The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Justification and the Effectual Call

I am trying to reconcile Paul Helm's article and the WCF. Would I be correct in stating that the change in a person's inner character and everything that flows from that change is not a part of his justification before God?

I think he is simply talking about God taking out the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. I don't see where he speaks of justification anywhere in this quote. As Romans 8:30 tells us, calling and justification is different.

That was my understanding. Can I further infer that Helms is speaking of sanctification only and that Justification by Faith in the effectual call is a separate operation of the Holy Spirit occuring before/at the same time and independently of the "change in a person’s inner character to make him appreciative of the gospel and responsive to it"?

He's not speaking of sanctification, per se. He's speaking of regeneration. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> And justification by faith is not "in the effectual call."

You may find this article helpful, as I did. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

There is no reconciliation necessary as Paul Helm's doctrinal belief is in total agreement with that section of the Westminster Confession.

What Mr. Helm is stating is that only the "particular call", (aka: efficacious grace) brings about conversion, at which time a person believes and is justified. If it is of any help to you in understanding the biblical "ordo salutis", what Helm is referring to with the "particular call" is regeneration from which all the means of grace are given to the then "born from above" sinner. Conversion is the outward expression and result of that regeneration. And Justification occurs when the faith that is created in regeneration, is expressed. (Rom 10:14-17)

If you need/desire to read more on the biblical doctrine of "Efficacious Grace", you can go here:

Regeneration and Conversion, by Samuel Hopkins

Irresistible Grace, by John Murray

Efficacious Grace, by Loraine Boettner

In His Grace,

Thanks for the link. The chart says regeneration is a divine activity followed the human activities of repentance/faith followed by divine justification. I understand that the first 7 activities are not chronological but logical. However, I can't see the logic of saying that inner character change and responsiveness to the gospel wrought by regeneration precedes repentance/faith which precedes justification. Isn't that the opposite of what Westminster says? Justification is "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them." Faith "they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."

Hmmmm, are you sure you are speaking about the same chart that appears near the bottom of the page which was linked? I'm asking because I just went to that page and read the article and closely looked at the chart and it clearly says that the order is:

1. efficacious call through regeneration
2. repentance unto life/faith in Jesus Christ
3. justification
4. definitive sanctification
5. adoption and the Spirit's sealing
6. progressive sanctification
7. perseverance in holiness
8. glorification

This is in total agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith and more importantly what Scripture teaches. So, what's the problem?

In His Grace,

Yes, I'm going by the chart and explanation and Semper Reformanda comments which I may have misunderstood.

Effectual Call and Regeneration come first and are considered divine activities. Is the inner character change and responsiveness part of regeneration or does that come later on the chart? If not, how can it be considered purely divine?

Next comes repentance unto life/faith in Jesus Christ which are considered human activities. But Westminster says faith is gift?

Finally Justification occurs logically and causally last although Westminster makes clear "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them." So, if there was human activity before justification, how can it not be causal?

Samuel Hopkins article was helpful in identifying the source of my confusion. I think in terms of the Holy Spirit giving His gifts of regeneration, faith, justification, enlightenment, etc. immediately through the Word when and where He pleases. Hopkins also speaks of immediate regeneration but without the immediate Word. Other gifts follow human activity so I wonder how Calvinists keep justification purely monergistic.

Regeneration changes the entire disposition of the soul; enmity > amiable. The infallible and effectual result of regeneration is the "responsiveness"; i.e., it infallibly leads to conversion, etc.

Again, there is no contradiction here between the article/chart and the WCF. As I stated in reply to your first question, regeneration allows one to be responsive to the conviction of the Spirit and to be effectually drawn to Christ, in Whom the "born anew" sinner believes. God the Spirit doesn't experience these elements of regeneration, but effects them. Man experiences the effects of conviction, the pain of being guilty before God, under judgment for sins, hatred of sin, love of God, the necessity and sufficiency of believing on Christ, reconciliation to God through Him, etc., etc. And it is man who through his recreated will, having been moved and determined by this new knowledge and emotive experience, repents and believes. (Eph 2:1-9) The man's repentance and faith doesn't contribute in any way to justification. It is simply the necessary means by which a sinner secures justification, both of which are gifts given by God to the elect and them alone.

