Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:27:04 +0800
Brother Tom,
Dismissing you is never my intention. Stopping the discussion is... because we are going in circles.
I have nothing left to say except that when Declarative justification is mistaken for and confused with Actual justification, then so much become contradictory, inconsistent and deficient. When each is seen in its proper biblical place, things are consistent and harmonious.
That statement on John Murray being one of new school men is made by a reformed presby... Berkhof is included...
Those famous words you quoted where the term 'actual justification' is used, you have to ascertain whether they are used in the ‘technical’ sense you are using it. Owen used the term like 'absolute justification,' 'first justification,' and 'continual justification.' Beeke uses terms like decretal, legal, actual/vital and practical, and final... Some uses 'actual' to mean experientially, personally actually become aware of it through faith. [Actually (or really) experiencing the justification is certainly not the same as the Actual/Personal justification at effectual calling.]
You said:
You seem to want to view Scripture (on this issue) with an a priori assumption- i.e. if there is faith, then there is no more grace.
I don't know if there is anything a priori about this view: since Actual/Personal justification is by grace, and faith is a grace worked by the Spirit in a vitally justified person, then faith, being the PRODUCT, is the instrument to manifest or evidence that free grace justification, faith is the instrument to Declare the justification (Vital/Actual) that has taken place. I say, when there is faith, there is evidence of God's glorious grace. Kindly represent me correctly. They must be put in their proper and biblical place.
Tom: I am merely interested to find out what the Particular Baptists of 1689 thought on this issue- i.e. what the confession meant. The words from Keach, Kiffen and Knolly seem to provide a clear exposition of what chapter 11 of the 1689 really says.
I am also interested in what the framers of the Confession say. With the same document, we are at loggerhead. I genuinely wish someone would show me the inconsistencies and contradictions and deficiencies in my understanding of the Confession. I have honestly endeavored to point out the many inconsistencies and contradictions and deficiencies of your understanding of the Confession, but you don't seem to want to deal with them.
[What do you say about the difference between your 3 statements and 4 statements compared to the Confession of Faith? Do you agree with them?]
That's why I feel that it is of no benefit to continue the discussion. I am glad your mind is made up and is pretty convinced about your position.
Thanks. I will close with two short paragraphs from Lloyd-Jones below my signature, brought to my attention by L-J admirer, a staunch RB.)
sing
"And some believed the things which were spoken,
and some believed not" Acts 28:24
---------
Writing about the application [sic] of redemption, he said these:
"Now, let me, therefore, suggest to you certain possible orders. I shall not keep of necessity to any one of them, but if you look at it from the logical and objective stand point you might very well take them like this. You might say that the first and the fundamental thing is union with Christ, that we are ultimately saved by union with Christ, so you start with that. Then, because of that you put justification next, and then, because of that, you follow with regeneration. Out of that comes faith, and out of that adoption. Then you can put conversion, which includes repentance and a turning away, and a believing, and a believing, then sanctification, and then perseverance."
"If, on the other hand, you are more anxious to stress the subjective element [experiential aspect? sing] and still try to keep some theological order, you might put it like this: You might start with what is called 'effectual calling', that which makes the offer, the call, effectual in men and women. This is the first thing. Then you could go on to regeneration, and then to faith, followed by justification, then union with Christ, then repentance and conversion, then adoption, then sanctification, and then perseverance." Great Doctrine Series, Vol 2, pg.
He speaks of a justification before regeneration and faith in the first paragraph. In the next paragraph on the same page, he speaks of a justification that follows faith - what we identify as 'Declarative justification' (using your preferred terminology) - faith declaring the justified state. The justification that precedes both regeneration and faith is what I identify as Actual justification (using your preferred terminology.)
On this point I am agree with Lloyd-Jones. I heard that he was an undisputed scholar on the Puritans in the 20th century.
Message 42
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:26:06 +0800
Brother Tom,
You quoted from Watson:
Q. Are we justified from eternity?*
A. No: for,
(1.) By nature we are under a sentence of condemnation. John 3:18. We could never have been condemned, if we were justified from eternity.
(2.) The Scripture confines justification to those who believe and repent. ‘Repent, that your sins may be blotted out.’ Acts 3:19. Therefore their sins were un-cancelled, and their persons unjustified, till they did repent. Though God does not justify us for our repentance, yet not without.
[The question was asked because men like Watson was accused of believing Actual Justification from eternity because they believe in Actual Justification in time, but before and without faith.] Please bear this basic fact in mind.
Just one more attempt to see whether you would deal with plain inconsistencies and contradictions of your interpretation of Watson. Are you inconsistent or was Watson inconsistent? I agree with both statements in the answer above.
As an aside: incidentally Gill did too. RBs ignorantly accuse Gill of believing in justification from eternity. Concerning the charge of justification from eternity, he replied, quoting Owen's reply to Baxter ( Baxter charged Owen for holding to eternal justification) as his own reply to similar charge:
"I neither am, nor ever was of that judgment; though as it may be explained, I know better, wiser, and more learned men than myself, [and he might have added, than Mr. Baxter, sing] that have been, and are." [all emphasis original.] - Body of Divinity, Bk 2, Chapter 5, last few lines before chapter 6.
