A Visit to Justification Town - 1

Justification - how many aspects/senses/phases?
How many roads and lanes are there in Justification Town?

Post 1- on 19/12/03 10:56 PM, sing wrote:

Dear brothers,

Below is paragraph 4 of chapter 11 of the 1689 LCoF:

4. 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) 11. Gal 3:8; 1Pe 1:2; 1Ti 2:6. 12. Ro 4:25. 13. Col 1:21-22; Tit 3:4-7.

My question: how many aspects or senses of justification do the Scripture teach?
Is there a sense of justification by eternal decree? (Romans 8:30)
Is there a sense of justification [legal] by the blood and resurrection of Christ? (Romans 5:9, 4:25)
Is there a sense of justification [applied] by the grace of God at effectual calling to grace and salvation
Is there a sense of justification [experiential] by faith in the person and work of Christ? (Romans 4:24a, 5:1)
Is there a sense of justification [evidential] by works? (James 2:22)

Romans 4:24b-25 says, 'It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification.'

What does the pronoun ‘it’ refers to? What shall be imputed to us?
What does it mean 'was raised up BECAUSE OF our justification? If it is 'because of' our justification, then when did that justification take place, and what sense of the justification is it?

Was there a legal/objective justification of all the elect by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?

just wondering,
sing

------

Post 2: on 21/12/03 6:28 AM, Peter Kek wrote:

Dear Sing,

I am wondering as to your point regarding 'justification'.

Sing wrote:
==Below is paragraph 4 of chapter 11 of the 1689 CoF:
4. 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) 11. Gal 3:8; 1Pe 1:2; 1Ti 2:6. 12. Ro 4:25. 13. Col 1:21-22; Tit 3:4-7. ==

God from all eternity decrees to justify, but the justification happens in time when the elect believe, & Christ's death is the basis.


==My question: how many aspects or senses of justification do the Scripture teach? Is there a sense of justification by eternal decree? (Romans 8:30)==

Remember, Romans 8:30 speaks of the order of salvation. Those predestined will be called, & those called will be justified. But there can be no justification without faith.

==Is there a sense of justification by the blood and resurrection of Christ? (Romans 5:9, 4:25) ==

The meaning of Romans 4:25 is that, because Jesus was raised, it indicates that His atonement was acceptable to God. His death & resurrection were necessary in order that we may be justified. In that sense He was delivered to death because of (for) our sins and was raised because of (for) our justification.
Romans 5:9, says the same thing, i.e., His death (blood) is the basis of our justification.

== Is there a sense of justification by faith in the person and work of Christ? (Romans 4:24a, 5:1) ==

While the above speak of the basis of our justification, these verses tell us that the way to be justified is by faith in Jesus Christ!

== Is there a sense of justification by works? (James 2:22). ==

James speaks of a different type of justification. He speaks of works as proof of our salvation.

== Romans 4:24b-25 says, 'It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification.' What does it mean 'was raised up BECAUSE OF our justification? If it is 'because of' our justification, then when did that justification take place, and what sense of the justification is it? ==

As explained above, "because of" in these verses means "for" or "for the sake of". In that sense, justification takes place the moment we believe in Christ!

== Was there a legal/objective justification of all the elect by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? ==

Do you believe in eternal justification?

Peter

---------

Post 3: on 21/12/03 5:01 PM, sing wrote:

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your thoughts. See my comments in blue.

PK= I am wondering as to your point regarding 'justification'. My thoughts in maroon. ==

I myself am wondering too - whether the Scriptures speak more than we have traditionally understood. I was reading the 1689.11.4 and it struck me that there is more then what I have thought.
1689.11.4 - (note the three distinct parts).
part 1: 'God DID from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, (11) and
part 2: Christ DID in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification;(12) nevertheless,
part 3: they are not justified PERSONALLY, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.(13) 11. Gal 3:8; 1Pe 1:2; 1Ti 2:6. 12. Ro 4:25. 13. Col 1:21-22; Tit 3:4-7.

PK == God from all eternity decrees to justify, but the justification happens in time when the elect believe, & Christ's death is the basis. ==

I believe you have stated less than what is stated in 1689.11.4 - perhaps just 2/3.
There is a sense in which ALL THE ELECT are justified - legally and objective - at and through the death and resurrection of Christ. Legally, all the sins of all the elect were imputed to Christ when He died and rose, and likewise, the righteousness of Christ was legally imputed to all the elect.

'Nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.'

When the framers say, 'Nevertheless they are not justified PERSONALLY' does it not assume that they believe that all the elect were justified in some non-personal sense, i.e. justified LEGALLY by the finished work of Christ at Calvary.

Perhaps Christ's death is more than just the basis of [personal] justification, perhaps in His death and resurrection there was indeed that real and complete [LEGAL] justification of all the elect - nevertheless, not personally and subjectively, but legally and objectively

My question: how many aspects or senses of justification do the Scripture teach?
Is there a sense of justification by eternal decree? (Romans 8:30)

PK == Remember, Romans 8:30 speaks of the order of salvation. Those predestined will be called, & those called will be justified. But there can be no justification without faith. ==

Please note carefully that all [sic] the verbs in Romans 8:30 are aorist. There is no future tense in the whole order of salvation spoken of here. Because all the verbs are in the aorist, I believe what is spoken of here is NOT what we have commonly understood as the outworking of the order of salvation in time, but what God has decreed to do for His elect people in Christ. He foreknew without human means, He predestinated without human means. He effectually called without human means. He justified without human means - note the second part of the 1689.11.4 stated above. He glorified without human means.

Is there any significance that 'sanctification' is not mentioned? The common answer is that it is assumed! There must be an explanation. [Effectual call is the definitive sanctification from sin and death to grace and salvation.]