You have totally confused this matter by quoting the WCF's statement on "Effectual Calling" (Chapter X:II) and trying to apply it to the matter of justification. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" /> Westminster is simply and clearly stating that this effectual calling (regeneration and drawing) is of God's own will and free grace which was "not from anything at all foreseen in man,". The Confession goes on to say that man, in this effectual calling "is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,". It goes on to say exactly what I have written above concerning the active participation of the regenerated sinner, i.e., actual repenting of sins and believing upon Christ unto justification. I hope you now understand this doctrine in at least a factual way. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

I'm sorry to say that you have totally misconstrued what Hopkins wrote in this section IV, "This change is wrought by the Spirit of God immediately; that is, it is not effected by any medium or means whatsoever." Hopkins had already established that it is through the means of the Word that the Spirit most always works. And then he established quite succinctly that regeneration occurs immediately as opposed to progressively. And now in this section he writes that this regeneration of the soul does not depend upon any outside means, including the Word of God, i.e., the Word of God, whether read or spoken has no efficacy to effect regeneration; i.e., it is solely the independent work of the Holy Spirit Himself. It is only AFTER a sinner is regenerated that the Word of God is able to be comprehended and attended to. In fact, Hopkins goes to great length to explain why the Word of God cannot be a means to effect regeneration. Can you understand this?

In His Grace,

The order of salvation between the effectual call and justification has been a real enigma to me. Before I immerse myself in the Institutes, let me try one more to describe the Calvinist view as I understand it now: The inner character change and responsiveness to the gospel are instrumental means not effectual causes of the repentance/faith that follows and repentance/faith are instumental means not effectual causes of the justification that follows.


Would it be accurate to say the Word of God is a catalyst not an instrumental means of the effectual call/regeneration that follows? Would it be accurate to say that after the call/regeneration the Word of God is an instrumental means of all things that follow?

Perhaps the confusion that "I" am having is the way you are phrasing things? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Let me try and lay this out again for you:

• The Holy Spirit works in conjunction with the written Word of God. The Word has no inherent "power" to effect anything, in and of itself. It is a means of grace, much the same as faith is the means by which a sinner apprehends justification; i.e., the faith isn't effectual in an of itself. Justification is made effectual by God when He applies the benefits of Christ's atonement to the one who believes.
• The Holy Spirit regenerates the soul, creating within it a new nature/disposition. This new nature contrasts with the old nature in that it is inclined to know, feel and will that which is good, to hate sin, love Christ and to render obedience out of thankfulness. The elements of repentance and faith are "natural" expressions; the fruit of regeneration, thus they are gifts of God and not something which the individual produces within himself nor by his own unregenerate will. For that would be impossible to do since the old nature is "dead" spiritually and at enmity with God and opposed to all that is good.

No, the Word of God is indeed the "instrumental means" THROUGH WHICH the Holy Spirit works regeneration. A new nature (regeneration) would be ineffectual for the obtaining of justification/salvation if there was not "directions" (aka: propositional truth from God) by which the person would respond TO. In other words, if a person had a new nature but knew nothing of his/her sinful condition, the guiltiness which was imputed, the offer of salvation in Christ, reconciliation with God, etc., etc., then nothing further would nor could occur. It would be like replacing a blown engine in your car with a new one but there was no knowledge of which direction to go. There would be a "desire" to travel but no destination. Thus the necessity of BOTH regeneration which enables one to gain salvation AND the Word of God; i.e., the knowledge of how it is apprehended.

In His Grace,

Slightly off the subject…. I understand that there is a justification that occurs at the cross and in the resurrection nor do I deny justification by faith but is there any place in the Westminster that speaks of God’s decree to justify in eternity? Presently I believe you have to embrace both. Thanks Bill

First here's your answer to the question re: the WCF and justification in eternity:

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI
Of Justification

IV. 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, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

11. Rom. 8:29, 30; Gal. 3:8; I Peter 1:2, 19-20
12. Gal. 4:4; I Tim. 2:6; Rom. 4:25
13. Eph. 2:3; Titus 3:3-7; Gal. 2:16; cf. Col. 1:21-22

Now, could you explain what you mean that there was a "justification that occurs at the cross and at the resurrection"? What was the nature of that justification? And going back to God's decreeing the elect's justification in eternity, what do you understand about that aspect of justification? Hmmm, so many questions, eh?

In His Grace,

I think it is obvious that I asked the question wrong about the WCF. (sorry) I meant to ask is there a place in the confession that speaks of God's "eternal decree that justifies" and not "to justify"?

