Declarative), nor produce the effects which are everywhere in Scripture given to justifying (Declarative) faith." Justifying faith receives and rests in Christ and His righteousness, and is accompanied with all other saving grace." 1689.11.2.

You have just shot yourself in your own feet. You said, "Statement 15 is Declarative Justification by faith." But Statement 15 EXPLICITLY speaks of "justifying faith" - the very kind of faith necessary for Declarative Justification. Look at Statement 15 closely. You also said, "Statement 14 is Actual Justification - by (justifying) faith." In making this statement, you have just contradicted yourself and Statement 15.

The truth is quite simple.
Actual Justification is by God's free grace when an elect was condemned and dead.
Declarative justification is by the faith of a child of God receiving and resting in Christ and His righteousness.

Remember I asked before... what is the difference between your 'justifying faith' in Actual Justification and your 'faith' in Declarative Justification. [You have not answered yet.]

Hello Brother, take off your coloured glasses, and enjoy your … white coffee.

tom: 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.

With all due respect, you are honestly mistaken. You will say the same to me... and that's the sadness of it all, sanctified sarcasm and all.

tom: 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).

Faith is found in a person whom God HAS justified (Actual), regenerated and adopted. He believes in order to be justified (Declarative). The order is still Actual Justification - Regeneration - Adoption & Spirit of adoption - Faith worked in the heart by the Spirit enables one to believe - Declarative Justification.

tom: 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.

Effectual call to grace and salvation involves the WHOLE PACKAGE of Justification (Actual), Regeneration and Adoption - read 1689.10-13. Don't skip... note the logical sequence.
- Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,(1) by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation...
- Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth...
- All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption... (adoption presupposes regeneration... can't adopt that which is not born!!!)
- They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them...

ONLY - ONLY - ONLY the effectually called - justified (Actual), regenerated and adopted, having a new heart and mind has the ability to believe. Do you accept this plain biblical truth summarized in the 1689?
The EVIDENCE is quite plain and simple: Actual Justification is BEFORE regeneration... THEREFORE must be BEFORE faith. But you insist in rejecting it.

May I say, shame on you if you reject such plain and obvious evidence from your Church Doctrinal Standard, which is a faithful summary of the teaching of Scriptures.

I am done, saying more would be foolish of me. To continue is tedious for me, and I believe, for you too. May our Lord lead me to the truth is my humble prayer.

Thanks for the exchanges.

sing
"And some believed the things which were spoken,
and some believed not" Acts 28:24


Message 83
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:22:54 +0800
Subject: Keach is an Arminian???

> 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.”

Brethren,

Sorry for the subject title... a attention seeking gimmick.

Any way, Keach asked and answered as above. Could anyone shed some light on what he meant. Just say anything... to kick start the thinking and study process.

'If a man be saved, he must be created.' What is the creation here? Birth or new birth?
"And in this sense creation is a condition of salvation.” What is the creation' here?

If I understand 'faith' as a condition of justification and eternal life this way:
Vital Justification and Regeneration -- FAITH -- Justification evidenced and Eternal Life manifested;

How should I understand 'creation' as a condition of salvation, i.e. as a condition of connection by way of order?
Could it be this: Salvation secured -- CREATION new -- Salvation applied and manifested?

Just say anything you can... even the most outrageous...

Is Keach speaking gibberish? (what an impudent Q from a Chinese lad!) May be I am!!!

sing
-----

Message 84
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:30:52 +0800

Brother Tom,

tom:For the sake of being objective, let me put on your glasses and try read Keach's statements the way you do: i.e.

I get real worried when you want to be objective, and put on my 'glasses.' I thought you deserve a reply for your objectivity.

sing: I understand Keach answer as, "The gospel requires faith as a condition to declare and attest and prove justification and eternal life."

Yes, this is what I have said, and I will show you that the rest of what Keach said in his Ans. is in PERFECT and OBJECTIVE harmony with this... just keep on my 'glasses' to your eyes... don't put on yours just yet.

tom: Therefore: "Yea, faith is a condition to declare and attest and prove justification and eternal life (by way of order), and in this sense creation is a condition to declare, attest and prove salvation..."

You are EXACTLY right my brother. You are OBJECTIVE and LOGICAL here... and I believe for once you are honest with Keach's words. But the reason you REJECT the simple truth that your LOGIC and REASON compel you to state is because of your deficient and inadequate understanding of the doctrine of salvation that Keach and other signers understood, and your mistaking the meaning of 'creation.' The explanation is simple, if you will accept it.

Let's recall the Q & A again:
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.

Keach Quest: "But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?
My answer: Yes, most certainly! The gospel does require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life.

My question: In what sense does the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?
My answer: "The gospel requires faith as a condition of connection to declare and attest and prove justification and eternal life."
Your answer, if I gather rightly, would be something like: "The gospel requires faith as a condition of necessity to obtain justification and eternal life." Correct me if I state your CONVICTION inaccurately.

My question: In what sense - as 'a condition of connection by way of order' - is creation a condition of salvation?
Before answering, we need to settle one thing:
- what is the 'creation' as a condition of salvation? The statement, 'if a man be saved, he must be created' provides the answer. '... if a man be saved' presupposes that that man already exist. Then the 'creation' is none other than the new creation/new birth at the "effectual calling to grace and salvation" of that man (1689.10.1). By this creation, the salvation that has been legally secured for that man by Christ at the cross, is applied to him personally. Without this creation, there is no application of the salvation to him personally; and when there is no application of the salvation to him personally, there would be no declaration and attestation of the salvation that had been secured for him by Christ at the cross.
My answer then: In the same sense that faith as a condition of justification and eternal life - the gospel requires creation (new birth) as a condition to declare and attest and prove the salvation that was already secured."

Just as
FAITH is the condition of justification and eternal life,
EVEN SO, IN THE SAME SENSE,
CREATION is a condition of salvation secured.

