A Visit to Justification Town - 2e

Message 51
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:40:29 +0800

Dear Pastor Lau,

I guess you are right- we are going in circles trying to convince that we are both on the side of the Particular Baptist.
Neither succeeding very much.

If any of my words have caused offence please forgive me for none is ever intended. Even the so-called 'cheeky' remarks are not sarcasm but to alleviate tension in such an atmosphere.
I am not one who liked theological debates- they almost always end up sadly. However I thank you for your gentlemanly exchanges and willing to discuss truth with someone who is not worthy. It is frustrating because you can't see what I see 'wink!' ;-]} (bearded man again!), but I guess you will say 'ditto' to that. Thanks for the theological journey. I actually have to sit down and read some of the stuff by Keach and the others. They are good! If I get round to going through Keach's Marrow of Justification and typing his (and others) Narrative - I will send you a copy. I understand solid ground books are reprinting the Marrow of Justification but no news of release yet.

Yes, I have to prepare some talks for the … and work in the office is also piling up a bit. Please continue to pray for us even though we may not agree on every jot and tittle. My regards to the brethren in SDC and your charming family.

in Christian love,
Tom.


Message 52
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:54:56 +0800

Brother Tom,

Rest assured that no offence is taken at all.
We will let the matter rest until some other time.
We did pray that the Lord will bless your ministry at the youth camp. May our Lord hear the prayers of His needy children.

By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing


Message 53
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:55:51 +0800
Subject: Keach and peaches

Brethren,

A brother quoted from Keach these words:

From 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"

What do you think Keach is saying? Is he teaching that faith is a prerequisite to life? I don't have any book by Keach.
Could you help me with some quotes from his writings that repudiate that idea if he indeed did not hold to that idea?
Such blatantly Arminian interpretation contradicts his public and confessional statements in the 1689 CoF.

sing


Message 54
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:10:57 –0500

Dear Brother Sing,

The reason I have not answered your questions on this matter is that I simply don't know. I plead ignorance. A casual perusal of http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/BenjaminKeach'sCatechism.htm yields the following, more agreeable, statement:

"Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
“A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. (Eph. 2:8; 3:17)"

The excerpt you have posted above sounds an awful lot like he is saying that faith is a prerequisite to life, but some of the other catechisms on the URL above do, too. It is primarily a Puritan website. Puritans and Calvinists are often known for their logic, but sometimes it appears to me that they come down on both sides of an issue, and willingly embrace contradictions, as do some Baptists who are heavily influenced by such teachers. I thought, with my mathematics training, that I would be able to follow their logic, but I often fail, and I love the straightforward harmony that I find among most Primitive Baptists when they declare the work of Jesus Christ.

Love, Marty


Message 55
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:22:51 +0800

Dear Brother Marty,

Glad to hear from you. Keep speaking... I need help to think.
The question/answer you quoted struck a thought in my mind.

May be in the mind of Keach there is a distinction between the Father applying to us the redemption purchased by Christ and the Holy Spirit applying to us the redemption purchased by Christ. What do you think?

Keach did say, if I can take the 1689 CoF as Keach's statement of faith, concerning the former:

"Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ."

And concerning the latter:
"The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word."

The former is the work of bringing an elect OUT OF the state of sin and death INTO that of grace and salvation.
The latter is the work of bringing a child of God (i.e. already justified, regenerated and adopted) IN gospel ignorance to experientially know the word of truth, the gospel of his salvation by free grace.

[One question: what does 'saving of their souls' mean?]

I take it that faith can only be worked in one who already has life. Can't work faith in one who is still in the state of sin and death. The RBs will despise this as rotten human logic! They do like the 'blessed inconsistencies' trench better. Probably they will now charge me for making false distinctions to get away with my heresy. I think confusing the two will end up portraying Keach as a self-contradicting man. I think Keach must be quite a logical man too - I heard he was successful in his business.

Just some simple thoughts,
sing


Message 56
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:53:07 +0800

Dear Pastor Lau,
I received this email from Dr Choo. It is lengthy and I have no inclination to read all of it. However the reference to Paul made me decide to forward it to you. Although I understand the reason for SDC changing over to KJV, I trust it is not for the same reasons as Chuck's group!

May the Lord's blessing be upon you and your family for the year ahead.
Tom

(The long article by Dr Choo deleted here.)


Message 57
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:45:06 +0800

Brother Tom,

Thanks for your post. I read the few lines written by you and deleted the rest. If I understand Dr Choo correctly from his pestering posts in the past, he believes in regeneration that is conditioned upon using the right translation of the Bible, i.e. no KJV, no regeneration, no salvation. I have proof of this in my email archive.

Put simply, that is just another heresy... no more serious than the baptismal regeneration of the RCs or the gospel/faith regeneration of the RBs or the decisional regeneration of the others. They are all in the same category.