> (2.) The Scripture confines justification to those who believe and repent. ‘Repent, that your sins may be blotted out.’ Acts 3:19. Therefore their sins were un-cancelled, and their persons unjustified, till they did repent. Though God does not justify us for our repentance, yet not without.
Now let's assume that Watson meant that the Scriptures confines ACTUAL justification to those who believe and repent - as you would insist that he did.
- Therefore, without believing and repenting, their sin will not be ACTUALLY blotted out.
- Therefore, their sins were ACTUALLY not forgiven or cancelled, till they did repent.
- Therefore, their person is unjustified, still under 'ACTUAL condemnation' till they repent.
- Therefore, without repentance, there is no ACTUAL justification, they remain under condemnation.
Watson subscribed to the WCF. And WCF.10.3 declares this:
"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."
Whatever you may think this paragraph is saying, I think you and I are agreed that these are elect - two broad categories mentioned, infant dying in infancy, and all other elect person - who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Being incapable of outwardly called by the ministry of the word (but effectually called to grace and salvation by God) - these would express NO faith or repentance.
According to your interpretation of Watson, these elect (mentioned in paragraph 3)
- their sins remain ACTUALLY uncancelled and unforgiven;
- their persons remains ACTUALLY unjustified; still under condemnation;
- therefore they remain in their ACTUAL condemnation, deserving of eternal wrath.
- these elect remain in their ACTUAL condemnation of death, YET is regenerated!
Would you want to make Watson to say something like that?
These elect mentioned in paragraph 3, they are ALL justified [vital/personal/actual] by grace at their effectual call at God's appointed and accepted time, among all those mentioned in 1689.10.1 and 11.1. For that reason they are regenerated - for without the imputation of the righteousness of life (ACTUAL justification) there can be no regeneration or giving of life. These elect in paragraph 3, having no faith or repentance experience no DECLARATIVE justification.
Now, assume that Watson meant that the Scriptures confines DECLARATIVE justification to those who believe and repent - as I have endeavoured to show you, then Watson is not made to appear so illogical and inconsistent and self-contradicting.
Seen in that light:
- Therefore, without believing and repenting, they do not experience sins forgiven.
- Therefore, their sins remain uncancelled experientially, till they did repent.
- Therefore, their person is unjustified experientially till they repent.
- Therefore, without repentance, there is no experiential/declarative justification.
Between an interpretation that produces inconsistency and contradiction, and one that is harmonious, I would invariably choose the latter. You seem to want to choose the former despite I endeavouring to show the consequences, and yet would not want to deal with the consequences. I am a bit lost by such approach.
You said:
Tom: Watson was alluding to Actual Justification all the way. It would not make sense for him to argue for Declarative Justification in the reference to Justification from eternity.
It makes perfect sense for Watson to speak of DECLARATIVE justification in reference to justification from eternity. Watson speaks of justification in time... in the SUBJECTIVE experience of an elect. ACTUAL justification is also justification in time, but that DOES NOT involve any act on the part of the elect... read 1689.11.1 carefully, and with some honesty. A believer's act of receiving is the experiential justification, the EFFECT of the Objective/Vital/Actual justification... faith being the instrument to declare the Vital/Personal justification by God's free grace.
Brother, please think about it... confusing 'actual' and 'declarative' do have unpleasant consequences.
By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
Message 42a
From: "David Scarbrough"
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:41:15 -0600
It seems to me that many today are confused over the issues of the Actual verses the Declarative aspects of salvation. Especially when they try to break apart salvation into its individual parts.
However, John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale and the other reformers who penned the Geneva Bible marginal notes had a clear understanding of the 'Actual' and 'Declarative' aspects of salvation. The note on John 6:37 states:
"The gift of faith proceeds from the free election of the Father in Christ, after which everlasting life necessarily follows: therefore faith in Christ Jesus is a sure witness of our election, and therefore of our glorification, which is to come."
In other words, our faith is a "sure witness", a testimony of our election and of everything that follows it; everything from election to glorification - the complete salvation process. They are declarative, not causative. They declare our salvation, to ourselves and others, but they do not cause it. God is the cause, the actual cause, without which we could not be saved. The same is true of repentance. It is a testimony of our election and of everything that follows it. True forgiveness can only be granted by God, the repentance is simply our acknowledgement of that forgiveness.
If we are elect, the rest is SURE to follow regardless of our declaration.
-DS (ReformedBaptist list)
Message 43
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:37:10 +0800
Brother Tom,
You have hardly spoken too much.
However, you might have spoken boldly, a wee bit too quickly.
A simple solution will answer to all that you have written below: Let's go back to basics:
Read again, please, slowly.
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth,(1) not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;(2) not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;(3) not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness,(4) they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.(5) - 1689.10.1
Did you skip the above? If you didn't, please read it again in any case.
There is the ACTUAL justification that is APART from 'anything wrought in them, or done by them.' Faith is a grace wrought in them, and believing is an act done by them. Actual justification is FOR Christ's sake alone - it is not for Christ's sake alone PLUS your faith in Him sake. ACTUAL justification is by God's free grace; it is not by God's free grace PLUS your faith in Christ.