Justification (Actual) & Eternal Life -- FAITH -- Justification declared & Eternal Life Manifested.
***Without FAITH there is NO declaration and attestation of the prior Justification (Actual) and Eternal Life. Faith is a necessary condition for that purpose. ***

EVEN SO...

Salvation Secured (by Christ for all His elect) -- CREATION -- Salvation Applied (to an elect personally).
***Without CREATION there is NO declaration and attestation of the prior Salvation secured by Christ for the elect. Creation is a condition for that purpose. ***

FAITH is a condition of CONNECTION by way of order...
FAITH is a condition that CONNECTS Actual Justification & Eternal Life on the one hand and Justification Declared & Eternal Life Manifested on the other.

CREATION is a condition of CONNECTION by way of order...
CREATION is a condition that CONNECTS Salvation Secured Legally on the one hand and Salvation Applied Personally on the other.

Salvation Secured (by Christ at the cross) requires CREATION as a condition – of connection by way of order – to declare and attest that the Salvation was already secured.
Salvation Applied (Justification and Eternal Life) requires FAITH as a condition - of connection by way of order - to declare and attest that the Salvation is already applied.

Salvation Secured Legally -- CREATION/NEW BIRTH -- Salvation Applied Personally -- FAITH -- Salvation Declared.

tom: It is not about declaring or attesting or evidencing- it is by way of order. The pieces are put in place- faith is one of those pieces that God has placed as a condition of connection, in a particular order. So Effectual calling (quickening, regeneration, faith) - justification - sanctification - glorification: by way of order Faith is there purely by way of order (not causality) God has ordained that for faith to be given and manifested before justification and eternal life is actually and fully given to the elect.

The 1689 says: Effectual calling embraces Justification (Actual), Regeneration and Adoption... by way of ORDER.

Yours is by way of DISORDER! You refuse the plain ORDER stated there.
In your 'way of order', faith as the CONNECTOR is not only in the WRONG PLACE... it serves the WRONG PURPOSE.

In your 'way of order', you puts faith as a condition of eternal life. I am really surprised and puzzled that a RB man ended up embracing this thoroughly unbiblical and utterly Arminian idea. And it is a nonsense by any common sense: a man without eternal life can't possibly act spiritually in order to obtain eternal life. One might as well get a physically dead man to do something, like winking his eye, in order for him to receive life!

tom: Keach's analogy: If a man is to be Actually justified faith must be there in this order: Faith - Justification - Eternal life

If you insist in saying that Keach believes that Faith precedes eternal life, since faith is a condition of Eternal life, then you have contradicted all that he affirmed in the 1689.

A consistent and harmonious interpretation is this: Keach says that Faith must be there for the declaration and attestation of Justification (Actual) and Eternal life by the free grace of God.

The order is this:
Justification (Actual) & Eternal Life -- FAITH -- Justification (Actual) & Eternal Life DECLARED and attested. Without Faith, there is no declaration and attestation of Justification (Actual) and Eternal life by free grace ALONE.

tom: If a man is to be Saved, he must first be created in this order: Creation (existence) - salvation

"If a man is to be saved" presupposes that the man already IS... so the creation spoken of can only be the new creation in Christ at the effectual call to grace and salvation.

tom: There is no contradiction to the CoF. I fear you are the one jumping to conclusion the moment you read justification-faith being in the same sentence, viz /it has to mean declarative otherwise there goes my theology!! ;-)

You insist that Keach believe that Faith is a condition to Actual Justification and Eternal Life, in this you have plainly and openly made Keach to CONTRADICT what he publicly affirmed to be his beliefs in the CoF

Justification by the faith OF Christ is Actual Justification.
Justification by the believer's faith IN Christ is Declarative Justification, the faith declaring and attesting to the Actual Justification and Eternal Life by free grace.
I fear you failing to rightly divide the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.

tom: Please read Keach again, not as if Keach is writing a systematic theology book, but as a preacher to his congregation in plain English.

And you keep arguing from his sermon to contradict his public statement of faith in the 1689. Shouldn't you be understanding his sermons in light of what he stated publicly and solemnly as his confession of faith???

Why do you insist on interpreting Keach to believe something - faith is a condition to eternal life - that is openly repudiated and rejected by the 1689 Confession (of which Keach was a chief mover and signer), that is so against reason and common sense, and so contrary to Holy Scriptures? Scripture repeatedly say, 'whoever believes HAS eternal life' - i.e. one believes because he has eternal life. You believe the reverse, and insist on making Keach believe as you do.

I find it very curious that you persist in rejecting a simple and consistent alternative way of understanding Keach.

tom: To the ears of his (Keach) hearers, "if a man believe, he shall be saved" means just that. Do you honestly think that his hearers will understand him to mean, "if you believe it is an evidence that you have already be saved"? (just in case you are ready to draw your 'temporal salvation' guns- note the question refers to eternal life).

The truth is that only those effectually called to eternal life shall hear and believe is an ACCEPTED truth in Keach's time. The Arminian's lie is universally condemned. The reverse would be true today. Today, even RBs believe that a spiritually dead person in a state of condemnation [i.e. without eternal life] can believe in order to have eternal life.

The world has certainly changed, hasn't it???

You have taught me much through these exchanges, and I do want to thank you heartily for it.

[I am sending this because I am including this reply in the booklet. ]

sing
"And some believed the things which were spoken,
and some believed not" Acts 28:24


Message 85
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:21:29 -0600
Subject: Keach is an Arminian???

Dear Brother in the Far East,

For several months now I have not had any time to read FGF posts (much less respond), but your "attention seeking gimmick" of a subject line worked and I took a look at your post.

I don’t have a ready answer to your questions concerning the particular meaning of Keach in the passages you cite, but I am appending some things I gleaned a few years ago from some of Keach’s writings which may prove useful. While Keach and his brethren denied salvation apart from faith, they were not Arminians, placing faith before the new birth. As all non-Arminians, they placed the new birth prior to faith and all other spiritual graces.