(A friend taught me how to study the verbs of the NT Greeks: go too http://www.blueletterbible.org/. Select Romans 8:30 from the pull-down list boxes click 'go to verse' This takes you to a web page which lists all the verses in Romans 8. Each verse has 6 small blue squares to the left of it. Click on the one with the 'C'. It is a wonderful study tool. Try it.)
Is there a sense of justification by the blood and resurrection of Christ? (Romans 5:9, 4:25)

PK == The meaning of Romans 4:25 is that, because Jesus was raised, it indicates that His atonement was acceptable to God. His death & resurrection were necessary in order that we may be justified. In that sense He was delivered to death because of (for our sins and was raised because of (for) our justification. Romans 5:9, says the same thing, i.e., His death (blood) is the basis of our justification. ==

Was there a legal justification of ALL THE ELECT at the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is it not true that it is the elect that are legally justified by God through the finished work of Christ whom the Holy Spirit does in due time apply the justification in Christ to them - personally?

I believe the confession says that there is that PRIOR legal justification of ALL THE ELECT in the death and resurrection of Christ. Romans 4:24b-25 says, 'It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification.' What does it mean 'was raised up BECAUSE OF our justification? If it is 'because of' our justification, then when did that justification take place, and what sense of the justification is it?

PK ==As explained above, "because of" in these verses means "for" or "for the sake of". In that sense, justification takes place the “moment we believe in Christ!” ==

'Christ was raised up for our justification'
- for whose justification? Who does the pronoun 'our' embrace - just the Roman believers or all the elect?
- when was this justification transacted, when the elect believes throughout history, or when Christ was raised?

Romans 6:10 says, 'For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.'

When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Did the dead of God's Son legally reconcile all the elect to God?

Before a elect is regenerated and believes (in a state of enmity) is there a true sense that he is ALREADY LEGALLY reconciled to God by the death of Christ on the cross for all the elect?

Was there a legal/objective justification of all the elect by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?

PK == Do you believe in eternal justification? ==

I don’t to assume that I understand your LOADED question. That depends what you mean. In any case, your question goes toooooo far back into eternity.

My question wanders around the foot of the cross on which Christ died!
I believe that experiential and subjective justification is through personal faith in Christ alone, this being the manifestation of the legal justification of all the elect secured by Christ on Calvary, and applied at effectual calling: both of which is the outworking of the Father's decree to justify all the elect before time. The legal justification based on Christ' finished work is eternal.

I believe there are more riches yet to be discovered in the Gold Mine. I need sound minded and clear-sighted brethren to dig around the Mine with me.

seeking and learning,
sing

----
Post 4: on 24/12/03 6:28 AM, Peter Kek wrote:

Dear Sing,

Actually the questions & issues you raised concerning justification have been dealt with by men in the past. The doctrine of justification is a key issue of the reformation, & I believe has been thoroughly researched. We must be careful to think that they had only touched the tip of the iceberg regarding this doctrine.
About legal justification of the elect, I am still wondering what you are trying to get at. What practical implication?

P Kek

-----
Post 5: on 24/12/03 12:58 PM, sing wrote:

Dear Peter,

== Actually the questions & issues you raise concerning justification have been dealt with by men in the past. The doctrine of justification is a key issue of the reformation, & I believe has been thoroughly researched. We must be careful to think that they had only touched the tip of the iceberg regarding this doctrine.==

I am in complete agreement that justification has been dealt with by great men in the past, and researched with in a thorough manner. I don't believe there is anything new under the sun, and it is quite sure I can't discover anything new. Let me assure you I am not self-conceited and am under NO such delusion.

The problem is not with them. I fear the problem lies with ME, and perhaps with some others too. I fear there are lanes and byways in the Town of Justification that I have not heard of and much less traveled on them. This may be the same with others. But when I read the writings of those who had lived in Justification Town, I realize that there is more than one main road in Justification Town. I wish to explore them. Any companions?

MY PROBLEM IS NOT that they had only touch the tip of the iceberg regarding this doctrine (they, including our Baptists forefathers, have very thoroughly researched the whole subject.) MY PROBLEM IS that I am only seeing the tip of the iceberg of what they have thoroughly researched. And I am beginning to see something more below the water’s surface.

I begin to see that there is more to personal justification by grace, and experiential justification by faith... and the writings of the Baptist forefathers are plain evidence... only that we have not read or study it.

== About legal justification of the elect, I am still wondering what you are trying to get at. What practical implication? ==

What practical implication? I don't know if my desire to study the subject is motivated by what practical implication the subject may have. I don't know if I am trying to get at anything except to come to grip with what the Scriptures does say, and what the Baptists forefathers did understand.

This is not to say that the truth of the VARIOUS ASPECTS of the justification of the elect has no practical implications. I am sure every truth of Scriptures has practical implications... perhaps the first and foremost is for us preachers to rightly dividing the Word on those passages that speaks of the legal justification of all the elect by imputation through the finished work of Christ at the cross.

So what's your thoughts about Romans 5:18-19? Help me with some answers to my questions. I want to learn. I won't bite anyone who disagrees with me. Agreement is not what I seek, but understanding of the Scripture. One can only believe what one is convinced of... but one who is convinced of something must be ready to submit his conviction to the scrutiny of Scriptures. When a conviction cannot withstand the scrutiny of Scriptures, or is found deficient, then everybody wins - at least that's what I hope.

learning,
sing

---

Post 6: on 26/1/04 12:51 AM, Chee Goon wrote:

Dear Pastor Lau and Pastor Kek,

I have read a little about the discussion on Justification that was going on. I like to share my understanding here.

1. From 1689 11.1, justification is described as '... by accounting and accepting them as righteous ... God imputes to them Christ's righteousness ...'. Therefore, Justification is an act of God, declaring a person righteous. It is not so much of a person justifying himself of his salvation by his faith, etc.