In addition to what I have said in relation to Watson, please note very carefully that this ACTUAL justification is true of every elect effectually called to grace and salvation. This ACTUAL justification is APART from faith, and embraces EVEN THOSE who are INCAPABLE of manifesting faith (1689.10.3)
Is that simple enough?
Do these make sense to you?
Have I not simply stated what the Confession says?
There is the DECLARATIVE justification that is by your faith. Faith is the instrument to declare your ACTUAL justification. Your act of receiving and resting in Christ and His righteousness declares your prior ACTUAL justification by God's free grace.
Is that simple enough?
Tom: Q. Whether Believers were not actually reconciled to God, actually justified and adopted when Christ died?/
A. That the Reconciliation, Justification, and Adoption of Believers are infallibly secured by the gracious purpose of God, and merit of Jesus Christ. Yet none can be said to be actually reconciled, justified, or adopted, until they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by Faith; and so by virtue of this their Union with him, have these Fundamental Benefits actually conveyed unto them. And this we conceive is fully evidenced, because the Scripture attributes all these Benefits Faith, as the instrumental cause of them. Rom 3.25, 5.11,5.1.; Gal 3.26. And gives such Representation of the state of the Elect before Faith as is altogether inconsistent with an actual Right in them, Eph 2.1,2,3-12.
Let me state that I perfectly agree with the above, as you do. With the same words, you and I make them say vastly different thing. Isn't that incredible?
The word 'actually' does appear in the answer above. The context shows us that the authors are obviously speaking of actually (as in 'really' experiencing the benefits of salvation - i.e. the experiential aspect. "And this we conceive is fully evidenced, because the Scripture attributes all these Benefits to Faith, as the instrumental cause of them." [They are hardly speaking of the Actual Justification the Confession speaks of.]
O yes, it is fully evidence, is it not? What God has done by His free grace, apart from 'anything wrought in them, or done by them,' CAN ONLY BE EXPERIENCED by their faith in Christ! Actually/really experiencing reconciliation, justification and adoption is by faith in Christ. There is no other way to experience it.
- Virtual reconciliation, justification and adoption is at the cross.
- Actual (adjective) (Vital, Personal, Applied) reconciliation, justification and adoption is at effectual calling apart from faith... This is true of EACH and EVERY elect.
- Actually (adverb) Experiencing reconciliation, justification and adoption is indeed BY FAITH... Amen and Amen and Amen. This is true of each elect that has faith through the ministry of the word.
That's what these Particular Baptist authors are saying... in perfect conformity to the Scriptures, and summarised in the Confession. [You read them to say something else – because you have a different definition of ‘Actual Justification. The Declarative Justification by faith has disappeared from you scheme!!!]
Rightly distinguishing Declarative justification from Actual justification [as defined by the Framers wrote in the Confession] would go a long way in rightly understanding the early Particular Baptists.
May our Lord give light to us to see the truth.
By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
Message 44
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:28:25 +0800
Dear Pastor Lau
I've only dared to be bold where I think the PB statements were clear ;-]} If I may be a wee bit bold again to suggest that you have to interpret the statements that way because of an a priori assumption that faith is work.
The 1689 people said this:
Moreover he and we with him, distinguish, or explain Union with Christ, and Justification thus;
1. That all the Chosen of God are decretively justified, &c. from Eternity
2. Virtually at the Death, or rather at the resurrection of our blessed Saviour.
3. Yet that no Adult Elect Person is really and Actually in Union with Christ, and Actually Justified before he doth Believe in him: And so is transplanted out of the first Adam as a common Head, and implanted into the second Adam: It being impossible any should stand in (or grow out of) two common roots at one and the same time; since all (as considered Actually in the Second are made Alive and brought into Justification, and declared free for ever from Condemnation, Rom 8.1. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his. That is Actually his, tho' many of them may be in the Election of Grace.
My opinion is that the Particular Baptists of 1689 hardly make much about Declarative Justification. The 3 statements above, especially statement no.3 is quite clear. Actual Justification is by faith, Union with Christ is by faith.
The paragraph 10.3 "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." is inserted to point out precise that- that this is an exception to the norm. If we were to look at your way of interpreting the confession on this- para 10.3 will be redundant- why put it there when everyone is Actually justified and saved without faith.
No adult elect person is really and actually in union with Christ before faith (10.3 then spells out the exception i.e. infants)
No adult elect person is actually justified before he doth believe (don't tell me this is declarative justification because it is in the same statement as being in union with Christ).
Before I read this Narrative by Keach, Kiffin and Knolly, i would agree that you can interpret all the justification statements in the BCF and prefixed it with Actual or Declarative based on one's own a priori assumption. But this is certainly as clear as I have seen it.
Sorry for being so 'bold' but it's unmistakable to me, in plain English. There may be some difficult issues to reconcile- I would agree. But at least I know the PB meant what they say in the BCF.(having difficult issues that is hard to reconcile is not new. You can easily argue your way to a unitarian position but having an a priori assumption that God is One and leave no room for the Trinity because you just can't reconcile it logically. Same as saving faith. Now that I have Keach in front of me allow me to quote: rom his exposition of the parables p.174
"Such who receive this sacred pearl by faith, though they were dead, it immediately quickens them; and raiseth them from the dead to a state of spiritual life."In answering an objection "Obj. But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?" "Ans. Yes, as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another in logic"
Unless you want to interpret eternal life is a conscious appreciation of eternal life- assurance of salvation- Keach is quite consistent.