The following is from Keach's Confession of Faith of 1697.

Of Justification
XIII. We do believe Justification is a free Act of God's Grace, through that Redemption which is in Christ, (who, as our Head, was acquitted, justified, and discharged, and we in him, when he rose from the Dead) and when applied to us, we in our own Persons are actually justified, in being made and pronounced righteous, through the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us; and all our Sins, past, present, and to come, for ever pardoned; which is received by Faith alone. And that our Sanctification, nor Faith itself, is any part of our Justification before God; it not being either the Habit, or Act of Believing or any Act of Evangelical Obedience imputed to us, but Christ, and his active and passive Obedience only, apprehended by Faith: and that Faith in no sense tends to make Christ's Merits more satisfactory unto God; but that he was as fully reconciled and satisfied for his Elect in Christ by his Death before Faith as after; otherwise it would render God only reconcilable, (not reconciled) and make Faith part of the Payment or satisfaction unto God, and so lessen the Merits of Christ, as if they were defective or insufficient. Yet we say, it is by Faith that we receive the Atonement, or by which means (as an Instrument) we come to apprehend and receive him, and to have personal Interest in him, and to have our free Justification evidenced to our own Consciences.
(Rom 3:23-26; Eph 1:6,7; Tit 3:7; Rom 5:15-18; 1 Co 1:30; 2 Co 5:21; Acts 3:39; 2 Co 5:21; Phil 3:7-9; Rom 10:5)

On page 24 of his book, A medium betwixt two extremes, Benjamin Keach wrote,

“Tho we say that righteousness is not imputed to the actual and personal justification of any man till he has actual union with Christ; yet I deny that faith in order of nature is before union (or at least before the reception of the spirit in order to union) tho not as to time; for Christ takes hold of us before we can take hold of him; also faith is a fruit of the Spirit; and sure the seed must be sown before there can be fruit. We are passive in regeneration, but not in the act of Faith."

He says on page 33 of this same book that God, “gives his Spirit to regenerate the soul, and to work faith in us". [In this sense alone is faith a gift of God.]

On page 10 of his book, The marrow of true justification, Keach wrote concerning the Dutch Arminians and their erroneous doctrine:

“they do not own faith to be the gift of God, or a grace of the Holy Spirit; but that which the Creature has power, when the gospel is preached, to act by common assistance, and influences, he hath power to do, and perform as any other duties of religion, as to pray, hear the Word, etc. And thus they make the whole stress of Man's Salvation (after all that Christ hath done) to depend upon the depraved and corrupt will of the creature; and faith, such a condition of justification and eternal life, as may or may not be performed, which, if true, it might so fall out, that not one soul might be saved, not withstanding the precious price, paid by Jesus Christ to redeem them"

I hope these passages are helpful.

May God Bless,

Vince


Message 86
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:04:42 +0800

Brother Vince,

I was about to despair and grow restless that the true descendants of the early Particular Baptists could not be relied upon to defend one of their forebears from the attacks of the misguided folks...

Non-Arminian would agree that new birth is prior to faith and all other spiritual graces. They would insist that new birth is prior to Actual justification – i.e. regeneration happens before Actual condemnation is removed in Actual justification.

Your quote is very helpful. Is 'The Marrow of True Justification" from which you culled your last quote below available on the Internet? That quote have words that nearly matched the question at hand - "... and faith, such a condition of justification and eternal life."

I would be grateful if you can send me privately Keach Confession of Faith - 1697.

Keach asked: But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?
A misguided son will answer: Yes, the gospel requires faith as a condition of justification and eternal life.
Keach answered: 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.

I believe Keach's answer mean this:
Salvation Decreed
Christ’s 1st Coming as a condition of connection by way of order
Salvation Secured
Creation (new birth) as a condition of connection by way of order
Salvation Applied (Justification, Eternal Life)
FAITH as a condition of connection by way of order
Salvation Declared and Attested.
Christ’s 2nd Coming as a condition of connection by way of order
Salvation Consummated

Thank you for your wonderful help.

sing


Message 87
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:36:32 +0800

Pastor Lau,

I believe you are greatly mistaken about Creation = new birth. That is not what Keach was referring to. If my truncated quote has misled you, my apologies, but let me quote him in full. (sorry for the long mail)

Quote (from Benjamin Keach)
Obj. But does not faith, repentance, &c., purchase, or buy the pearl?
1. How can faith, &c., be said to purchase Christ, when it and repentance both are given as a free gift of God? Alas, we receive both these graces at the hand of God, and as a fruit of the Spirit, a man receives the Spirit, and so Christ takes hold of him before he can apprehend Christ, or actually receive him; and faith is not of ourselves, though it is the sinner that believes, as it was Lazarus that lived, and the life he had was his life, but yet it was a life in a supernatural manner given to him.
2. God bids us believe; so Christ bid Lazarus come forth out of the grave; he that commands us to believe, hath promised to give that grace to his elect, by which they shall believe, and Christ takes hold of him; God receives nothing of our hands, but all is given unto us freely.

Quest. But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?
1. Yea as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another (as our author observes) in logic, if a creature be a man, he is a rational creature; or if God be the first cause, he is the _Creator of all things. and in this sense (saith he) 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 connexion_, a state of grace, is thus a condition of a state of glory, by way of connexion in the promise, but one is not the federal condition of another, but both come in as the gift of grace. In this sense the covenant contains all the conditions of order and dependence in the exhibition and performance; the hearing the word is the condition of faith, but hearing is not a federal condition; so the giving the Spirit is the condition of our union with Christ and of faith, and faith the condition of our receiving of pardon, and living a holy life - and holiness the condition of seeing God, and of having eternal life; but these kinds of conditions are federal entitling conditions to the promise, but are contained in the promise, and denote the connexion and dependence of one promise benefit with another.