2. The order of salvation or application of redemption to the elect is:
a. Free offer of salvation in the gospel - general call
b. Regeneration - creating a new heart in sinner
c. Conversion - repentance and faith
d. Justification - declare the person righteous
e. Adoption
f. Sanctification
g. Glorification

According to order above, Justification comes after repentance and faith.

3. There are three views on when Justification takes place:
a. Justification from Eternity
b. Justification from Calvary
c. Justification from Faith

I believe Justification comes after Faith. [yes, experiential justification is by faith!]

Romans 3:26 'to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'

Rom 3:28 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.'

Rom 3:30 'since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.'

It is God who justifies. The ground or basis of Justification is the finished work of Christ. Faith is the instrument or means through which the righteousness of Christ is applied to the elect.

1689 11.2 'Faith which receives Christ's righteousness and depends on Him is the sole instrument of justification ...'

Rom 5:1 'Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.'

James 2:23 '... Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness ...'

Elect, though chosen to be saved from eternity, could be enemies of God in the early part of their lives before they were reconciled to God at certain point in their life.

Col 1:21-23 'And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, .... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard ...'

Chee Goon

----
Post 7: 28/2/04 10:09 AM, Chee Goon wrote:

Dear Pastor Lau,

I have been trying to follow the discussion on justification. Let me share with you my observation and comment.

* Faith, though exercised by man, is not man's merit to deserve or secure justification. But it pleases God to justify sinner when the person trusts (exercise faith) in God and Jesus (Rom 4:3 Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness). This also shows 'when' justification takes place.

* As faith, good works, Christ's blood and God are all related to salvation of man, therefore we find that some verses in the Bible use them with justification. But justification is a legal declaration by the judge who is God alone. So, to answer what each of the items justifies, Christ's blood is the basis of justification, faith is the means and good works show the genuineness of the faith.

* All souls are already 'eternal' but some will spend their time in God's presence while some will live away from God in hell eternally. The 'eternal life' for God's people is the living in God's presence eternally after this world. Only those who are reconciled to God and are righteous have this eternal life. Regeneration is a 'change of heart', bringing the spiritually dead to life, making the person able to believe in God. If justification and eternal life precede regeneration, it means that a righteous person (already justified) who is reconciled to God (i.e. has eternal life) can still be spiritually dead in sin as is the case of the unregenerate. This is a contradiction.

Is your current understanding of justification the same as that of Primitive Baptist? If so, you are most likely influenced by their doctrines and it resulted in the change of your understanding. Do you have difficulty with your former understanding such that you need to change?

Chee Goon

-----
Post 8: 28/2/04 12:15 PM, sing at wrote:

Dear Chee Goon,

Thanks for your thoughts. (I cc. this mail to Pastor Kek).

If it is possible, think outside the box of 'justification by faith alone' for a moment. Just try... and read what I say. I did so, do some serious study and RE-thinking outside the box and I learn something fresh from the Word.

This is the essence of the difference between what I understood before and what I understand now: what and how does personal faith justify?

Formerly, I thought personal faith is 'the means, instrument, channel, whereby a person is put in right standing before God.'

I believe that this is wholly impossible and erroneous.
Faith is the evidence of a man already in right standing before God.

The question then, is, 'when and how was that right standing with God establish?'
The simple answer is: the legal justification which secured that right standing before God HAS TAKEN PLACE for all the elect at the cross.

And that legal justification is made vital or applied personally to individual elect at God's appointed and approved time, by the Holy Spirit regenerating. I believe the Holy Spirit will regenerate ONLY those who Christ has redeemed and justified before God. (Have you ever asked, 'does the Holy Spirit has any warrant to regenerate those whom has not legally justified?)

And personal faith in Christ through the hearing of the Word by the gospel ministry is the effect of regeneration. That personal faith, the effect of regeneration, is the EVIDENCE that such a person is God's elect, Christ's redeemed and God's justified based on the finished work of Christ at the cross, and the Holy Spirit regenerated. Personal faith JUSTIFIES that the believing person is INDEED of God's elect, Christ's redeemed and justified in Him, and Spirit's regenerated.

Do I make sense to you? Do you understand what I am saying? I am not asking, Do you agree with me?

What is the proof that there is ONLY one legal justification of all the elect?
Read Romans 5:12-19 very carefully. Note particularly verse 18. "Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

First, note apostle's 'THEREFORE.' This is the conclusion of matter being discussed.
What was being discussed? The effect of the 'one man's sin' and the effect of one man's righteousness.
The legal condemnation and the legal justification of all represented by the two legal representatives is the subject being discussed.

Second: note the words, 'EVEN SO.' This indicates the exact parallel between :
the legal condemnation of… all represented by… Adam by his sin in the garden, and
the legal justification of… all represented by… Christ by His righteousness on the cross.

The imputation of Adam's sin to… ALL represented by him, and
the imputation of Christ's righteousness to… ALL represented by Him
is a STRICT EXACT parallel - that is the whole thesis of apostle Paul.

So, legal justification for all of God's elect is a matter settled on the cross.
Personal faith justifies... but this justification is NOT our legal justification before God.
It has NOTHING to do with 'the means, instrument, channel, whereby a person is put in right standing before God.'

Personal faith is THE means that justifies a person - it is the MEANS that EVIDENCE a person as an elect of God, redeemed of Christ and justified before God by His finished work, and regenerated.

My personal faith DID NOT secure my right standing before God. My personal faith JUSTIFIES (simple present tense) VINDICATES, PROVES, EVIDENCES that I am indeed an elect of God, redeemed of Christ and justified before God by His finished work, and regenerated. Conscious peace with God is the fruit and effect of that justification.