Dr Choo once said (shortly after the passing away of LFJ) that the late Pastor LFJ is probably in hell because when he died he was not using the KJV!!! Choo's hobbyhorse was already beaten to death then! It is funny that such an intelligent man does not see that the KJV came to the scene 15 century TOO LATE! I think he is now trying to serve you with some of the same rotten horsemeat. May the Lord have mercy upon such deluded folks, and keeps us from such similar delusions of the devil.

Even God's children have that perverse propensity to pervert the free grace of God.... Very few are content to embrace the grace of God as pure and free. They must add something of their own into the equation of eternal salvation by grace: whether it is their baptism, or their hearing the gospel or their faith or their decision, or their perseverance, etc...

Are you still convinced that Keach, a particular Baptist, taught that someone dead in sin must believe IN ORDER to have eternal life? I don't know how on earth you have come to a DEAD end road like that. I am truly puzzled!

I am glad that our eternal salvation is by God's pure and free grace... not conditional upon anything in man in any sense. Our temporal salvation in this life here - deliverance from ignorance and unrighteousness, etc - is through our own obedience as God's children, working out our salvation with fear and trembling by the grace of God.

If you wish to know why SDC switched to KJT, I would be glad to tell IEC so. There is no need to speculate. Your trust is appreciated.

May our Lord bless you and all in IEC richly in the year ahead.

By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing


Message 58
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:56:58 +0800

Dear Pastor Lau,

I'm rather surprised at your calling the standard reformed doctrine (and myself, by association) a 'heresy'. :-[ Surely that would be out of character and a swinging to the extreme.

Yes, I've done a bit more reading of Keach and others. There are no reasons to believe that Keach holds to an Actual Justification before faith. This is what he wrote in a sermon: “That justification is an absolute act of God’s most sovereign grace, whereby he imputeth the complete and perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to a _believing_ sinner, though ungodly in himself, absolving him from all his sins, and accepting him as righteous in Christ.”

Keach believed that The imputation of Christ righteousness is to a "believing" sinner. Similar doctrines are held by Francis Turretin, James Buchanan. Although I have not the privilege of reading Owen and Goodwin on this, I will not be surprised that both these men are of the same sentiments as Keach, Turretin and Buchanan. This is the doctrine of the particular baptists
of the 1689. The evidence is quite clear.

The doctrine of justification before faith is an error. Attributing that doctrine to the early Particular Baptist is not faithful to history. If you are not tired at looking at evidence I'll copy you more when I come across them.

Hopefully having considered me a heretic will not prejudiced you against truth presented. Perhaps you may be convinced to change your mind. ;-)

I still remain,
A brother in the Lord
Tom


Message 59
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:15:28 +0800

Brother Tom,

Thanks for your reply.

I didn't say you are a heretic. I did point out a serious error and call it a heresy, and stated some errors in the same category. There is no need to put words in my mouth. Get rid of the hair ticks if they are troubling you.

I do consider the teaching that a correct translation of the Bible is necessary for regeneration as a heresy... so is the teaching that believing is necessary for ACTUAL justification or regeneration. These errors are in the same category - eternal salvation is by God's free grace PLUS something.

I have a very simple proposition: regeneration MUST precede believing... and ACTUAL/PERSONAL justification must precede regeneration... without ACTUAL/PERSONAL removal of ACTUAL/PERSONAL condemnation of death upon an elect in ACTUAL/PERSONAL justification by the Father, there could be no warrant for the Spirit to regenerate an elect who is still in the state of ACTUAL/PERSONAL condemnation of death.

1689.11.4says: “God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, (11) and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification;(12) nevertheless, they are not justified PERSONALLY, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due ACTUALLY apply Christ unto them.(13)”

My observations: three aspects of justification are stated above:
1. DECRETAL justification from eternity by God
2. LEGAL justification by Christ's death and resurrection.
3. ACTUAL/PERSONAL justification when Christ is actually applied to them personally by the Holy Spirit.

The other two biblical aspects not mentioned here but elsewhere are:
4. DECLARATIVE/EVIDENTIAL justification by faith is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word. (1689.11.2)
5. FINAL justification by Christ at the resurrection to eternal glory.

My questions concerning 1689.11.4
1. What is the spiritual state of the elect UNTIL "the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them?"
2. UNTIL Christ is applied to them personally by the sovereign and gracious work of the Holy Spirit, is there spiritual life in the elect?
3. UNTIL Christ is applied to them personally, i.e. UNTIL they are actually/personally justified, is there ability to believe?
4. WHEN Christ is applied to them personally, i.e. WHEN they are personally/actually justified, what change occurs in their spiritual state?
5. Is actual/personal justification by your faith or by God's free grace while the elect is in the state of sin and death?

Please consider these simple questions.