2. Though faith be required of them that are saved, yea, and repentance, regeneration, holiness, and a new heart also; yet these blessings are all promised in the covenant, as part thereof. but faith itself is no federal condition, but only serves to show what God will do for, and work in such that he as an act of free grace will save.

From hence we may see how woefully blind they are, who assert faith, repentance, and sincere obedience are not only federal conditions of justification, but also are the matter or material cause thereof. And this is to buy the pearl indeed with our own money.
------End of quote-------

Keach is saying:
Faith is a 'condition' by way of connection, NOT as a federal condition of justification, Nor matter or material cause.
This is entirely agreeable: Faith is not the Grounds or Source or Efficient cause of our Justification, but the Instrumental means whereby the imputed righteousness is _received_ by the beggarly hand of faith.
Faith does not /entitle/ a sinner to justification and salvation, but is required to be there in that order. It is all of grace because even that faith is given unto us freely. There is no mention of assurance of salvation or declarative justification in those statement of Keach. Please read again carefully and objectively.

Your statement below (quoted here for your reference) is surely not what is meant by Keach's answer:

"Then the 'creation' is none other than the new creation/new birth at the "effectual calling to grace and salvation" of that man (1689.10.1). By this creation, the salvation that has been legally secured for that man by Christ at the cross is applied to him personally. Without this creation, there is no application of the salvation to him personally; and when there is no application of the salvation to him personally, there would be no declaration and attestation of the salvation that had been secured for him by Christ at the cross."

Creation (being born) - be saved [in this order]
Faith - be saved [in this order].
Faith is connected to salvation, eternal life being bestowed , justification in the sense that it has to be present before all these things are bestowed. Hence, if you read the confession of faith carefully, Effectually calling has all the terminology of Regeneration/New Birth and then faith.

[the confession makes plain and clear distinction between effectual calling and regeneration... see 1689.13.1... folks just DON'T WANT to accept the distinction. sing]

So Keach is not contradicting the 1689 statement of faith he signed.
Regeneration/New Birth – faith. Therefore it is not true (and perhaps you have unwittingly created a straw-man) that RB believe that an unregenerate person can believe. Of course an unregenerate man cannot believe. [If that is so, then, he must be given ETERNAL LIFE IN ORDER TO BELIEVE!... . But you are insisting that Keach say that faith is a condition to have eternal life... and adamantly reject the simple truth that faith is a condition to evidence and manifest the eternal life... sing]

Your position is perhaps more conflicting (although a serious error-I refrain from using the word 'heresy'; although you have considered a caricature of my view a 'heresy'! :-D ) in that a person before faith is both condemned and justified at the same time?? /he that believeth not is condemned already (John 3.18) /i.e. a person before faith, remains under the sentence of condemnation passed in Adam upon him; the law accuses him, and pronounces him guilty before God; he is under the curse of it. I have no desire to win battles, nor 'teach' any man. The /Brethren/ often call it 'sharing' - this is precisely what I'm hoping is the case here i.e. sharing what I've read. Please do not misjudge my intention.

Before you publish yet another book on this- please obtain a copy of the Narrative: "Actual Justification rightly stated containing a true narrative of a sad schism made in a church of Christ at Kilby in Leicestershire proving, none of the elect are Actually Justified before Faith"
(I have a bad copy which I'm trying hard to reproduce into a word document- when it is done I'll send you a copy. It may persuade you that Justification before faith is not the view of the Particular Baptists- they actually wrote against it.)

Tom


Message 88
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:02:33 +0800

Pastor Lau,
Responding to your statement (I quote, in italics):

/Faith is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and His righteousness. As an instrument, faith declares and manifests the Actual justification that has taken place. If there had been no prior Actual justification, such a person would still be in the state of condemnation and death - with no possibility of faith.

/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)

This is Declarative Justification BY FAITH... stated in the CONTEXT of battling against those who falsely accused and slandered them of believing Actual Justification in eternity (they did believe in Decretal justification in eternity, Legal Justification at the cross, Actual Justification at effectual call by God's free grace.) Actual Justification by the free grace of God at effectual calling WAS NEVER disputed - it was a settled truth. It was not an issue with the Framers of the 1689 CoF.
/ [end of quote]

You are quite right in the first line: /Faith is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and His righteousness. /Faith receives and applies, not declares and manifest. You are adding words to what is not there, hence deceiving yourself. Faith receives the imputed righteousness of Christ, as a beggar receives grace.

The middle statement is Actual Justification: the words are very plain but why must you insist on seeing Declarative justification everywhere. "None are actually reconciled, justified or adopted until they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by Faith" Sinners are */not reconciled/*, */not justified or adopted/* until they are */really implanted into Jesus Christ/* by faith. These are _not_ talking about the elect having a sense of their reconciliation, a sense of their justification or a sense of their adoption, or a sense of their being already implanted to Jesus Christ. These are real reconciliation, real justification and real adoption by faith.

I agree that Actual Justification by free grace of God WAS NEVER disputed. (Actual Justification by free grace IS not in dispute- please don't create straw-man) The dispute amongst the Particular Baptist was those who believe that justification has already occured from eternity, and at the cross, _before faith_. They asserted Justification by faith; actually Justification by grace through faith. There was no dispute with Martin Luther. Neither was it "Justification by grace, and then made known to them in declarative justification through faith"- the plain statement refers to only the one Actual Justification by grace through faith.

In the Narrative that I referred to in another post, the Particular Baptists wrote _against_ the notion of the elect being Actually Justified before Faith - Not Declarative Justification before faith.

I have not seen much written about Actual Justification at Effectual calling before faith being written by the Particular Baptists or Keach- why is it strangely absent in the voluminous writings of Keach?(I believe Samuel Richardson's article is about the only single article referring to this- apologies if i'm wrong here as I can only compare Keach writings which are plentiful, and the single article by Richardson.)