#### Good works justify (simple present tense) my profession of faith in Christ before men.

#### My faith in Christ justifies (simple present tense) that I am indeed one of God's elect, Christ redeemed and God's justified by Christ work, and Holy Spirit regenerated before my own conscience. My faith in Christ tells me that I am no longer a condemned sinner, but reconciled to God, not by my faith... but while I was still an enemy of God!

#### The faith of Christ has justified (present perfect tense) me before God.

I believe that ONLY those who are ALREADY been redeemed by Christ AND ALREADY put in right standing before God by the finished work of Christ are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise the Spirit has no warrant to regenerate such a person.

Scriptures led me to this understanding. It has nothing to do with the Primitive Baptist.

This understanding removes many other inconsistencies and contradictions. Have you ever wonder sometimes or grapple with these difficulties? Let me just mention some:
1. You would agree that a person must have spiritual life before he can believe. How can a person have spiritual life without a right standing with God? Is that conceivable to you?
2. At regeneration a person is born and become children of God. Will God give the right to become children of God to those who have no legal right standing with Him?
3. Reconciled while enemies of God... can there be reconciliation without being in just standing before God?
4. I could think of many more.....

Did you have an opportunity to read the article with the two charts?

Thanks for writing. I want to understand all that you say. I was there for a long time. I am sorry I taught you deficiently. May the Lord forgive me. I read the 1689 with the glasses I wore then. Look at it again, it does not teach 'justification [experiential] by faith alone' but 'justification [legal] by Christ alone.'

I must rush off now. We have the evangelistic table - like what you and I used to do - from 12.30 to 2.00. At 2.30 to 4.00 we have our ESL - started 3 weeks ago. There are 11 students, ranging from std 4-6, from Keong Hoe Chinese primary school. May the Lord's work here continues to find a place in your heart.

seeking and learning (still do, and moves along as I learn),
Pastor Lau.

p/s You are FREE to cc this post to anyone you like.
-----

Post 9: on 29/2/04 1:02 AM, sing wrote:

Dear brother Chee Goon,

Let me respond particularly to your post now.

== I have been trying to follow the discussion on justification. Let me share with you my observation and comment.==

## Do follow it and learn something if you could.

Chee == Faith, though exercised by man, is not man's merit to deserve or secure justification. But it pleases God to justify sinner when the person trusts (exercise faith) in God and Jesus (Rom 4:3 Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness). This also shows 'when' justification takes place.==

You need to be careful here. Abraham ALREADY HAD FAITH when he left Ur. Read Heb 11:8 carefully. Romans 4:3 refers to the incident in Gen 15:6. If you want to make Romans 4:3 to speak of legal justification by faith, what kind of faith did Abraham had when "by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance.' [Was Abraham still an un-justified, condemned man in Gen 12-14?]

Years ago I raised the same point like you. Someone wrote this in reply: (read it carefully)
QUOTE: With few exceptions (I wouldn't say that all Reformed thinkers follow this line.) most Reformed theologians make Genesis 15:6 Abraham's first act of faith and associate it with his justification or salvation moment, calling it his moment of "saving faith." If Scripture, and historical voices from past generations-especially very early voices-establish that he both had and acted by faith long before this event, as I believe Hebrews 11:8 clearly teaches, along with his life record in Genesis then we must question our friends' conclusion regarding Genesis 15:6. This was not his initial act of faith, nor was it the moment of his justification. ------END QUOTE.

A serious point to consider! The justification spoken of in Romans 4:3 is something other than justification with reference to a right standing before God, something other than legal and forensic! Beware of claiming so much that we contradict the plain testimony of Scriptures, Heb 11:8. Did Abraham's faith in Gen 12 justify him?

Chee == As faith, good works, Christ's blood and God are all related to salvation of man, therefore we find that some verses in the Bible use them with justification. But justification is a legal declaration by the judge who is God alone. So, to answer what each of the items justifies, Christ's blood is the basis of justification, faith is the means and good works show the genuineness of the faith.==

Let's start at the bottom”
Good works justifies the man: he is a child of God in Christ.

Faith in Christ is the means to justify a person's election by God, redemption and justification by God in Christ, and regeneration by the Spirit.

The faith of Christ (the faithfulness of Christ) ALONE is the means, the ground, call it whatever you want - to justify an elect before God, that secure a sinner right standing before God.

It is something of Christ's that justified us before God, that secured the elect's right standing before God. Our personal faith justifies, evidences, that we are justified of God in Christ.

Chee == All souls are already 'eternal' but some will spend their time in God's presence while some will live away from God in hell eternally. The 'eternal life' for God's people is the living in God's presence eternally after this world. Only those who are reconciled to God and are righteous have this eternal life. Regeneration is a 'change of heart', bringing the spiritually dead to life, making the person able to believe in God. If justification and eternal life precede regeneration, it means that a righteous person (already justified) who is reconciled to God (i.e. has eternal life) can still be spiritually dead in sin as is the case of the unregenerate. This is a contradiction.==

You said only those who are reconciled to God and are righteous have this eternal life. But the Scriptures say that we were reconciled while we were enemies!!! Read Romans 5:6-11. We didn't have faith when we were enemies, did we? So, we were reconciled WITHOUT our faith!!! We were reconciled by the faith of Christ - by Christ's faithfulness in His active and passive obedience.

Regeneration is birth and bestowal of spiritual life, which is eternal in nature and essence. It is more than a change of heart.
He who eats has physical life. He who believes has eternal life - this is a statement of fact. John 3:16.

Eternal life is a result of regeneration, not before regeneration. Legal justification - whether prospectively or retrospectively considered - is the ground and basis of regeneration. The Holy Spirit regenerates ONLY those who God the Father has elected, and those who Christ has redeemed, in whom and by whose righteousness, God has also justified.