Please reconsider your interpretation. Following the Particular Baptist is an eye-opener, and a reassurance for me.
a undeserved servant,
Tom
Message 45
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:50:28 +0800
Brother Tom,
See some comments marked ## in your post.
Let me know when it is become wearisome to read my thoughts. I am learning as I read from your posts. It shows me where the difficulty lies.
Tom:I've only dared to be bold where I think the PB statements were clear ;-]} If I may be a wee bit bold again to suggest that you have to interpret the statements that way because of an a priori assumption that faith is work.
## Clear statements can so easily be misread by many - e.g. 'whoever believes has eternal life' is commonly misread as a conditional statement of offer, instead of a declarative statement of fact. In your case, Declarative/experiential justification is automatically read as Actual/personal justification.
I fear your boldness may be misplaced. Nothing a priori and no assumption - just wanting to be consistent with Scriptures.
You would agree that faith is a spiritual activity of a man that has eternal life - is this an a priori assumption or a statement of truth? Some RBs, Ho Eng Ghee, insist on spiritual ability without eternal life. Faith IS the activity of a man that HAS BEEN imputed with the righteousness of life (justified vitally, actually, personally) and regenerated. Is that a statement of truth or an assumption?
You may want to deny that faith - man's act of believing and resting in Christ - is an activity by and of the effectually called elect. Perhaps you also disagree with the PB statement that faith is a grace wrought in the elect - "The grace of faith... is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts." 1689.14.1. You may also disagree with the Framers who declared that the justification of the elect is "not for anything wrought in them, or done by them." Faith is most certainly something wrought in them, and believing is also most certainly something done by them.
> Moreover he and we with him, distinguish, or explain Union with Christ, and Justification thus… ... not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his. That is Actually his, tho' many of them may be in the Election of Grace.
## I would appreciate if you can tell me where the above quotes are taken from. Do me this kind favour.
I read the same thing, and I do agree with what they say. The word 'really' and 'actually' has reference to the experiential sense in conversion. Making alive and brought into Justification (Actual) obviously refers to the effectual call (1689.10.1) and the third aspect mentioned in 1689.11.4, and this reality by God's free grace is declared and manifest by faith. Therefore NO elect - adult or not - actually and really experience his Actual Justification by God's free grace while ungodly and in a state of sin and death.
Tom: My opinion is that the Particular Baptists of 1689 hardly make much about Declarative Justification. The 3 statements above, especially statement no.3 is quite clear. Actual Justification is by faith, Union with Christ is by faith.
That you have such opinion is probably because you are misled [and confused] by the sight and sound of the word 'actually' (and not the 'sense' of the word in context) and conclude therefore that they are speaking of the 'Actual Justification' that you have in your mind and which you have defined. You see 'Actual Justification' (your definition) when they are in fact speaking of really (actually) justified DECRETIVELY by faith. You see 'ACTUAL union' with Christ at effectual call to grace and salvation when they are in fact speaking of the union with Christ declared and experienced by faith at conversion.
Faith which receives and rests in Christ is the only instrument to experience and declare and make manifest the virtual/legal and 'vital/actual union (to use your terminology) that have taken place by free grace at effectual call to grace and salvation. The Confession states plainly enough that personal/applied justification is by God's free grace.
Faith as an instrument declares the justified (personal) state by free grace.
The Particular Baptists are speaking so much about declarative justification by faith, and declarative union by faith... but you insist in seeing than as your 'Actual Justification' by faith and 'Actual Union' by faith.
Buchanan put it this way, "Actual Justification come first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative." (pg 234). "Their ACTUAL Justification is presupposed, but their DECLARATIVE Justification is specially referred to." (pg 235, all emphasis original.) Buchanan uses 'actual' and 'declarative' (uppercase) in the strict technical sense, not with the general sense of 'really' or 'actually experienced.'
I suggest that you read James Buchanan's work on Justification - just Lecture VIII, Proposition 2 - a section that deals specifically the technical distinctions between Actual justification and Declarative justification. You may want to redefine you definition of 'Actual justification.'
He said, "... it is the ground of an important theological distinction, - the distinction between ACTUAL and DECLARATIVE Justification" end of first paragraph. Read the rest, and have a firm grasp ... and you would begin to read the Particular Baptists in a proper light.
Reading the same thing does not guarantee we will understand them the same way. The root cause: Your ACTUAL justification is by faith, and DECLARATIVE justification is by faith and works; mine is by grace alone, and declared by faith and works, respectively.
It is like having a presupposition that reads 'whoever believes has eternal life' as a conditional statement of offer, instead of a declarative statement of fact.
I hope I am not wearying you.
By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
Message 46
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:13:55 +0800
Brother Tom,
Take time to read and you may learn something. Feel free to express your disagreement.
> The paragraph 10.3 "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." is inserted to point out precisely that- that this is an exception to the norm. If we were to look at your way of interpreting the confession on this- para 10.3 will be redundant- why put it there when everyone is Actually justified and saved without faith.
I believe the relationship of the four paragraphs of 1689.10 is quite simple and plain. You may want to dispute it too. I am puzzle that RBs don't see its simplicity, but are so confused.