1. By the justification that occurred at the cross I believe it to mean all of elect and justification by his life is meant the interceding life of Christ in heaven. (without both there is no salvation)

2. I believe justification occurred in God's mind from eternity proceeding the cross.

3. The nature of the justification occurs in time and is an act of God whereby he imputes the righteousness of Christ upon a guilty Hell deserving sinner (elect in Christ) on the merits of Christ and gives him eternal life.

4. These are aspects I believe of justification even #2. I know that armenians reject the eternal decree that justifies and I also know that there was much antinomianism at the time the WCF was written. Sorry but thats all I know, Lord willing He will lead me in all truth if I am truly one of His sheep. Bill

Yankee,

As for the Westminster Confession stating specifically of "eternal justification", I don't think you are going to find one. The closest thing you are going to find is in Chapter III - Of God's Eternal Decree.

This idea of an "eternal justification" has been hotly debated among Calvinists, of which most reject the view as held by Abraham Kuyper and several other, predominately Dutch theologians, which says that the elect were actually justified in the decree. Although brief, you might want to read my comments here: on eternal justification. Also, if you have a copy of Berkhof's Systematic Theology, he has a good section on this issue as well on p. 517ff.

And as I mentioned in my comments to John_C in the link above, John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied is indispensable in one's study and understanding of the atonement and justification. If you would like me to comment further, just ask away. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

I thank you for your gracious answer to me I will look into it further. Also I consider it a blessing to be given an answer from someone who has studied theology for twenty, thirty maybe even a hundred years.

I'm not sure if I should laugh at that or not!!

How is that consistent with the WCF?


According to WCF, man is passive until he is quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit. Then he is enabled to embrace the grace offered. Isn't justification made effectual, not by God, but by regenerate man when he embraces the grace offered and conveyed in the effectual call?


Is there no cooperation by the new man with Holy Spirit to produce the fruit of regeneration? Are the gifts of repentance and faith completely independent of any ongoing work by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace?


But, if the Word of God is an instrumental means which occurs before regeneration, not at the same time, as regeneration, how does regenerate man apprehend the "directions" before he is enlightened? Are not the "directions" foolishness to him? Logically, shouldn't the Word be preached after regeneration rather than before?

I would like to commend all in the Lord for a tremdous thread thus far.

That said, I know Pilgrim will take me to task here, but all for the Glory of God brother. I am from the Kuyperian school of eternal Justification in a sense.

I also believe in a "preparatory grace" as an operation of the Holy Spirit. Right from Gen 1 we see this where the Spirit brooded, then God spoke. Also in the parable of the sower. The Word does not regenerate only the Holy Spirit does that. When you ask "Shouldnt the word be preached after regeneration, I do nto know what you mean by this. The Word is sown indiscriminately to the regenerate and unregenerate. The Elect and Reprobate. I also believe we are justified prior to faith. For I do nto have faith in my faith. Meeting to go to so more later God willing.

Would the Kuyperian school accept the effectual call and justification articles of the WCF? How does eternal Justification differ from election before the foundation of the world.


I was asking logically, from the Calvinist order of salvation, not with respect to the command to teach all nations.


Have you considered the possibility that we are justified, not before or after, but at the same time we believe?

I still do not understand what you mean though. We cannot conclude who is regenerate or not.



Well because we are linear in our thinking, we tend to trouble ourselves with the timing realizization of Spiritual events. I belief there is a great difference between the effectual call of the Spirit and the general call of the gospel.

Because they are in total agreement. Where do you find an inconsistency?

I find your phraseology quite confusing. Man doesn't make ANYTHING effectual; God does. And God is the One who also has determined and provided the means by which one is justified, i.e., the preaching/reading of the Word, repentance and faith. Again, God doesn't repent for anyone and nor is it God Who believes on Christ. Man has a specific part, albeit due to the Spirit's regeneration and enabling, in apprehending justification. Likewise, faith is the means or vehicle which apprends Christ. Faith has no inherent value in and of itself. It is Christ alone Who saves and not the actual faith that embraces Him. Yet, without faith exercised by the man, there is no salvation to be had.

Romans 4:3 (KJV) "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (cf. Gal 3:26; Jam 2:23)

What do you mean by "cooperation"? IF by that you mean that man contributes something of his own which works with the working of the Holy Spirit, then absolutely not. Salvation is of the Lord. However, as I have maintained so many times in responses to you since you arrived here, man has a definite and necessary part in the apprehending of justification, i.e., repentance and faith, both of which are the fruit of the Spirit's regeneration. Those who have been regenerated will infallibly repent and believe. It cannot be otherwise for it is the natural result of that regeneration and the justification was eternal foreordained that the elect should obtain it.