An elect may be legally justified by the finished work of Christ... born 2000 years later... conceived in sin, born in sin, grow up in sin, and live in enmity against God. At God's appointed and approved time, God calls him effectually through the Holy Spirit's regenerating work. This regeneration then manifests itself in personal faith in Christ Jesus through the ministry of the Word. 'Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.'

Chee == Is your current understanding of justification the same as that of Primitive Baptist? If so, you are most likely influenced by their doctrines and it resulted in the change of your understanding. Do you have difficulty with your former understanding such that you need to change?==

I have answered this in the previous post. I hope it make sense. Often change is needed when a man of God is shown more truth from the Scriptures. Growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ very often necessitates CHANGE!
Try this: stand OUTSIDE the box of 'justification by faith alone' and see if I make any sense.

pastor Lau

You are free to cc to pastor Kek if you like.
-----------

Post 10 : 3 Apr 2004 01:39:41 +0800 Dr Kayu wrote:

Dear Pr Lau,

Please consider the writing of Jonathan Edwards. I have thought over the recent discussions between pastors and I find that I cannot agree with the Primitive Baptist view of faith being nothing more than evidence that one is an elect of God redeemed by Christ. It is extremely dangerous to set aside the writings of Edwards, Owen, Pink, Murray, and even Calvin. Could it not be possible that the Primitive Baptists hold such a view to the extent they have become very closed and even hypercalvinistic?

Can one be so sure that they correctly interpret the bible. even though they so called have never had any arminian leaven. Also, can we be so sure that the framers of the 1689 confession will today disagree with the 'standard reformed position'. Spurgeon himself taught from the 1689, in fact, he wrote out the baptist catechism.

The implications of adopting this different view are serious. We must be careful that we do not simply disagree with standard reformed view just bcos we misrepresent it to mean that faith secures justification. I am sure that Edwards will jump from his grave if his writing here can ever be interpreted to mean

With all due respect to you as our pastor, I plead for you to restudy again this position. I fear most that our people will become confused. Also, what are they gonna do when they find out that other RB churches hold to the 'standard reformed view' which differs from this new view?
Your unworthy brother

KAY-U
---

post 11: on 3/4/04 1:44 PM, sing wrote:

[Kay-u raised the issue of hyper-calvinism BECAUSE Peter Kek sowed this thought in his mind on March 30th evening, and that in the very premises of Sungai Dua Church.]

Dear brother Kay-u,

Thank you for writing. I am glad that you are thinking about the subject. This enables me to know what's going through your mind. I am uneasy when people are silent.

Yes, let us continue to study this subject carefully and be finally persuaded as to what the Scriptures teach. I will put a few thoughts in your post, marked ##. Yours in ==….==. Please read and think carefully. If you have any further questions, please feel very free to ask.

== Please consider the writing of Jonathan edwards. I have thought over the recent discussions between pastors and I find that I cannot agree with the Primitive Baptist view of faith being nothing more than evidence that one is an elect of God redeemed by Christ.==

I would like to read Edwards' sermon you have attached. Where can I find it? Is it in his collected Works.

I do believe the statement 'justification is by personal faith alone.' I have included the word 'personal' in order to distinguish it from the 'justification by the faith of Christ.' It becomes a matter of what and how we understand the statement. I have a question: what and how does personal faith justify? I am asking an honest question. Give it a try.

Please do remember that there were NO Primitive Baptist whatsoever when the view were already held by the particular baptists who framed both the first (1644) and the second (1689) London Confession of Faith. So, there is no of picking at the poor Primitive Baptists. I suggest you leave them alone.

The soundness of a teaching is to be solely determined whether it is consistent with Scriptures. I think you will agree on this principle. We must never discount and dismiss a teaching just because it is held by some group different from us. Guilt by association is always a tempting tactics. Any teaching ought to be examined on its own merits in the balance of Scriptures alone. Scriptures is the ONLY authority. So forget about the Primitive Baptist for now - whatever they do or do not believe. The same applies to any group. Many Calvinist believes that it is believing in order to have eternal life, even though they say regeneration precedes faith. What do you say about such folks?

Maintain a study-mode please.

== It is extremely dangerous to set aside the writings of Edwards, Owen, Pink, Murray, and even Calvin. Could it not be possible that the Primitive Baptists hold such a view to the extent they have become very closed and even hypercalvinistic? ==

Wah, very big names :-)
Let me repeat here - there were NO Primitive Baptist whatsoever when the view were already held by the Particular Baptists who framed both the first (1644) and the second (1689) London Confession of Faith. I will forward to you a few posts on this particular matter.

Please remember also that the soundness of a view is not to be determined by the unbiblical implications others would impute to it, unless it can be shown that the implications are necessarily inherent to such view. I believe you would agree. For example, it has always been alleged that 'salvation by grace alone' would promote antinomianism, therefore it should be rejected. But the proponents of 'salvation by grace alone' are neither antinomians in principle or practice.

In any case I am not too sure whether the Primitive Baptist are hyper (if you mean they are anti-mission, anti evangelistic). I don't know much about them. I have heard that they do have many churches planted in the Philippines, India and Africa.

Setting aside the writings of these men whom God has used greatly is one thing. I can assure you that I have no such intention. They have written much helpful treaties. However. trying to understand what they have written in the light of Scriptures is quite another. I have only started to ask, what do these men mean when they say 'justification is by faith alone'?

== Can one be so sure that they correctly interpret the bible. even though they so called have never had any arminian leaven. Also, can we be so sure that the framers of the 1689 confession will today disagree with the 'standard reformed position'. Spurgeon himself taught from the 1689, in fact, he wrote out the baptist catechism. ==

Whether they have correctly interpreted the Bible is something for those who are interested to consider the subject. We could either dismiss it as irrelevant or erroneous without further consideration. We may choose to study it and determine its scripturalness after some careful study. That is the process the pastors are going through now - studying and searching together – at least I hope this is so! A berean spirit is needed. Instead of a study mode, I see defensive and offensive stance. With such stance, there is no possibility of learning. It also implies that we have arrived already. I am learning all the time.