Para 1: describes the effectual calling of ALL the elect. Each and everyone of the elect are effectually called to eternal life in exactly the same manner at God’s appointed and accepted time – i.e. ACTUALLY justified, regenerated and adopted - when in the state of sin and death.
Para 2: describes all those effectually called elect in Para 1 who DO receive the outward gospel call and DO experience Declarative Justification by faith.
Para 3: describes all those effectually called elect in Para 1 who DO NOT have the outward gospel call, and therefore DON'T experience Declarative Justification by faith.
Does this way of looking at 1689.10.3 make it redundant? Did you understand my interpretation of 1689.10.3? Every one is effectually called to grace and salvation without faith; yes Actually Justified without faith, BUT not every one of them will experience Declarative Justification by faith. Please DON'T misrepresent me.
This paragraph is to anticipated the popular errors, among new school Baptists (e.g. RBs), that NONE but only those who experience DECLARATIVE justification by faith are eternally saved, that there is NO elect among all those who do not have the gospel call, that all who are in heaven have heard and believed the gospel on earth, that eternal salvation is conditioned upon declarative justification through faith. The paragraph is NOT expressing an exception - the idea of an exception arises from an a priori assumption - learning to use your favourite term - that there are different ways of effectual callings and different ways of justification.
Para 4: describes all those not in Para 1, i.e., those who are not predestinated to eternal life, but are reached with the outward gospel call.
It is a serious and popular error to think of Para 3 as an exception. If it is an exception, then what is the norm? Is effectual call to grace and salvation BY faith the norm, and the effectual call to grace and salvation WITHOUT faith the exception? But Para 1 speaks of ALL elect without exception.
Is Actual Justification BY faith the norm (if there is such thing as your idea of Actual Justification by faith to begin with!)? And what is the exception - is it Actual Justification WITHOUT faith, or is it that there is no Actual Justification for these since they are incapable of faith? If you choose the former, then you have plainly contradicted Para 1 because Para 1 speaks of ALL elect without exception.
The simple truth is: All elect are effectually called and these SAME elect that are effectually called are ALSO Actually Justified without faith. [meaning personally imputed with the righteousness of Christ at effectual call out of sin and death, as distinct from the declarative/evidential justification by faith at conversion] the same way
I believe Para 3 is stating simply that some effectually called elect - i.e. Actually Justified, regenerated and adopted - DO NOT experience DECLARATIVE justification because by providence, they are incapable of faith and repentance.
Someone said, "if a scheme of salvation need exceptions for some, then it is very likely humanistic." Rightly divided, the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation needs no exception. Human schemes do, divine scheme needs no exception.
May the Lord bless you to see the light.
sing
Message 47
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:43:25 +0800
Brother Tom,
I saw this paragraph as a post/script in one of your post.
> Honestly I'm not sure what to make of Gill. Neither do a number of people more 'intelligent' than I. I've read some chapters of his body of divinity and commentary- to great benefit. Yes I would agree that he would hint at faith making manifest of our justification in our conscience in several place but no statement to counteract the above.
It is not a matter of intelligence. The difficulty is more likely by one's theological presuppositions. If it were intelligent, you have plenty of it.
May be these few lines will clear your mind:
"Justification, as a transient act, and declarative, follows vocation; but as an immanent act of God, it goes before it, of which we are only speaking, as ought always to be remembered." Last sentence of 2b7d.
Vocation here is certainly calling to life, i.e. regeneration.
Declarative Justification - a transient act - FOLLOWS vocation.
Actual Justification - an immanent act - PRECEDES regeneration.
There is Actual Justification by grace (i.e. the third aspect mentioned in 1689.11.4) before regeneration. Righteousness of life is applied before the bestowal of life, before there is any possibility of faith. This is as plain as noonday sun - I think. [Only one’s theological presupposition will cause mental block.]
There is Declarative Justification by faith after vocation to life, when the grace of faith is called forth by the ministry of the word.
This paragraph 2b7e, following the sentence above, elaborate it pretty plainly, I would think. Take a careful read and see what you think.
"It is affirmed, that those various passages of scripture, where we are said to be justified through faith, and by fairly, have no other tendency than to show that faith is something prerequisite to justification, which cannot be said if justification was from eternity. To which the answer is, that those scriptures which speak of justification, through and by faith, do not militate against, nor disprove justification before faith; for though justification by and before faith differ, yet they are not opposite and contradictory. They differ, the one being an immanent act in God; all which sort of acts are eternal, and so before faith; the other being a transient declarative act, terminating on the conscience of the believer; and so is by and through faith, and follows it. But then these do not contradict each other, the one being a declaration and manifestation of the other. 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.” [emphasis mine, sing]
Do remember that Gill was an independent Particular Baptist highly respected in his days by 'reformed' men (old school, of course) of different denominations.
By Christ's continuing mercies,
sing
Pastor Lau,
Thanks. Yes it is interesting (humanly speaking) how we interpret things based on an a priori set theology.
Let me try to reason some things out and see if there is agreement.
sing: See some comments. Take time to read... don't rush but please read them. I have given careful consideration to everything you have written... and reciprocate in kind. So, yes, I am saying that it is declarative justification by faith because it is in the same statement speaking of experiential union with Christ by faith.