I have repeated said that the Holy Spirit works with the instrumental means of the Word of God. I have never stated a logical or temporal order of that working. One cannot hear unless one is given ears to hear. But one is not given ears to hear, normally, apart from the preaching/reading of the Word. (Rom 1:16; 10:12-17)

In His Grace,

I may take you to task on the issue of "eternal justification", but not in this thread as it is actually OFF TOPIC. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> (start a new thread if this is a topic you wish to debate)

In His Grace,

I find the WCF phraseology confusing. Saying regenerate man is enabled to actively embrace grace is another way of saying man is justified by his action of embracing. Or does embracing grace mean something different from being declared righteous? Or, as Helm seems to infer, made righteous by inner character change?

While God doesn't repent or believe for anyone, neither can man do anything to believe or repent. He receives faith and repentance as gifts. So faith and repentance are means that apprehend Christ but how can embracing be a means to obtain grace since it is clearly a work that men do?


Could preaching/reading and regeneration (and normally would they) occur at the same time?

http://www.sovereign-grace.com/927.htm

Here is a good article by tobias Crisp

The "receiving of faith and repentance as gifts" is part of the blessings that occur in regeneration. But these gifts MUST and WILL be expressed by the individual who most willingly and deliberately repents and believes on Christ. A sinner is not justified nor will he/she ever be saved unless these are done. Those whom the Father gave to Christ WILL come to Him in repentance and faith. One is not saved by any eternal decree, in and of itself, for the decree INCLUDES all the means and temporal actions of men. Thus, all those who are regenerated will infallibly repent and believe and endure to the end. I am convinced that you have not come to a reasonable understanding within yourself in regards to the biblical doctrines of "God's Absolute and Immutable Sovereignty" and "Man's Full Responsibility". You appear to have a serious hangup with the latter. And I would guess it is, at least in part, due to an obsession to reject anything that even hints (in your estimation) of "free-will".

Normally, yes! The only exceptions would be in the case of elect infants who die in infancy and those who are incapable of comprehending the Word. (See WCF X:III)

In His Grace,

Speratus,

You said:

It seems that you may have a "mind-block" to understanding these simple statements. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> "regenerate man is enabled" means only that, he is enabled, he still must perform the action to make it complete. Performing the action completes the process, but of itself does not do the justifying, just accepts it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" /> Hope this makes it a little clearer.

In His Hands,

Ruth

I believe the issue may be related as such.

If I were to tell someone that since I do not know if God has purposed that taking this medicine will kill me, so I refuse to take it when the Doctor said it may help me. You would think me an idiot.

The confusion lies in our response to some. I do nto believe our response completes the process because we allow God to convince us, or anything in ourself gives God permission because God will have His way with His elect.

Faith and belief are the fruits of Justification which is caused by the effectual call.

Are you SURE you meant to write that??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> I have never heard anyone ever state that "faith and belief are <span style="background-color:yellow">fruits of justification</span>". Semi-Pelagians and Arminians hold that regeneration is the fruit of our believing. Calvinists hold that faith and repentance are fruits of regeneration. But neither group holds to anything like the above.

In His Grace,

Joe k,

I was responding to Speratus, not you, but since you did comment, I will have to dispute your statements.

I disagree with your interpretation of Justification. It does NOT produce fruits, it is a forensic declaration. It also is not caused by the effectual call! Justification is imputed when one believes.

Galatians 3:6 "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

The order is:

Romans 8:30 "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

In His Hands,
Ruth

Hello Ruth:

Where is faith in the chain? God never waits for us. He finishes what He starts. Abraham was justified in Gen 12. Genesis 15 happenned much later. The effectual call IS regeneration. These are synonomous theological terms.

Most religionists believe justification is God’s reward for a human performance of faith. Hence, they believe justification before God is on the basis of their faith. Neither faith nor works justify one before God. Exhorting a person to make a decision for Jesus Christ and be saved is erroneous. The decision is God’s, not man’s. Justification is not a reward for the human performance of faith. One is not justified by making a decision for Christ.

Justification before God is on the basis of imputed righteousness. Justification before one’s own consciousness is by imputed and imparted righteousness. The elect are justified by works before others.