Whether the framers of the 1689 confession will today disagree with the 'standard reformed position' [as stated by Pastor Kek] is also for us to determine. All we need to do is to show that the 1689 DOES say what is claimed by Pastor Kek as the 'standard reformed position.' I believe that is a VERY FAIR and REASONABLE approach. I have explicitly requested Pastor Kek to show that the 1689 DOES INDEED teaches the standard reformed position on 'justification by faith alone' as expressed by him. [Pastor Kek said that the standard reformed position of 'justification is by faith alone' "faith is the means, instrument, channel, whereby a person is put in right standing before God."]

Try reading the Confession again carefully. This would be a good exercise for you. Read chapter 11 and 14. Saving faith does a whole lots of things. See whether you will find anything to support the 'standard reformed position' posited by Pastor Kek. It does say 'faith which receives Christ's righteousness and depends on Him is the sole instrument of justification, yet this faith is not alone in the person justified [it is not the only evidence of salvation]..... but is always accompanied by all the other saving graces."

Please note carefully the explanatory note inserted by Dr Peter Masters. Faith which receives Christ's righteousness and depends on Him is not the only evidence. Having said that, I would not rest my case on the opinion of that great servant of God. Dr Masters understood what the farmers said!

'Faith is the sole instrument of justification...'
- What is meant by the 'instrument'?
- What does an instrument do?
- Why is faith is only instrument?
- Why not other things as instrument?
Imagine a man who 'seems' to possess all the other graces which accompany saving faith, but have no saving faith [i.e. rejecting Christ's righteousness and dependence on Him alone for his acceptance and right standing before God] - assuming that such a scenario is even possible - would such evidence be conclusive to his spiritual state? Do you appreciate now that 'faith is the sole instrument'?
- Ask further questions... and you will find some helpful answers. Please adopt a berean spirit, be in the STUDY MODE.

What does Spurgeon's catechism teach about the subject? I would like to know.

== The implications of adopting this different view is serious. We must be careful that we do not simply disagree with standard reformed view just bcos we misrepresent it to mean that faith secures justification. I am sure that Edwards will jump from his grave if his writing here can ever be interpreted to mean. ==

I am aware of the seriousness of the implications. I am not sure if I have not been look upon as a heretic already. From the start I have been declared as having departed from the standard reformed position!!!

If the standard reformed position has been misrepresented, then the blame is not on my shoulder. In all the discussion, I have never intimated what is the standard reformed position. Pastor Kek had. And I take that he has done it accurately - I have very high regard for his integrity as a student of the reformed faith. I have stated that the standard reformed position on justification enunciated by Pastor Kek is inherently inconsistent and unscriptural. We are still discussing to determine the value and credibility of each position. And I am glad that you are taking an active interest.

== With all due respect to you as our pastor, I plead for you to restudy again this position. I fear most that our people will become confused. Also, what are they gonna do when they find out that other RB churches hold to the 'standard reformed view' which differs from this new view? ==

Thank you for your gracious exhortation. I take it to heart. Let me assure you I am still studying the subject. I am chiefly playing the heretic's advocate with the pastors most of the time.

Our people need to learn the Scriptures along the way... all through their lives. That is part and parcel of being converted to the truth by the ministry of the word. There would never be uniformity in any group of churches. We should hope so among the reformed baptists churches either.

What matter most is that each church must be persuaded as to what the Scripture does teach. Some will be persuaded earlier, others may be persuaded later, or never. For us as a church, we need to search and study the Scriptures and be persuaded accordingly - regardless of what other churches believe. Whatever the outcome I, as a pastor, will act with principle and integrity.

Which view is new? Historical fact shows that some framers of both the First and Second London Confession of Faith had believed this 'NEW' view. I will forward a few email exchanges on this subject.

An ancient view lost and recovered looks very new to uninformed floks.

== Your unworthy brother ==

You are a precious brother to me. You have been a great source of encouragement and strength to me in this difficult and arduous ministry. May the Lord continue to knit our heart and mind together for the pure grace of God, and hold fast to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
I am filled with thanksgiving that you take time to write. The spirit of concern manifested is a praise worthy one. May the Lord bless us as we seek the truth with the berean spirit.

With your permission , I will c.c. this reply to the pastors concerned and to our church members. I will wait for your permission. I hope it will stir our members to study this subject carefully. For the fellow pastors and elders, I have said all I wish to say - very much of which I have not c.c. to you. I am waiting for their response.

your unworthy servant in Christ.
----

post 12: on 4/4/04 1:42 AM, sing wrote:

Dear brother Kayu,

I read your post again and wish to comment a little more.

== Please consider the writing of Jonathan edwards. I have thought over the recent discussions between pastors and I find that I cannot agree with the Primitive Baptist view of faith being nothing more than evidence that one is an elect of God redeemed by Christ.==

I really don't know if it is the Primitive Baptist's view that faith is nothing more than evidence that one is an elect of God redeemed by Christ. Whether that is a honest representation of what the PBs do believe or not, anyone who is interested should make effort to find out from the PBs. It is always a serious matter to bear false witness.

Caricature and misrepresentation of a view disagreeable to us is something we must guard against. Such approach does not promote profitable study at all. We must avoid caricature of any kind to any one. Such approach is too low for honourable men.

I think the Scriptures is quite clear that faith is more than evidence that one is elected, redeemed and justified in Christ and regenerated. By personal faith, a person enters into a conscious and living relationship with God; he enters into a conscious enjoyment of the hosts of salvation blessings which were already legally his by the finished work of Jesus Christ; etc.