So there is now a Real Justification and Real Union with Christ - that is also the same as Declarative Justification and Declarative Union with Christ. I am getting the impression that you are making up these definitions as we go along. The whole Narrative of the 1689 framers were talking about Actual Justification - bearing support for their brethren who has been accused by church members of being in error. No one in their right mind would leave their church and accuse their pastor of serious error over Declarative Justification before faith. At least no one in history has held this view before. If you interpret the statement to mean Declarative Justification, then the whole purpose of the Narrative is meaningless.
sing:You are so convinced by now, I am not sure if anything I am going to say is of any value to you. You read the word 'actually' being used in the writing of these great men, and you automatically equate them to Actual Justification you have in mind. May I suggest to you that you are somewhat mistaken. The context where the words 'actual' and 'actually' occur simply means real in the experiential sense, actually experiencing it. In that light, everything they say is perfectly true. Without faith, no one will actually/really experience their justified state by free grace.
Dear Pastor, I would have to say 'ditto' i.e. you are so convinced that faith - cannnot - have a place in Actual Justification even if the Lord has put it in Scripture because it just isn't logical to fallen human thinking. The RP seem to think otherwise. Please read my comment below on the Pearl of Great Price.
sing: What do you think Keach is saying here? How do you want to interpret him?
What is the 'it' that immediately quickens them, and raises them from the dead to a state of spiritual life? Faith? Sacred pearl?
Yes, it is Christ who quickens. That's what Keach is saying. Can you not also see in the whole sentence that "such who receive Christ by faith, though they were dead, Christ immediately quickens them; raiseth them from the dead to a state of spiritual life" ? I'm sorry if I can only interpret this so plainly. Those who receive Christ by faith - Christ immediately quickens them.......There is no way in any human language that this can be interpreted to mean - Declarative quickening, or coming to a knowledge of their quickened state .....just in case you are headed that direction ;-]} (icon means bearded man- sorry can't risk being cheeky!)
sing: I would appreciate if you could help me to understand what 'as a condition of connexion by way of order' mean.
The gospel requires faith as a condition of justification [Actual] and eternal life. Faith being there as part of God-ordained chain of events (that's why faith is a gift). Calling-faith-justification.
sing: I hope you DO NOT want to interpret Keach as saying that your faith is a condition to obtain your Actual Justification as well as Eternal life! Are you saying that Keach is consistent in teaching that faith is a condition to Eternal life as well as Actual Justification? Would you want to interpret Keach to teach that you must exercise faith in order to have eternal life - just as Ho and many others believe that. I do believe that Keach is saying consistently that faith is a condition to declare and experience the actual justification and eternal life, i.e. a condition to declare the possession of actual justification and eternal life by God's free and sovereign grace.
Keach has just answered your objection (it's almost prophetic of Keach) : "You say: But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?" Keach says: "Yes, as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another in logic" Keach did not say a condition to - declare and experience - Actual Justification and eternal life.
Please read his words - plainly (without assumption). If he were to reply to the objection (remember it is an objection similar to yours: "don't tell me that faith is a condition of obtaining Actual Justification and eternal life") Hence his reply - yes it is a condition (in a sense) because it is there as part of a connected chain of events put in order by eternal decree- as one depend on another. Make sense?
Read Keach- you will be surprised. Can't comment much for Kiffin and Knolly because we have no access to their materials.
Tom
Message 49 Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:10:34 +0800
Brother Tom,
Thanks for your reply. See some comments marked ##.
>Tom: So there is now a Real Justification and Real Union with Christ- that is also the same as Declarative Justification and Declarative Union with Christ. I am getting the impression that you are making up these definitions as we go along. The whole Narrative of the 1689 framers were talking about Actual Justification - bearing support for their brethren who has been accused by church members of being in error. No one in their right mind would leave their church and accuse their pastor of serious error over Declarative Justification before faith. At least no one in history has held this view before. If you interpret the statement to mean Declarative Justification, then the whole purpose of the Narrative is meaningless.
I do think your first sentence above is a grave misunderstanding of what I have said. I was dealing with the confusion of the word 'actually' and 'really' with 'Actual Justification.' I am not inventing terms. I forgive you for your imagination.
All I have said is that 'actually and really justified' is used by the PB to mean the Declarative Justification by faith in the context of what they were saying. They were dealing with the false and perverse accusation of 'actually and really justified' from eternity because they believed in Decretal Justification. They replied that Declarative Justification is 'actually and really' experienced at the point of faith. They were not dealing with, or denying that Actual Justification is before faith. For before Actual Justification, there is NO POSSIBILITY of exercising faith in a state of sin and death.
The whole purpose of the Narrative is pointedly served in rebutting the perverse accusation.
Let me repeat something very plainly on the various aspects of Justification.
- There is Justification Decreed before time
- There is Justification Accomplished at the cross, all elect justified Legally.
- There is Justification Applied to individual personally when they are in the state of sin and death. (Faith is only possible when the righteousness of life has been applied, when the individual has been regenerated. A man under the condemnation of death is not capable of believing.)
- There is Justification Declared and Experienced by faith.
- There is Justification at Christ's Coming.