Since faith is God’s gift to us in our being made alive with Christ, it cannot be said that sinners must exercise faith in order to have faith. The grace of God, which is unmerited favor, cannot stand with man’s faith or anything in man. Therefore, being born of God precedes faith. “Whosoever [everyone] believeth [believing, present active participle of pisteuo] that Jesus is the Christ is born [has been born, perfect passive participle of gennao] of God...” (I John 5:1). His having been born of God is completed action in past time with continuing results. Therefore, he is continuing to believe, and he will always believe. He will never do anything but believe. God does not start something which He is unable to bring to completion (Phil. 1:6). It is of God in its beginning, continuation, and consummation. Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. He does not believe in order to be born of God.



Grace and Peace

Joe

Joe k,

Are you sure you didn't intend your reply to Ruth to be posted on some other Arminian Board? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> WHO in this thread has said that faith precedes regeneration? or that justification is imputed on the basis of faith (although Luther said as much but later tried to clear that matter up) or works? Most people here hold to one of the following documents or the teaching contained in them: Westminster Confession of Faith, Belgic Confession, London Confession, Savoy Declaration, and/or the Canons of Dordt.

Secondly, I found your reply to be totally irrelevant to what Ruth wrote. Maybe you can show me that it somehow related? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

I confess those also Pilgrim. There is nothing "Arminian" about my response.

ruth said "it is a forensic declaration. It also is not caused by the effectual call! Justification is imputed when one believes."

There is a causual result from the effectual call towardds justification.

Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15.

I apologize for the lack of clarity. I was pressed for time.

Show me where I spoke in a pellagian matter please.

Joe

Salvation is not of works less any man should boast. Eph. 2:8, 9


The Holy Spirit makes unwilling men willing. But man's willing is not how or why he is justified before God. I suspect that a faulty order of salvation that disconnects regeneration and justification has led to the Arminian schism in the Reform church.

Yes, it does. But the Bible says otherwise. Man's actions of completing the process, accepting, etc. do nothing to justify man before God: "Not of works less any man should boast." Man must despair of his own efforts before he is prepared to receive the grace of God.

Speratus brings up a valid point. What Justifies us? What is imputed to us? IT is not our faith, it is the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us which we then have faith in. Since Abraham was justified in Genesis 12 upon the call, we have to determine what his faith was in.

Really? Again, I am left rather <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Do you really believe that one believes on Christ as a consequence of having been justified? If this is what you are espousing, I would truly love to see the biblical support for it. If this is not what you believe, then perhaps you could rephrase the statement so that it better reflects what it is you do believe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Doesn't anyone have the ability to READ or WRITE any more? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

This has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand and nor does speratus' infamous "wild goose chase" comments. Just how many times must one state something before it is at least acknowledged by someone? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

We are justified solely on the basis of Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement. All the benefits of that atonement are applied to believers and them only when they believe. Believers are those whom the Spirit has regenerated out of which all evangelical graces flow, e.g., repentance, faith, sanctification, etc.

Hey, this is Salvation 101 here folks.

In His Grace,

Easy there Plgrim. I know you wield the BIG feather pen. I will clarify my position as time allows.

The thread is about the relationship between the effectual calland Justification no? Perhaps I have misread what the thread entails.

Joe,

Please READ what I wrote. I said your response was better suited to be posted on an Arminian Board because 1) it was totally irrelevant to anything that Ruth wrote in reply to you. Why? Because what she wrote was classic biblical Calvinism, which you apparently either ignored, misunderstood, didn't read, or ???? and 2) it would have been a good apologetic against Arminianism (to which we too are opposed, in case you didn't realize that even after reading through the Forum Guidelines, where it is clearly stated this Board and website are decidedly REFORMED/CALVINISTS) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

I must say, you are as sarcastic as me.

Whether classic Calvinism confesses this is not the point.

The effectual call causes justification. Justification is nto imputed, Christs alien righteousness is imputed to us. That is what i was clarifying.

Also to state we finish the process is nto correct also IMHO.

God is author and finisher.

Why do I have ot be so busy at work today? This is getting edifying!!!!!!!!!

Agreed.... it is the biblical teaching to which classic Calvinism echos and upholds.

Thanks for the clarification. And thus I strongly reject your premise, i.e., "The effectual call causes justification. Please give biblical evidence which you feel supports your view.