Perhaps you would like to state exactly what you do believe what and who personal does faith justify. Feel free to express your understanding. What and how did your personal faith in Christ justify you?

I do believe that personal faith justifies ONLY in the sense that it evidences the work of grace already decreed by God, legally executed by Christ, and vitally and personally applied by the Holy Spirit. Personal faith DOES NOT justifies in the sense that it secures a person's right standing with God. The Scriptures NO WHERE teaches that, neither does the Confession of Faith.

The CoF is quite EMPHATIC is repudiating legal justification (right standing with God) by personal faith - read chapter 11. ".... They are not justified because God reckons as their righteousness either their faith, their believing or any other act of evangelical obedience. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ's righteousness. He imputes to them Christ's actives obedience to the whole law and His passive obedience in death. They receive Christ's righteousness by faith, and rest on Him...."

Faith that believes Christ's righteousness and rest on Him REVEALS, EVIDENCES, MANIFESTS that the work of grace has already begun (applied) by God in such a believing person. Regeneration has taken place, without there can be no personal faith in Christ!

Your knowledge of medicine JUSTIFIES your claim that you were trained in a medical school!
Your faith in Jesus Christ JUSTIFIES you as indeed an elect of God, redeemed and legally justified in Christ, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit - as announced and informed by the glorious gospel of grace.
Your good works JUSTIFIES that your faith in Christ is indeed a saving faith.
You are JUSTIFIED before God - legally, put in right standing before God - wholly and solely by the righteousness of Christ imputed to you.

'Justification' has several aspects/phases in the Scriptures, ONLY one of which has to do with the legal standing before God, and that is always in relation to the imputed righteousness of Christ. Personal faith has no relationship to the legal standing before God.
May the gracious Lord grant us light. Amen.

Your learning and seeking friend.
-----------------

Post 13: on 4/4/04 11:05 PM, sing wrote:

Dear brother Kay-u,
In the post before, it is NOT my intention to say that you have caricatured or misrepresented the PB's view. As I said, I really don't know what their view is.

What I have said about caricature and misrepresentation is basically reminding ourselves the need to be objective and level-headed in any fruitful discussion. I hope you didn't take it personally. It was never intended so. Accept my apology for not making it clear in the first instant.

your servant in Christ.

---

post 14: on 6/4/04 9:57 AM, Kayu wrote:

Dear Pr Lau

No need for any apology. It didn’t even occur to me that there's anything to take personally. Don't worry. I am only concerned to be clear on the truth. I have found the CD by Spurgeon which Dr Chew gave me long before our friendship was spoiled by the Westminster people. I am trying to go through his sermons on justification. God willing, I will print out copies of it for you to study. I want to determine what is his view on legal justification- whether he actually held to it?

Is this legal justification of the elect on the cross the same as definitive sanctification?

Still learning

Your unworthy brother & church member

kayu
---

Post 15: on 6/4/04 1:00 PM, sing wrote:

Dear brother Kayu,

Concerning definitive sanctification. there are two articles by John Murray in his collected works, volume 2. They are excellent. Definitive sanctification take place at effectual calling [when God sanctify an elect from the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation – a once for all non-repeatable act of God… therefore DEFINITIVE... You are most welcome to borrow mine.

It is quite strange that the new reformed folks failed to see the biblical distinction between legal justification by the righteousness of Christ, and the subjective justification by personal faith. They tried to explain the distinction by saying that one is the ground, and the other the means. But how, and what does personal faith as the means justify? We need consistent and biblical answer to this most basic question. The early particular baptists were quite clear, as I was trying to show.

Please consider this thought phrased in question form. Meditate upon it: Is personal faith believing what has happened and is already true? Or is personal faith believing IN ORDER to make something to become true? Is faith a fruit of salvation already bestowed, or is faith in order to secure salvation?

The early particular baptists were quite clear, as I was trying to show.

seeking and learning with you,
pastor lau
-----------

post 16: 5/4/04 11:52 PM, Chee Goon wrote:

Dear Pastor Lau,

I will agree that a person must be born again or regenerated (i.e. have the new life) before there is any spiritual activity. So, it is not 'believe in order to have new life'. However, in God's plan, new life is just the beginning of salvation and it pleases God that the person, having been born again, will have faith in Christ. And again it pleases God to account the righteousness of Christ to the person (i.e. justify him) after the person has faith in Christ (that is the way and the timing revealed in the Bible).

So, it is not the faith of the person that justifies him. But God is the one who justifies. Faith does not earn the justification (faith followed by justification is the sequence that God chose to execute the salvation plan). All of salvation is by grace because even the faith the person has is a gift of God. Therefore, it is an Amazing Grace.

The result of all these things (regeneration, justification, etc) related to salvation is that the person is no longer dead in sin nor is the person facing the prospect of eternally separated from God. Rather, the person now has eternal life and can look forward to live in God's presence eternally after his life on earth.

The above is also how I distinguish 'new life' from 'eternal life'.

Chee Gone

----

post 17: on 6/4/04 10:39 AM, sing wrote:

Dear brother Chee Goon.

Thanks for responding. I reply briefly. A fuller one later.

There is much truth in what you say. I can understand what you are saying, for I was where you are now.

There was a time when the only justification that I know that the Bible teaches is the justification by personal faith - justification at the point of personal faith.

Now I see that the Bible ALSO teaches - plainly and without a shadow of doubt - that there is a justification when we were enemies. And that justification of life took place for all the elect at the cross. PLEASE PONDER ON THIS JUSTIFICATION UNTO LIFE that took place when you were still enemy - when there is no possibility of personal faith at all.

What does personal faith justify?
What does the righteous act of Christ justify?

