The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Arminian Atonement of John Piper

John Piper: "Christ died for all sinners, so that IF you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins. Died for you, means if you believe, the death of Jesus will cover your sins. Now, as far as it goes, this is biblical teaching".
(John Piper – “Taste and See” (Multnomah,1999), page 325)

John Piper said:
“So Piper, just be simple a minute, do you believe Jesus died for all people? just give us a straight out answer. And I’m not going to play politics, I’m not going to answer another question. I’m going to do this.
Before I answer it, i’m gunna force you to define for all people, i’m going to say, ‘now just tell me exactly what you mean and i’ll answer you’ because I dont want to answer in a way that would cause you to misunderstand. What do you mean by for all people?
Now I think I know what most, is it okay if I use the word arminians? just, just most people who, who are having a hard time, they’re not all arminians, having a hard time with limited atonement. That is the atonement that effects something special for a limited group.

I think I know what they all mean, and i’m going to quote Miller’s Erikson’s theology because I think he’s right. He says:

“God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons. christ died for all persons but this atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual. This is the view of all arminians.” closed quote.

If that’s the view of all arminians I totally agree with it. No qualifications. So if you say “did christ die for all people” and I say “what do you mean for all people?” and you answer “I mean did he die in such a way so that anybody anywhere who believes will be saved by that blood.”
I say “absolutely he did.” That’s John 3:16 pure and simple. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son in such a way that whoever believes will not perish, I believe that totally without qualification. Every individual person on planet earth who believes in Jesus has their life covered by the blood of Jesus. so you preach that, you stand up on sunday morning and you say christ died in such a way so that anybody in this room who believes, your sins are covered by the blood of Jesus.
(John Piper – Acts 29 conference – The Whole Glory of God – Imputation – Impartation of His righteousness – Part 2)

The other quotes are from John Piper’s heretical book titled “Future Grace”.

Is it not true that "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"? In other words, "If" you call upon the name of the Lord you shall be saved.

When Jesus was crying out about Jerusalem "...how I would have...but you wouldn't" was He not stating the truth?

Regarding Piper saying "Christ died for all sinners, so that IF you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins." All sinners are to be freely offered salvation. Only the elect (unconditionally elected) will have the faith (the condition of salvation) to believe.

Just to have the word "if" in this quote does not make it a false statement. It is true that IF you repent and believe on Jesus that you will be saved. Salvation IS conditional on faith. For those who do not have faith are not saved.

Be careful to not take these quotes out of the context of the entire book (just as arminians do with Scripture) and call the whole book heretical.

There's the rub, then. Whosoever will. It is the will that is bound. It is the bound will that must be freed before it can call upon the name of the Lord.

That is why the natural man must be given a new nature so he can understand, and he must be freed so that will call upon the name of the Lord. It necessarily follows that a will that is bound to sin and death cannot choose righteousness and life. The unregenerate, or natural, man must first be liberated, then he is free to call upon the Lord, having understood what is spiritually appraised.

Truly free (from Above, not from within),

Robin

Robin,

I agree whole-heartedly with you. That still does not discount the "If" in Piper's statement. To say "If" does not necessitate Free Will. Those whose wills are freed "will" come to Christ and therefore fulfill the "If". All of the elect will come but that does not make salvation unconditional because salvation is conditional on faith.

I hope I am making sense.

Kevin

it is absolutely true that anyone who believes upon Christ with a true saving faith will be saved.

The problem here, IF the quote is accurate and in context, is the "Christ died for all sinners..." This connotes a universal atonement which denies an actual vicarious SUBSTITUTIONARY death, i.e., Christ actually paid the penalty for those whom He died, and the Holy Spirit infallibly applies all the merits of that death to those same individuals who were predestined to salvation from all eternity. It is absolutely impossible to try and maintain that Christ died for ALL, without exception, and then add in the condition that His death is only applicable to those who believe. For the faith that is exercised is one of the merited benefits of Christ's atonement. The most devastating argument against this sort of view just so happens to be probably the most simplistic argument ever penned and that was by John Owen which you can find HERE.

Unfortunately, John Piper is infamous for making unguarded or outright heretical statements. How he has been able to gather such a following is beyond me, from a human standpoint. Don't people think any longer? Don't people compare what men say/write with their respective church's confession?