The "effectual call", depending upon how you define it includes "regeneration". In regeneration, a new predisposition (nature) is created and by consequence the will recreated. And, out of this new birth (Jh 3:3, 5; Eph 2:1-9; et al) one naturally and most willingly repents of sin and believes upon Christ, at which time the sinner is justified, i.e., pronounced righteousness on the basis of Christ's substitutionary atonement. (see the excellent article by Dr. Joel Beeke on Justification by Faith Alone. Also see these relevant articles here: Sola Fide: The Doctrine of Justification.)

Sanctification is a synergistic work, i.e., God and man working together under the total control of the Spirit of God to accomplish the end for which the sinner was originally predestined, called, justified and glorified. (cf. Eph 1:4-13; Rom 8:29, 30; Phil. 2:12, 13; 1Cor 1:30; et al)

In His Grace,

pilgrim said:Thanks for the clarification. And thus I strongly reject your premise, i.e., "The effectual call causes justification. Please give biblical evidence which you feel supports your view.

I should have said the effectual call applies justification. to the elect.

The biblical suport is Abraham, for one. Are you denying that God who effectually calls one of His, does not apply the righteousness of Christ to that person at that moment? Regeneration is immediate.

Romans 8 supports this also. All whom He called he justified. What else could that mean?

Again since I believe we are also justified in Gods eternal council, this issue between us had to result.

We are justified before repentance and believing. These are part of conversion.



pilgrim said: Sanctification is a synergistic work, i.e., God and man working together under the total control of the Spirit of God to accomplish the end for which the sinner was originally predestined, called, justified and glorified. (cf. Eph 1:4-13; Rom 8:29, 30; Phil. 2:12, 13; 1Cor 1:30; et al)

We do not cooperate in sanctification. Scripture says sanctification is a one time declaration in Christ, and a growth in grace. How can one become more sanctified than Christ? I believe sanctification is election per se' that is why Paul left it out of the chain. Pilgrim We do nto cooperate, we respond. But the object of our response has to be our utter helplessness and sinfullness and the Salvation found in Christ alone.

I asked you to read the article by Crisp I posted. i believe he explains what i believe better!!!!!!!!!

Again, I have to disagree. The "effectual call" consists of:

1. Outward, general call; e.g., preaching of the gospel
2. Inward call: regeneration and drawing to Christ by virtue of the new nature created by the Spirit

It is God Himself Who "applies" justification, i.e., makes a legal pronouncement declaring the believer, at the moment faith reaches out to Christ, is righteous. Justification follows faith. And faith follows the effectual call.

Whoa!! Perhaps part of the problem here is terminology. You appear to be using "effectual call" in a very broad, encompassing sense which includes conversion; i.e., regeneration, repentance and believing on Christ. IF that is the case, then I can understand, at least in part, how you would be wanting to say that "the effectual call applies justification". But nevertheless, it isn't the "effectual call" itself that applies justification, but God Who imputes the righteousness of Christ to the sinner at the moment he/she believes. And the believing always occurs, in the case of adults, immediately after regeneration.

Methinks you have not understood what is entailed in this ordo solutis, specifically in regard to what transpires between the "and whom he called, them he also justified:" The "calling" is to faith in Christ. And those who believe on Christ, "them he also justified". The biblical record concerning Abraham fully supports this:

Romans 4:3-5 "For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."

Galatians 3:6-9 "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, [saying,] In thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham."

In is an incontrovertible fact, according to the text, that justification FOLLOWS faith. The merits of Christ's atoning work is IMPUTED/RECKONED to the one who believes in time.

Can you provide scriptural support for this view of yours? It seems you have opted to embrace only half of the biblical teaching re: sanctification. There are two elements of sanctification: 1) Definitive, and 2) Progressive.

It isn't a matter of becoming more sanctified in Christ, but rather becoming more sanctified to be holy as God/Christ is holy. (cf. 1Pet 1:15, 16; 2:1-3; Eph 4:20-24; Jam 1:21; Rom 6; et al)

[color:"purple"]Definitive Sanctification:[/color]
º Definitive Sanctification by John Murray

[color:"purple"]Progressive Sanctification:[/color]
º Sanctification by B.B. Warfield
º The Necessity of Progress by John Angell James

I will make a concerted effort to read that article by Crisp, D.v.

In His Grace,

What is the dictionary definition of justification and please cite where you get it from. If one is already just before God, then why does he need to repent and believe? Can you give us the Ordo Salutis laid out in Scripture?