With ACTUAL justification at effectual call to grace and salvation, an elect in sin and death is regenerated and adopted - thus enabled to believe. This makes the next aspect of justification - i.e. declarative justification by faith - possible. Not all elect will experience declarative justification by faith. 1689.10.3

All elect will experience Final justification - on the great judgment day.

You quoted Keach: “That justification is an absolute act of God’s most sovereign grace, whereby he imputeth the complete and perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to a _believing_ sinner, though ungodly in himself, absolving him from all his sins, and accepting him as righteous in Christ.”

Scriptures says: "God justifies the ungodly", and this "freely by His grace."
Please find out the spiritual state of the ungodly. Try reading Psalm 1.
The ungodly can't meet the condition of faith... actual justification has to be freely by God's grace. Declarative justification is by/through faith.

Scriptures says: "The just shall live by faith." Who shall live by faith?
It is not the ungodly who shall live by faith and are justified by God. That's a lie.

Justification took place when the sinner is in the state of ungodliness.

You said, “Keach believed that the imputation of Christ righteousness is to a "believing" sinner.”

I believe it is very simple to understand Keach words: a believing sinner gives evidence or make manifest by his believing that he has been imputed with Christ's righteousness by God’s most sovereign grace when he was an UNGODLY state. His believing is evidence of his justified state while ungodly - "the just shall live by faith." A 'believing sinner' is a sinner that has been regenerated, Christ's righteousness has been applied to Him by God's act of sovereign grace.

[You are in effect saying that Keach believed that a man under the just condemnation of death (i.e. an unjustified man) can believe in order to have that condemnation of death removed, in order to be justified. You are also in effect saying that a man under the just condemnation of death (i.e. an unjustified man) is spiritually alive and can believe in order to be justified by God. Think about it.]

Sorry for repeating the same old stuff.

By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing


Message 60
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:09:02 +0800

Brother Tom,

You said, “Similar doctrines are held by Francis Turretin, James Buchanan. Although I have not the privilege of reading Owen and Goodwin on this, I will not be surprised that both these men are of the same sentiments as Keach, Turretin and Buchanan. This is the doctrine of the particular baptists of the 1689. The evidence is quite clear.”

I have not read anything by Turretin. I have read some of James Buchanan.

Here are few lines from his magnum opus - 'Justification' - Lecture VIII, Proposition II, Paragraph 1 and 2. [All emphasis original.] .
--------
“Proposition 2. While "Justification" is a forensic or judicial term, it is used in Scripture to denote, sometimes the acceptance of a sinner as righteous in the sight of God, sometimes the manifestation or proof of his acceptance, by which it is attested and made sure; and this variety in the application of it is the ground of an important theological distinction:– the distinction between ACTUAL and DECLARATIVE Justification.

This distinction does not imply, either that there is more than one Justification before God, as Romish writers have alleged, or that the sense of the term is ambiguous; for that term relates invariably to one and the same Justification, when it denotes a change in man’s relation to God. But this change may be considered in two distinct aspects:– either as being actually accomplished when he is accepted as righteous, or as being declared and attested, so as to give him the comfortable assurance of it. And the same term may be applied to it in each of these aspects, without making its meaning ambiguous, since the context will enable us to determine in which of the two it is contemplated by the sacred writer. The Protestant doctrine affirms that a sinner is made or constituted righteous by having Christ’s righteousness imputed to him; and that, being thus justified actually, he is also justified declaratively, when his acceptance is proved or attested [by faith, sing], so as to be made manifest to his own conscience, or to his fellow-men. In both cases it is one and the same Justification that is spoken of:– his acceptance as righteous in the sight of God; but in the one it is considered simply as a fact, in the other as a fact that is attested and proved [by faith, sing]. Actual Justification comes first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative; and hence, if any one is declared to have been justified, we conclude that he was actually justified, or accepted as righteous in the sight of God.”
---------
My comments:
Actual justification is by God's free grace when you were dead in sin... when Christ was applied to you personally by the sovereign and gracious work of the Spirit [when there is no possibility of your exercising faith.]
Declarative justification is by your faith in Christ when you are a child of God [regenerated.]

Actual justification by God's free grace comes first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative by your faith.
Actual justification by God's free grace is declared and attested by faith in Christ.
I just don't want you to misrepresent James Buchanan. If I am mistaken, I ask for your forgiveness.

John Gill marshaled Owen and Goodwin not a little in his chapters on Justification. Check it out in his Body of Divinity - book 2 chapter 5, book 6 chapter 8. If anyone know where Owen and Goodwin stood, John Gill is the man. They unanimously see actual justification by God's free grace, in distinction to declarative justification by believer's faith. To them, believer's faith IS ALWAYS declarative and attesting in nature.

Your breath declares and attests to your possession of life! That is surely simple enough to comprehend.

I am only repeating what I have written before... but you take no notice.

By grace, I remain
your brother in Christ,
sing