Neither have I heard of anyone holding to Declarative Justification */before faith/*. Why were the Particular baptists writing against this view when it was never a problem? Yes, they disputed the notion of eternal justification and actual justification happening at the cross. (Some believe it wrong to call it Justification from eternity- there was no justification from eternity but a decree of justification).

a brethren,
Tom


Message 89
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:57:53 +0800

Brother Tom,

Thanks for your reply.
There is no battle to be won or lost, there is none to begin with.
The compilation of the exchanges is for the church members to read.
You are so convinced of your view... reading it may help others and immunize them from my serious error.

Thanks for quoting Keach in full. That's VERY KIND of you.

See my comments.

tom: I believe you are greatly mistaken about Creation = new birth. That is not what Keach was referring to. If my truncated quote has misled you, my apologies, but let me quote him in full.

What if you are the one who is GREATLY MISTAKEN, would you for once openly admit it please? -GRIN, GRIN-
That's courtesy, I think! See below.

Quote:
Obj. But does not faith, repentance, &c., purchase, or buy the pearl?
1. How can faith, &c., be said to purchase Christ, when it and repentance both are given as a free gift of God? Alas, we receive both these graces at the hand of God, and as a fruit of the Spirit, a man receives the Spirit, and so Christ takes hold of him before he can apprehend Christ, or actually receive him; and faith is not of ourselves, though it is the sinner that believes, as it was Lazarus that lived, and the life he had was his life, but yet it was a life in a supernatural manner given to him.

I just believe that you and I read Keach's words through our theological glasses. I see everything here as a consequence of Actual Justification: because only a justified, regenerated and adopted elect has the Spirit in him working the graces of faith and repentance, etc.

Christ must take hold of him FIRST before he can apprehend Christ by his faith. Without Christ taking hold of him first, he remains in spiritual deadness. What happen when Christ takes hold of a sinner? I believe he is effectually called to grace and salvation.... and that, as I have repeated endless time, requires Actual justification, regeneration and adoption. An unjustified (Actual) person is under the condemnation of death - he can't apprehend Christ. But you prefer to believe that an unjustified condemned man is regenerated (under condemnation of death and YET possesses eternal life at the same time, as though there is such a monster!) and therefore can apprehend Christ IN ORDER THAT Christ may apprehend him and justify (Actual) him.

Only an elect who has been imputed with the righteousness of Christ is supernaturally regenerated by the Holy Spirit. You believe a condemned unjustified man is regenerated first, and then he believes in order to be justified (Actual).

tom: 1. Yea as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another (as our author observes) in logic, if a creature be a man, he is a rational creature; or if God be the first cause, he is the _Creator of all things. and in this sense (saith he) 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 connexion_, a state of grace, is thus a condition of a state of glory, by way of connexion in the promise, but one is not the federal condition of another, but both come in as the gift of grace. In this sense the covenant contains all the conditions of order and dependence in the exhibition and performance; the hearing the word is the condition of faith, but hearing is not a federal condition; so the giving the Spirit is the condition of our union with Christ and of faith, and faith the condition of our receiving of pardon, and living a holy life - and holiness the condition of seeing God, and of having eternal life; but these kinds of conditions are federal entitling conditions to the promise, but are contained in the promise, and denote the connexion and dependence of one promise benefit with another.

You said, "I believe you are greatly mistaken about Creation = new birth."
Perhaps these words apply to yourself. You are minutely mistaken in thinking that creation in relation to salvation is not the new birth. I fear that the *sight* of the words '... he is the Creator of all thing' DECEIVE you. But those words plainly have no logical connection with the creation of a man and his salvation. Those words has logical connection with the words, 'if God be the first cause.' Those words have no logical connection with 'he must be created.'

When it is stated, "if a man be saved, he must be created," I think it pretty sane and logical to assume that the man spoken of is an existing being. Why speak of the salvation of a non-existing man? Isn't that the height of irrationality? Moreover, salvation is spoken of. The salvation of a man requires the condition of a spiritual creation. Funny, even this simple and basic stuff is rejected by you. Perhaps you get a kick out of dissenting - grin-. Salvation is spiritual in nature. The creation must be spiritual in nature too. Otherwise there is no logic, but irrationality.

The creation of the new spiritual man, i.e. regeneration, is a condition of connection by way of order between Salvation Secured by Christ and Salvation Applied to Individual Elect. Without the creation of new spiritual man [in an elect], there is no application of the Salvation already Decreed and Secured. Without the creation of the new man there is no declaration of the Salvation already Decreed and Secured. The spiritual birth of a man, a new creation, makes manifest the salvation decreed for him, salvation accomplished for him and salvation applied to him personally.

"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" Gal 6:15. Who is greatly mistaken, Brother???

tom: 2. Though faith be required of them that are saved, yea, and repentance, regeneration, holiness, and a new heart also; yet these blessings are all promised in the covenant, as part thereof. but faith itself is no federal condition, but only serves to show what God will do for, and work in such that he as an act of free grace will save.

Do you notice that what you have read is, "Though faith be required of them that are saved."
Of whom is faith required? 'THEM THAT ARE SAVED (present passive middle participle)
May I ask, who are ‘THEM THAT ARE SAVED’???
Are they unjustified condemned dead slaves of sins?
Are they unjustified condemned but regenerated sinners (if there is such monstrous idea - a person under the condemnation of death but regenerated and having eternal life at the same time)?
Are they those whom God has effectually called out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation - i.e. justified, regenerated and adopted children of God, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them – and therefore ‘ARE SAVED’?

Do you expect faith from those that are not saved - not effectually called to grace and salvation by God's free grace? You most certainly, if I am not greatly mistaken.

You insist that an unjustified man [under the condemnation of death, is spiritually alive] has the grace of faith worked in him by the Spirit so that he may believe in order to be justified BEFORE GOD.