There is such a thing as Definitive Sanctification where one is immediately sanctified. However, biblically there is also continuous or Progressive Sanctification, where one grows in grace and truth. While Sanctification is not election it is involved in the unity of Christ. Please give us dictionary definitions of sanctification and election and please cite where you are getting them.

Have you been reading material by W.E. Best?

Pilgrim,

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Are not the above justified even without faith?

Thanks Bill

The effectual call is not the same as the general call. We can start a new thread if you so desire. If that was the case then one would believe in Gospel Regeneration which is erroneous.



Then faith becomes a condition. I do nto believe you can have it both ways. The elect are justified prior to any faith on their part. The faith is the gift of God that lays hold of the Christ. Believing is a fruit Pilgrim. Once the Holy Spirit regenerates the Elect, they do not plead their faith in Christ in order to come to Him. We come as helpless beggars. Knowing nothing but our need for a savior.


Regeneration, new birth, effectual calling, and irresistible grace are synonymous theological terms referring to the work of the Holy Spirit in the radical transformation of the soul. Regeneration is the personal application of the blood of Christ to the "inner man" so that the soul is cleansed, really and individually, from sin: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done' but according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5). The "new man" is thus created "in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24), for sin has been washed away. The interesting nugget in Titus which I recently noticed says we are saved by regeneration. And again Paul uses the same application in 1 Tim 2:9. This is something new I never noticed before.


I do not believe this is Classic Calvinism as you call it. This makes faith a work and the cause of justification. Again Abraham was justified in Genesis 12 when He was called. If faith is a gift of God, how can it count towrds our justification? If He gives is, why would He wait for us to show our faith before justifying us. The elect are justifed by faith, by grace, not because of faith, you know this.

I will comment on sanctification in another thread also. Pilgrim, I enjoy this tremendously and praise God I ahve been led here.


Joe

Yes. I do not know why it was not included in the post. I thought I put the link in there. Thanks for clarifying that J E. W E Best does a fantastic job in that article. I enjoy his works tremendously.

How do you include the link in a post liek you did?

Joe

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> Question found
Berkhof pg.518 a.(4)

I have always held that ALL are justified by faith, regardless of age or mental capacity. Just because an embryo is incapable of expressing faith as does an adult doesn't is no hindrance. Why? Because faith is the fruit of regeneration, wrought by the Holy Spirit and resides in one's "heart/soul". It is the soul that reaches out to Christ and not the body, thus God is perfectly capable of drawing EVERY one of His elect children to Himself and uniting them to Christ. Perhaps that is too brief a statement, but I am hoping that it is sufficient. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

1) Read the 3 sections recommended to you in your "Welcome" PM (Private Message)
- FAQ
- User Guide
- New Features Forum

2) Read the answer to the same question asked in the "HELP Forum" here: Executable links

My concern over W.E. Best's material is that it is not always correct. There use to be a very good critique of his work on-line, however I have been unable to locate it for you to read (maybe someone else has the link). Anyway some of his material is ok, but other parts of it will get you into error and much controversy here....

That is correct. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

Error! The ordo salutis found in Scripture is election, predestination, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification, and glorification (of course this may be expanded). God gives an effectual call (in His time) to all He has elected. The Holy Spirit thus regenerates and from this new creation faith and repentance flow forth. Then we are justified, etc. Have you read any of these articles; [1], [2]?

While all these have to do with one’s union in Christ, they are not synonymous, but actually very distinctive terms. You have yet to give us dictionary definitions of the terms expressed. Do you have a systematic theology like Berkhof’s available to read?

Berkhof is hard to beat for an answer to you here. In the earlier portions of the OT there is but little in the line of abstract statement respecting the way of salvation. The essence of the religion of the patriarchs is exhibited to us in action. The promise of God is in the foreground, and the case of Abraham is designed to set forth the idea that the proper response to it is that of faith.

Berkhof summarizes saying, Scriptures says that we are justified dia pisteos, ek pisteos, or pistei (dative), Rom 3:25-30; 5:1; Gal 2:16; Phil 3:9. The preposition dia stresses the fact that faith is the instrument by which we appropriate Christ and His righteousness. The preposition ek indicates that faith logically precedes our personal justification, so that this, as it were, originates in faith. The dative is used in an instrumental sense. Scripture never says that we are justified dia ten pistin, on account of faith. This means that faith is never represented as the ground of our justification.

