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.)