May the Lord grant you light. Amen

seeking and learning with you,
pastor Lau

----

post 18: on 6/4/04 3:19 PM, sing wrote:

Dear brother Chee Goon,

It is good that you have been thinking about the matter. Let us be patient as we consider this important subject. We want to be consistent and in clear conformity to the Holy Scriptures. I will make a few comments in your post. Please feel free to ask questions for clarifications, feel free to disagree, and state the reasons for your disagreement. I often ask questions to find out your understanding - so feel free to share your understanding. This is the best way to have profitable discussion. Take time to think through what I am saying. Try to grasp what I am saying... doesn't worry me if you disagree.

Chee ==I will agree that a person must be born again or regenerated (i.e. have the new life) before there is any spiritual activity. So, it is not 'believe in order to have new life'. However, in God's plan, new life is just the beginning of salvation and it pleases God that the person, having been born again, will have faith in Christ. And again it pleases God to account the righteous of Christ to the person (i.e. justify him) after the person has faith in Christ (that is the way and the timing revealed in the Bible).==

I am glad that you recognised that spiritual life MUST PRECEDE spiritual activity. You are perfectly right that new life resulting from regeneration is the beginning of the application of the salvation purposed and accomplished.

Once spiritual life is begotten, the most crucial and essential part of salvation has been bestowed. Spiritual life is eternal life... with this life, the person is capable of consciously enjoying many spiritual blessings which God has in store for his elect in this brief and temporary life on earth - he is now able to hear and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ [he now has live to receive this spiritual feast!!!], be gathered into the community of God's people in the local church, be instructed and nourished by the ministry of the word, which is profitable for host of spiritual good.

In God's wise providence, some experience a greater measure of these spiritual blessings - e,g like Spurgeon. Others less. Still others very little, and some none at all - the elect infants who died in infancy, mentally retarded, and ALL other elect who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. [Even so in the physical realm... every life conceived has an immortal soul. Some lives conceived never see daylight - aborted or miscarried. Some are blessed to be raised up in places like Singapore, others in the black hole of Mumbai, and many others in between. Despite these VAST differences outwardly, each has an immortal soul.]

Not all elect will have faith in Christ - ALL those incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, will have no faith. YET, having being born again by the Spirit of God and imparted with eternal life at regeneration, such are as eternally saved as Paul or John, though they did not enjoy any temporal spiritual blessings in this earthly life.

I will mention several things here for your careful consideration:
1. In what sense does personal faith - that receives Christ's righteousness and rests on Him alone for acceptance with God - justify? What does personal faith justify?

2. When is the righteousness of Christ accounted to an elect?
- before faith, at faith, after faith?
- What about Romans 5:10,18?
- Was there faith when we were enemies?

Please note the two small words ' EVEN SO' in Romans 5:18. There was only ONE legal condemnation of all men represented by Adam at his fall. EVEN SO, there was only ONE legal justification of life to all men represented by Christ. The one and only legal justification has taken place at the cross when Christ died. The legal justification of life needs no repetition, and cannot be repeated.

Therefore the justification spoken of in relation to personal faith have nothing to do with legal justification - one's right standing before God. Justification in relation to personal faith is something other than legal justification. Do you begin to see the point?

Chee == So, it is not the faith of the person that justifies him. But God is the one who justifies. Faith does not earn the justification (faith followed by justification is the sequence that God chose to execute the salvation plan). All of salvation is by grace because even the faith the person has is a gift of God. Therefore, it is an Amazing Grace.==

This is where the trouble starts.
On the one hand, it is said, 'justification by faith alone.'
In the next breath it is qualified, 'it is not the faith of the person that justifies him.'
Do these two statements appear contradictory to you? Are they consistent?
If they are, could you please explain what is meant by each statement.
In what sense does your personal faith justifies you?
In what sense your personal faith does not justifies you?
I want to understand what you mean.

What is the justification that follows personal faith?
What is the justification that preceded personal faith ['when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son...' reconciliation is the fruit of justification]?
Is the justification that preceded personal faith the same as the justification that followed after personal faith? If not, then what is the different?

Brother Chiah Chee, I am asking these question to help you to think about the matter more consistently. I know you are capable of that. May the Lord grant you to see the complete and harmonious picture. Work at it and you will be blessed to understand the subject more completely. Let me know your answers when you are ready.

Chee == The result of all these things (regeneration, justification, etc) related to salvation is that the person is no longer dead in sin nor is the person facing the prospect of eternally separated from God. Rather, the person now has eternal life and can look forward to live in God's presence eternally after his life on earth. ==

I would say that personal faith brings a believing person into a conscious experience of what is already legally [at the cross], and personally [at effectual call] true.

Question time: take your time to think about these Qs carefully. I want you to think.
Is faith believing what has happened and is already true, or believing IN ORDER to make something to come true?
Do you believe in Christ in order for justification to take place, or do you believe that in Christ you have been justified and reconciled? See Romans 5:6-12, 17-18.
Please think carefully and answer this honest question - I want to know exactly what you do believe.

Chee == The above is also how I distinguish 'new life' from 'eternal life'.==

I believe the new life born of the Spirit of God is spiritual and eternal life from the moment it is begotten. It can't be anything less!!! The essence of life begotten by the Holy Spirit remains essentially the same, cannot be improved and needs no development.

You may need to prove from the Scriptures that the life begotten by the Spirit is 'new life' before faith, and become 'eternal life' with faith, if that is what you mean. You need to prove the validity of the distinction you are making. Good try to resolve the difficulty. Wherever did you learn such notion??? I am surprised.

Whoever believes have eternal life – repeats the Scriptures. Believing is the action of the eternal life. Believing DOES NOT improve the essence of that divinely imparted life. The divinely imparted life needs no improvement, and cannot be bettered.

If you put the distinction between justification by the righteousness of Christ and the justification by personal faith, so much confusion and inconsistencies shall disappear. =grin=

Thank you for the opportunity for -

seeking and learning,
pastor Lau

---