Please tell, is faith itself a federal condition of justification and eternal life? When you insist that faith is the condition for Actual Justification and Eternal life, are you not making faith a FEDERAL condition for Actual Justification and Eternal life? You may deny it, but that's what it amounts to. But Keach plainly declares that 'faith itself is no federal condition' but SERVES TO SHOW... TO EVIDENCE... TO MANIFEST the work of salvation in such that he, as an act of free grace, will save.

tom: From hence we may see how woefully blind they are, who assert faith, repentance, and sincere obedience are not only federal conditions of justification, but also are the matter or material cause thereof. And this is to buy the pearl indeed with our own money.

How woefully blind they are who assert that faith is a federal condition of justification! These are very strong words... are they not? And they either describe folks like you or me, depending on our view of justification. So it is no small matter at all. Wake up, Brother!

Please tell, when is faith made a federal condition? And when is faith not made a federal condition, but a condition of connection?

There are ONLY two possible situations:
Faith before Actual Justification.
Faith After Actual Justification.
In which is the faith made a federal condition, and in which it is not?

tom:Keach is saying: [It is Tom understands Keach as saying] Faith is a 'condition' by way of connection, NOT as a federal condition of justification, Nor matter or material cause. This is entirely agreeable: Faith is not the Grounds or Source or Efficient cause of our Justification, but the Instrumental means whereby the imputed righteousness is _received_ by the beggarly hand of faith. Faith does not /entitle/ a sinner to justification and salvation, but is required to be there in that order. It is all of grace because even that faith is given unto us freely.

So, I ask again. When is faith a federal condition and when is it not?

It puzzled me why you can't see the simplicity of this order that is consistent with everything Keach said above. The order should be this: Actual Justification -- Faith -- Declarative Justification - if anything Keach said above is not contradicted.

[Leon, 'Actual' here would be vital, and 'declarative' would be 'practical' aspects of justifications... sing]
- This order put Faith as a 'condition' by way of connection in its right and proper place. It is required to be there in the RIGHT place as a condition of connection. Faith is a condition by way of connection to evidence and manifest Actual Justification. Faith is a condition of Declarative Justification, i.e. a condition to experience and know our justified state before God.
- This order does not make Faith a federal condition of justification.
- This order recognizes faith as a grace found in a justified elect. Faith is an effect of Actual Justification, and comes after it. Yea, faith, repentance, regeneration, holiness, and a new heart also are FOUND in THEM THAT ARE SAVED by God - that's what Keach said in the quote you gave... did you read it??? Them that are saved are called upon to exercise these grace in order to make manifest and declare the salvation [already theirs] by God's free grace
- This order speaks of the beggarly hands of faith receiving what HAS BEEN imputed, i.e. 'the IMPUTED (simple past tense) righteousness IS (present tense) received.' The beggarly hands that receive are hands of those who are JUSTIFIED, REGENERATED AND ADOPTED ELECT indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

All the above points are denied when the order is: Faith -- Actual Justification -- Faith & Works -- Declarative Justification.
If you put faith before Actual Justification - you make faith as a federal condition, and contradicted Keach. Keach strong words are for you, Brother.

Tom: There is no mention of assurance of salvation or declarative justification in those statement of Keach. Please read again carefully and objectively.

See my objective comments above. [Please read again carefully and objectively.]

tom: Your statement below (quoted here for your reference) is surely not what is meant by Keach's answer:
> "Then the 'creation' is none other than the new creation/new birth at the "effectual calling to grace and salvation" of that man (1689.10.1). By this creation, the salvation that has been legally secured for that man by Christ at the cross, is applied to him personally. Without this creation, there is no application of the salvation to him personally; and when there is no application of the salvation to him personally, there would be no declaration and attestation of the salvation that had been secured for him by Christ at the cross."

Salvation is spiritual... creation has to be in the same realm, spiritual. Otherwise there is no logic, but irrationalism.

How does your natural birth function as a condition of CONNECTION by way of order? What does your natural birth connect? To spiritual salvation? What connection has natural birth with spiritual salvation? It might be easier to connect light and darkness.

Spiritual birth is a condition of connection by way of order BETWEEN salvation secured and salvation applied.
Salvation secured -- spiritual birth -- salvation applied -- faith -- salvation manifested.

tom: Creation (being born) - be saved [in this order]
Faith - be saved [in this order].

Have you ever read of natural birth as a creation in the whole of the Bible?
Have you ever read of natural birth in relation to salvation? I don't.
I have read of spiritual birth as a new creation in the Scriptures.
I have read of spiritual birth in relation to salvation everywhere in the Scriptures.
I hope you have too, brother. [I hope we are reading the same Bible!]

tom: Faith is connected to salvation, eternal life being bestowed, justification in the sense that it has to be present before all these things are bestowed. Hence, if you read the confession of faith carefully, Effectually calling has all the terminology of Regeneration/New Birth and then faith.

You say faith has to be present before eternal life and justification and salvation are bestowed. I DO UNDERSTAND YOU LOUD AND CLEAR! So, a fruit and effect of eternal life, justification and salvation is necessary before the bestowal of eternal life, justification and salvation. It is like saying, breathing, an effect of life, must be present before life can be bestowed. I just can't believe such nonsense.

In any case, 1689 makes a clear distinction between effectual call and regeneration.
Let me state it again since you chose not to notice it. Read it carefully, if you haven't. Don't skip... note the logical sequence.
- Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth...
- All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption... (adoption presupposes regeneration... can't adopt that which is not born!!!)
- They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them...

See how the effectual call and the regeneration are stated separately to distinguish the two???...

The Framers say in chapter 10-13
- effectual call (of a man out of the state of sin and death)
- justification >> (regeneration assumed) & adoption
- effectual call >> regeneration >> a spiritual man (with a new heart and a new spirit)
- spiritual man >> faith (a grace exercised by a spiritual man!)