I agree. But I find him very interesting to read and contimplate. Anyway, I have the blood of a nonconformist flowing through my veins, so to challenge traditional understanding is something I enjoy. In fact if you follow suit of your signature, Reformed and always Reforming, One is led to do this. We cannot rest in the teachings of 500 years ago. Just like God used Luther to confront popery, we must be led by His Spirit to a deeper understanding and if the Spirit leads one to reform previous teachings, one must not resist.

Joe k,

You said:

Is it slightly presumptuous to suppose that you are MORE Spirit-led than those godly teachers of 500 years ago, even to the present? Has He left us all to misunderstand Scripture from then till now, until you appeared? I think I would rather rely on the great teachers and godly men of the past to interpret, unless you can somehow prove them wrong Scripturally. Please let us see some exegesis! Keep in mind the Spirit does not speak or lead outside of the Word!

In His Hands,

Ruth

It is Reformed and always Reforming, not Reformed and always Deforming. Please refer to Ruth's post. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

That is a slam JE. But funny none the les. I am thick skinned.

Ruth I NEVER mentioned my spiritual superiority. According to your logic, we should have stayed with Ignatous, tertullian, etc. etc. TO admit that the divines of past have exhausted the Godhead is presumptious on your part. Were they infallable? I agree we learn from those divines who have gone before us. But to think that God cannot use anyone after the WCF was written is just plain wrong. What you end up with is a faith by proxy. You begin to believe in a belief. That said, let us continue this thread and edify each other. For I NEVER put myself higher than anyone.

Did God leave those in the dark for 1500 years? I believe He did, This is the great apostacy that Paul warned about. But the remnant always remains. He will always have the men who do not bow to Baal. Your challenge is unfounded. You seem perturbed that I present a dialogue with scriptural support and historical support.

Faith is never the cause of God justifying a person. Regardless what any creed or confession says, it is wrong. God gives faith because we are justified by Him and the imputed righteousness of Christ. Then it does become our faith, and we believe. But the Elect, who have been given to Christ in eternity Have eternally been justified in Christ.

You assume I stand alone in this belief. Kuyper, Gill, Philpot, Twisse are just a few who congfessed this


Joe

NO ONE here has said that "faith is the cause of God justifying a person"!! Be advised, the ground here is not conducive to planting strawmen. The Scriptures, men throughout history who have held to its truth and the majority of us here, particular those of us who have been willing to engage you in this thread hold tenaciously to "Sola Fide". If you don't know what that means, then you should spend some quality time reading through the various articles found here: Sola Fide - The Doctrine of Justification. Faith is the "vehicle" by which a sinner apprehends Christ whose righteousness is then imputed to him. Here it is again from the inspired record:

Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Romans 4:9-12 "Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness. How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; and the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision."

Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Galatians 3:6 "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness."

Galatians 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Secondly, you have yet to provide even one solitary passage which would teach that sinners are justified in eternity and more, that this nullifies all the passages and many more that clearly show that justification is apprehended by and at the time of one's believing upon Christ. Can you present a case from Scripture in your defense?

In His Grace,

Joe K, we desire for you to go forward in the faith and not backward to the sometimes incorrect teachings of W.E. Best and others. To be Reformed and Always be Reforming does not mean you totally reject the teachings of the past (otherwise one would not be Reformed <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />). Moreover, this would be called heresy, because some of what our earlier fathers taught was correct and to desert from it would be to desert the faith once delivered to the saints. Individuals such as Calvin and others (Augustine, WCF, etc) had a lot of good things to say and if one is wise they will study these things out and then make progression from there. Reformed and Always Reforming is like saying from Truth to Truth.

Glad you liked the joke. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

JE:

I have in no way rejected the past. But Ruths statement was not consistant. Look at the history of the Church. Look how quick it took for it to apostacise from the teachings of Paul. I believe God in His infinite wisdom and pleasure raises up people with a deeper understanding of previous thoughts. A progressive understanding. I am not one of these men, and I am not saying that W E Best or anyone else is. I am also not one to have a faith by proxy. If I have led anyone to believe I have some new revelation, well I repent of that because it was not intended. Instead with prayer and openess, I have enjoyed reading Scripture with a different view at times. So let us continue to edify each otehr in Christ, and learn.

Let us preach and teach the same old Gospel. Chrsit Crucified, but let us also not be close minded to others who may have a distinct understanding, with no intention of anathamizing those of the past.

Joe