The first 3 aspects are stated clearly in 1689.11.4.
The fourth aspect is stated in 1689.11.2.
Where the difficulty lies is your intermingling and confusing the third and fourth aspects: You have defined Actual Justification (third aspect) and Declarative Justification (fourth aspect) thus: (your post dated Wed, 22 Nov 2006)
> 2. We are actually justified by saving faith
> 3. We are declaratively justified by evidential faith - Agreed
> I think the main difference between what you are proposing and the standard reformed position is No.2
In your scheme of soteriology, your faith in involved in both the Actual Justification and Declarative Justification. You have invented a new distinction between 'saving faith' and 'evidential faith.' You have also attributed to faith vastly different function.
The simple truth is 'saving faith' is a grace found in a person that Declares and Evidences his justified state (Actual Justification) by God's free grace while he was in the state of sin and death (Actual Unjustified state). Isn't this such a simple and obvious truth stated by the Framers in the Confession?
Saving faith is the instrument to Declare and Evidence the Actual Justification and Regeneration and Adoption by God's free grace at Effectual calling. [Only person in such state will ever have the grace of faith worked in them!]
Your 'actually justified' is remotely related to the 'Actual Justification' as defined and summarised by the 1689. The sight of a similar sounding word has misled you. Your 'actually justified' is really what the Confession defined by 'receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness by faith...' - what the Framers described as 'Declarative Justification' - a justification that is declared by faith.
> Tom: Dear Pastor, I would have to say 'ditto' i.e. you are so convinced that faith _cannnot_ have a place in Actual Justification even if the Lord has put it in Scripture because it just isn't logical to fallen human thinking. The RP seem to think otherwise. Please read my comment below on the Pearl of Great Price.
The Framers did say these things - you have read them before, but through your own spectacles, I believe.
"Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth,(1) not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;(2) not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;(3) not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness,(4) they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.(5).
It is pretty clear to me that it is only those that are Actually Justified that are able to exercise faith, thus giving evidence or declaration of the Actual Justification by God's free grace, and "not for anything wrought in them, or done by them."
Faith as a gift of God is found ONLY in those that are Justified (Actual), Regenerated and Adopted. You would want to believe that this gift is given to and is found in the Unjustified (Actual) - i.e. still under the just Condemnation of Death.
You would agree that before Actual Justification, an elect is under Actual Condemnation... i.e. in the state of sin and death. You can dismiss it as human reason. You would want to agree that a man under such spiritual state is incapable of faith. You can dismiss it as human reason.
But Christ certainly did say, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.... And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."
It is quite simple to me: no effectual calling by the Father to grace and salvation - and effectual call to grace and salvation necessitates Justification (Actual), Regeneration and Adoption - no coming to Christ in Faith. You can dismiss this as human reason. [No Actual Justification by grace, no Declarative Justification by faith. Remember the words of Buchanan and Gill?]
> Tom: Yes, it is Christ who quickens. That's what Keach is saying. Can you not also see in the whole sentence that "such who receive Christ by faith, though they were dead, Christ immediately quickens them; raiseth them from the dead to a state of spiritual life" ? I'm sorry if I can only interpret this so plainly. Those who receive Christ by faith- Christ immediately quickens them....... There is no way in any human language that this can be interpreted to mean - Declarative quickening, or coming to a knowledge of their quickened state .....just in case you are headed that direction ;-]}(icon means bearded man- sorry can't risk being cheeky!)
## Let say, I agree with your conclusion that these words of Keach teach that the spiritually dead exercises faith in Christ and is immediately quickened by Christ and is raised from the dead to a state of spiritual life.
Now, assume that I can give you evidence from Keach's own writing also that the sovereign work of regeneration must precede any exercise of faith, would you consider that either Keach is being inconsistent here, or he is being plainly misinterpreted? Would that be reasonable? Would you agree that both may be possible? To err is human; to be inconsistent too.
My method is to understand and interpret a man's particular writing in light of, and in harmony with, his overall view, at the same time bearing in mind that being man, there will be progress in understanding, and so there may be inconsistencies too.
Keach did put his signature, with many other PBs of his days, to these words (1689.20.4):
"Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life; without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God.
Your plain interpretation of Keach's quote may be correct, in which case, I conclude that he has contradicted himself badly. Or you can interpret his words in light of his overall writing. The choice is yours.
>Tom: The gospel requires faith as a condition of justification and eternal life. Faith being there as part of God-ordained chain of events (that's why faith is a gift). Calling-faith-justification.
You choose this way to understand Keach's word. That way you make Keach out to be self-contradictory, which may be possible. There is another way to understand his words - faith is a condition to manifest, to declare, to evidence Actual Justification and Eternal Life... because the Confession that he signed say that only such that has eternal life can be brought to faith, 'conversion unto God.' You know my choice. I choose a way that give Keach some due respect, and not bear a false witness against him.
> Keach has just answered your objection (it's almost prophetic of Keach) : You say: But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life? Keach says: "Yes, as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another in logic" Keach did not say a condition to /declare and experience /Actual Justification and eternal life. Please read his words- plainly (without assumption). If he were to reply to the objection (remember it is an objection similar to yours: "don't tell me that faith is a condition of obtaining Actual Justification and eternal life") Hence his reply -yes it is a condition (in a sense) because it is there as part of a connected chain of events put in order by eternal decree- as one depend on another. Make sense?