My ordo salutis is this: effectual call -- justification, regeneration and adoption -- a spiritual man -- believing, the act of a spiritual man.

Now you put them together... in the order fitting your soteriology.

tom: So Keach is not contradicting the 1689 statement of faith he signed. Regeneration/New Birth - faith

Keach is not, of course. But you are plainly contradicting the 1689 statements.

Did you see from the above that Justification PRECEDES Regeneration and adoption? Do you see? Here it is: "All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption..."

Regeneration makes the justified to become partakers of the grace of adoption. Are there simpler and plainer words in English to express the order? Be objective. Words have meaning, don't they? The plain and simple order is this: Justified (Actual) -- Regenerated -- Adopted & given the gift of the Holy Spirit, who works the graces of salvation -- Believing -- Declarative justification.


tom: Therefore it is not true (and perhaps you have unwittingly created a straw-man) that RB believe that an unregenerate person can believe. Of course an unregenerate man cannot believe.

You are right.
RBs believe that an unregenerate person cannot believe.
RBs also believe that regeneration MUST precede believing.
RBs also believe that believing is a condition of justification and eternal life.
[All these plainly show that RBs are very confused and irrational in these doctrines... sing]

RBs fail to recognize that Actual justification must logically precede regeneration; that the application of Christ's righteousness by the Father precedes, and is necessary to, the giving of the eternal life by the Spirit of God. [And since faith is antecedent to regeneration, faith PRESUPPOSES the Actual justification as precedent.]

RBs believe that a person is regenerated but still under the just condemnation at the same time, and he must believe in order to have Christ's righteousness imputed to him, i.e. Actual Justification. Is there such a creature - regenerated and under the condemnation of death at the same time? Don't you see that both are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! [One is either unjustified and dead, or justified and regenerated.]

Regeneration presupposes Actual justification.
Un-regeneration presupposes Actual condemnation.

tom: Your position is perhaps more conflicting (although a serious error- I refrain from using the word 'heresy'; although you have considered a caricature of my view a 'heresy'! :-D ) in that a person before faith is both condemned and justified at the same time?? /he that believeth not is condemned already (John 3.18) /i.e. a person before faith, remains under the sentence of condemnation passed in Adam upon him; the law accuses him, and pronounces him guilty before God; he is under the curse of it.

He that believes not declares and manifests his state of Actual condemnation.
He that believes not is one who hears and rejects the gospel. His rejection betrays his state of Actual condemnation, i.e. no Actual Justification. There is no middle ground.
He that believes declares his state of Actual justification. His reception of the gospel declares his Actual justification by grace. Actual Justification PRECEDES believing.

Before Peter came to Cornelius, Cornelius was a man both condemned and justified at the same time. He was Justified (Actual) - all evidences of his life. Because of his ignorance of the gospel, he was WITHOUT declarative justification, i.e. he was still under experiential condemnation. His reception of the gospel brought to him by Peter deliver him from that declarative condemnation, and brought him experiential justification.

There is Actual justification and there is Declarative Justification.
There is Actual condemnation and there is Declarative condemnation.

A man with Actual Justification by grace is no longer and never under Actual condemnation anymore. However he may suffer Declarative condemnation for sin and unbelief... sin and unbelief always bring declarative condemnation upon God's children, but never Actual condemnation - that condemnation has been suffered by Christ ONCE FOR ALL, and His righteousness imputed to them. Faith - receiving and resting in Christ delivers [simple present tense] from experiential guilt and condemnation.

Distinction is the essence of SOUND theology.

tom: I have no desire to win battles, nor 'teach' any man. The /Brethren/ often call it 'sharing' - this is precisely what I'm hoping is the case here i.e. sharing what I've read. Please do not misjudge my intention.Before you publish yet another book on this- please obtain a copy of the Narrative: Actual Justification rightly stated containing a true narrative of a sad schism made in a church of Christ at Kilby in Leicestershire proving, none of the elect are Actually Justified before Faith" (I have a bad copy which I'm trying hard to reproduce into a word document- when it is done I'll send you a copy. It may persuade you that Justification before faith is not the view of the Particular Baptists- they actually wrote against it.)

The Particular Baptists wrote against two poisonous caricatures of the biblical position of Actual Justification by grace, and without and before faith. Though was never disputed, but was perverted and caricatured by others.
Perversion One: If Actual Justification is without and before faith, then Actual Justification is from eternity!
Perversion Two: If Actual Justification is without and before faith, then there is no need of preaching nor faith whatsoever!

To combat these heinous caricatures and attacks upon the biblical truth of Actual Justification by grace before and without faith, the PBs wrote tomes on Declarative [Experiential] Justification by faith to counter these two-prone attacks.

The words of the Narrative title 'none of the elect are Actually Justified before Faith' is exactly what Gill described as, "… and this is readily allowed, that no man is [ACTUALLY] evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes..."

I have repeatedly said that the Narrative is dealing with the fact that "no man is actually evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes."

But you are so distracted by the sight of that adverb 'actually' in the title and go off in a tangent into the serious error of rejecting Actual Justification by grace before and without Faith. You mistake their writings on Declarative/Evidential Justification by Faith as Actual Justification by Faith. The plain fact that the Particular Baptists held to Actual Justification by grace before and without faith is ignored and rejected

I just wish to repeat... "Actually Justified by Faith" is not about Actual Justification. The adverb 'actually' is not the same as 'Actual' as an adjective as used in [the technical term] noun of ‘Actual Justification.’ You are quite misguided and distracted by an adverb [that looks and sounds alike].

The PBs are saying, "... no man is really/actually justified evidentially and declaratively until he believes." And this is nothing about Actual Justification by grace. This is all about Declarative Justification by faith.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I hope you have read mine with the same care.

sing


Message 90
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:53:53 +0800

Brother Tom,

tom: You are quite right in the first line: /Faith is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and His righteousness. /Faith receives and applies, not declares and manifest. You are adding words to what is not there, hence deceiving yourself. Faith receives the imputed righteousness of Christ, as a beggar receives grace.

Faith is an instrument by which he – he - he receives and applies Christ and His righteousness. That's true. The pronoun ‘he’ refers to the justified, regenerated child of God. I didn't say that Faith is an instrument by which he - he - he declares and manifest Christ and His righteousness. If I had said that, then I am indeed adding words and deceive myself.

However his believing by which he receives and applies Christ and His righteousness reveals something about the person. HE receives and applies Christ and His righteousness by believing. His act of believing [faith] declares and manifests something about the spiritual state of the person.

The hand is the instrument by which the beggar receives something. Those SAME hands of the beggar by which he receives something also declares and attests something about that the beggar - he possesses life. The faith by which a man receives and applies Christ and His righteousness also declares and attests something about that person... his state of Actual Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption, and Indwelt by the Holy Spirit who works the grace of faith.

If you can't see the distinction between what a man does by believing, and what that man's believing declares and attests about the man, then I can understand why you charge me with self-deception.

tom: The middle statement is Actual Justification: the words are very plain but why must you insist on seeing Declarative justification everywhere. "None are actually reconciled, justified or adopted until they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by Faith" Sinners are */not reconciled/*, */not justified or adopted/* until they are */really implanted into Jesus Christ/* by faith. These are _not_ talking about the elect having a sense of their reconciliation, a sense of their justification or a sense of their adoption, or a sense of their being already implanted to Jesus Christ. These are real reconciliation, real justification and real adoption by faith.

Why? Very simple. To men like Keach, ONLY the Justified (Actual) have the grace of faith to believe... Those who believe do so because they are SAVED - Justified (Actual), regenerated and adopted, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. It is only when they believe that their Actual Justification is really/actually declared and attested. Justification by faith (Declarative/experiential) NECESSARILY presupposed the prior Justification by grace (Actual/Vital).

Funny, you latched on so tightly to these words of Keach, even though Gill's words is perfectly clear on this subject... I would waste time just once more quoting him. You would probably skip this 'dung.'

"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).

Do you think Keach and Gill are agreed??? If not, which one do you agree with? I think they speak in perfect harmony on this point.

tom: I agree that Actual Justification by free grace of God WAS NEVER disputed. (Actual Justification by free grace IS not in dispute- please don't create straw-man) The dispute amongst the Particular Baptist was those who believe that justification has already occured from eternity, and at the cross, _before faith_. They asserted Justification by faith; actually Justification by grace through faith. There was no dispute with Martin Luther. Neither was it "Justification by grace, and then made known to them in declarative justification through faith"- the plain statement refers to only the one Actual Justification by grace through faith.

Didn't you insist all the way that Actual Justification is by faith? So do you believe both? Actual Justification is by grace, and also by faith? I am confused.

Yes, there is the one Actual Justification BY God's free grace. This Actual Justification before and without faith is DECLARED and ATTESTED through the alone instrument of faith. What is by grace PRECEDES that which is declared and attested by faith, for faith is a fruit of grace.

tom: In the Narrative that I referred to in another post, the Particular Baptists wrote _against_ the notion of the elect being Actually Justified before Faith - Not Declarative Justification before faith I have not seen much written about Actual Justification at Effectual calling before faith being written by the Particular Baptists or Keach- why is it strangely absent in the voluminous writings of Keach (I believe Samuel Richardson's article is about the only single article referring to this- apologies if i'm wrong here as I can only compare Keach writings which are plentiful, and the single article by Richardson.)

The PBs believe in Actual Justification before and without faith. This is never disputed... and therefore not much written on this. Because of their belief on Actual Justification before and without faith, their enemies wrongly conclude that there is therefore is no need of faith... Read Gill's words again, "... and this being observed, obviates another objection, that if justification is before faith, then faith is needless and useless...." The word 'another' implies there was a prior and separate objection: i.e. that if Actual Justification is before and without faith, then Actual Justification must be in eternity. Both objection are obviated if the VARIOUS ASPECTS of justification is properly understood.

They were also roundly slandered and caricatured as Antinomians, "that if justification is before faith, then faith is needless and useless...." - no need preaching and no need faith. The PBs responded with tomes by saying unanimously that that no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes... and this being observed, obviates another objection, that if justification is before faith, then faith is needless and useless. Read Gill and others... who say that declarative and evidential justification is by faith... No one is really and ACTUALLY (adverb) justified in the declarative and evidential sense UNTIL - UNTIL - UNTIL he believes.

But you insist that they are speaking of Actual (adjective) Justification by Faith, all the while they were speaking of ACTUAL MOMENT of Declarative/Evidential Justification - i,e, on condition of Faith.

tom: Neither have I heard of anyone holding to Declarative Justification */before faith/*. Why were the Particular baptists writing against this view when it was never a problem? Yes, they disputed the notion of eternal justification and actual justification happening at the cross. (Some believe it wrong to call it Justification from eternity- there was no justification from eternity but a decree of justification).

No PB holds to Declarative Justification’ BEFORE faith.’ However, they were misrepresented as holding to the needlessness and uselessness of faith. They did hold to Actual Justification before and without faith. Because of that they were misrepresented as holding to Actual Justification in eternity, as well as faith is needless and useless in time. There writings were to reply to those two 'objections' or caricatures.

They were all insisting that declarative justification is by faith... see Gill's quote above. Sadly, they are mistaken by you and many others as speaking of Actual Justification by faith. Because they believe Actual Justification is before and without faith, their opponent wrongly conclude that therefore there is NO NEED of faith... The PBs replied against this WICKED misrepresentation - that no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes. But the modern standard reformed folks read them and conclude that the PBs believed Actual Justification by faith.

Brother, we are stuck with that bone of contention... I am tired already.
Believe what you want... grind that bone to powder or give it to your Bejoo, whatever, it is fine with me.

a student,
sing