## You want to believe that Keach is teaching that your faith is a condition to obtain your Actual Justification and Eternal Life, and accept that he is also self-consistent [with his other writing.] I want to believe that Keach is simply teaching that your faith is a condition to Declare your Actual Justification and Eternal life, thus recognising him as a man consistent in his thought.
So, we differ. That's ok.
Tom: Read Keach- you will be surprised. Can't comment much for Kiffin and Knolly because we have no access to their materials.
## Yes, if I can take the 1689 CoF to which Keach put his signature, then I think I have read some of Keach clear [doctrinal and confessional] thoughts too.
Brother Tom, I have nothing more to say. If you have, please feel free to do so. I would be busy in the next weeks or so. This week we have a week of fasting and praying: last night we gathered in brother Woon and sister Yueh Lay's home to specially remember all the churches that were once associated with us... praying for each of them and their leaders the Lord's rich blessing upon them, praying even for reconciliation...
The whole of SDC is reading all our exchanges... I want them to learn along the way.
I must say that you have mounted a most substantial challenge (no flattery here) against my understanding of the doctrine of salvation, which incidentally, is also believed by those Baptists whose churches had always had the 1689 CoF as their church doctrinal standard since the 18th century until today.
I have thoroughly enjoyed exchanges of our opinions [sic]. With your permission, I will compile all the exchanges, and that of few others into a booklet. All traces of your name or slight reference to you shall be removed. Since you are so convinced, making known the view expressed may actually protect others from my errors. I assume permission granted, since making our theological views would assist others in seeking the truth, and warn them of errors.
I love you, dear brother in Christ. Thanks for the study, and the humour. Good to study serious things with some humour. I enjoyed it.
By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing
Message 50
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:48:14 +0800
Brother Tom,
This is the 50th message in the series.
Tom: Keach has just answered your objection (it's almost prophetic of Keach): You say: But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life? Keach says: "Yes, as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another in logic" Keach did not say a condition to /declare and experience /Actual Justification and eternal life. Please read his words- plainly (without assumption). If he were to reply to the objection (remember it is an objection similar to yours: "don't tell me that faith is a condition of obtaining Actual Justification and eternal life") Hence his reply -yes it is a condition (in a sense) because it is there as part of a connected chain of events put in order by eternal decree- as one depend on another. Make sense?
I think you are quite mistaken if you think Keach is answering my objection. Keach was dealing with a rhetorical question posed by detractors who accused the PBs as believing Actual Justification from eternity. So the objection is really quite different.
I am insisting that faith is a condition in Declarative Justification.
I am denying that faith has any role in Actual Justification.
I believe both statements are affirmed by Keach's word. Read on if you have not dismissed me altogether.
I made this request: "I would appreciate if you could help me to understand what 'as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another in logic' mean."
You replied, "The gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life. Faith being there as part of God-ordained chain of events (that's why faith is a gift). Calling-faith-justification.” [I assume you refer Actual Justification.]
I am quite tempted to call this answer a knee-jerk kind of response. Keach said, "Yes, as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another in logic" Please note that Keach does not speak derogatively about human logic as RBs are quick to do so. You are in danger of getting into that mode too.
May I suggest to you that the simple answer to my question on the meaning of Keach statement, in the words of Buchanan and Gill, is simply this: that Declarative Justification by faith depends on Actual Justification by grace in logic.
Buchanan put it this way, "Actual Justification come first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative." (pg 234). "Their ACTUAL Justification is presupposed, but their DECLARATIVE Justification is specially referred to." (pg 235, all emphasis original.)
Gill put it this way: "They differ, the one being an immanent act in God; all which sort of acts are eternal, and so before faith; the other being a transient declarative act, terminating on the conscience of the believer; and so is by and through faith, and follows it." (in 2b7e quoted previously.) The pronoun 'they' obviously refer to AJ and DJ.
"The connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another in logic" refers to Actual Justification and Declarative Justification in their proper connexion and logical order.
Actual Justification before faith was never disputed among the early Particular Baptists. They were also wholly agreed that Declarative Justification is by faith, and not before. They were fighting against the perverse accusation that they believe in Actual Justification from eternity. That is why 1689.11.4 has, "nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them." And the Holy Spirit applies Christ unto them at effectual calling to grace and salvation at God’s appointed and approved time – that’s when they are Justified [Actual Justification].
That explains Keach’s reply to the smart-alecky objection of one who accuses the PBs of Actual Justification from eternity - like some confused RBs still do to this day: "But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?" Keach says: "Yes, as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another in logic." Keach affirmed what the detractors thought he would deny. The detractors had naively assumed that Keach held to Actual Justification from eternity. [Keach affirmed Actual Justification in time, and faith as a condition to manifest and declare that prior Actual justification and eternal life.] Keach affirmed Declarative Justification by faith - but only in its proper connexion and logical order to Actual Justification by grace.
I am done. Thanks for listening. Please continue if you have fresh thought. I have none left. You have been skilful to drain out all that is there.
sing
"And some believed the things which were spoken,
and some believed not" Acts 28:24