But again, the initial statement that "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" is incontrovertibly true. The "calling" is of course referring to one who reaches out to embrace Christ with a Spirit-wrought faith. It isn't the typical evangelical, "Asking Jesus into your heart" or "Making Jesus your Savior", or "Raising the hand at some revival meeting", etc.

"OceanOf[Conditional?]Grace"

Salvation is NOT conditioned on faith, or repentance, or anything else from men. It is conditioned upon Christ's perfect, impeccable, finished work of offering upon the cross, through which He grants both repentance and forgiveness of sins to His people: Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins (Ac.5:31). It is written, that the very name Jesus {Jehovah Salvation} was to be given Him, because He shall save His people from their sins (Mt. 1:21)

Piper, either in fear of his Arminian "brethren" or, because he is utterly confused himself (in neither case he should be a teacher in God's church), makes heretical statements, to the effect that Christ died for all men, head for head, but his death which is sufficient for all, becomes efficient for one if one believes. If Christ's oblation be sufficient for all, yet it should not in the end save all, then, it is NOT sufficient to save ANY unless something is added to it.

But Christ has not provided a hypothetical potentiality of salvation, through an universal, albeit conditional basis of some "redemption-minus-one" offer, but has, indeed, provided a PERFECT, ETERNAL salvation for all His people. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (He.10:14).

As Pilgrim has pointed out, Piper is notorious for making heretical statements. "Living by Faith in the Future grace" is an altogether heretical concept, based on a works-and-grace-in-return mentality. The basis for a holy living of the redeemed / obedience to the covenant commandments is NOT an expectation to obtain a "future grace" by your works of obedience. The basis for the holy life of obedience is GRATITUDE for what God HATH done for me in Christ! Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
(1Jn.4:10,11)

Renat

To put this another way: Christ's work did not merely "make salvation possible" for whoever will. Rather Christ's work actually accomplished the salvation of all those that the Father has given Him.

Even saving faith is by necessity God-given (Eph. 2:8-9), since there is no good in man. The Arminian's problem is not with the doctrine of election, but with the doctrine of total depravity. In order to believe as they do, one must believe that fallen mankind is only partially depraved, but still retains enough merit to exercise saving faith.

This is contrary to both the Scriptures and the Reformed confessions.

Correct, and not only so, but along with this notion of partial depravity, they (Arminians), quite self-consciously or less so, must all believe in Christ's partial atonement, i.e., bearing some sins of all men, or that Christ did expiate all sins of all men, except unbelief, so that Christ, by virtue of His own cross-work does not atone for the lack of faith, nor positively supply faith for anyone, but is dependent upon the whim of men to believe or not to believe and through this work of faith, to render this atonement either efficient or inefficient in their case, according to their individual response. Hence, Christ's blood is conceived to have been shed for many whom it NEVER profits, and so it is really shed in vain for so many, who, have not added their contribution to an almost complete work of Christ.

This is the most blasphemous consequence of the Arminian heresy - by exalting man, they make Christ a partial savior and, really, no savior at all, for he cannot save anyone, unless they help him...

But faith is not a condition of salvation, but a blessed means, through which heirs of the promise, enter into a conscious possession of their inheritance in Christ. And Christ supplies the means as well as the substance of the things promised - as was shown, He supplies BOTH repentance AND forgiveness of sins for His people. Indeed, being the Fountainhead of salvation, He is the Author and Finisher of OUR faith (He.12:2). Faith, being also a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Ga.5:22), is produced by God Himself. It is the means whereby He purifies our hearts: And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith (Ac.15:8,9). God is the One, Who does this purifying by faith. Again, this faith is in no wise of ourselves, it proceedeth from God, a faith, "which is BY HIM" (see Ac.3:16). That is why the whole salvation by grace through faith is "not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast"(Eph.2:8,9).Yet, according to Piper and his Arminian brethren, "by grace you can be saved IF you supply faith" and so some of it is of yourself, that is of works, so you have somewhat to boast of.

This is the ultimate Arminian perdition - pride...They must have somewhat to boast of. There is something in them, which they have not received (their faith by their own free will). This makes them to differ from other men. God made it possible for all men if they but fulfill a condition. Many don't, but I have. My good choice of free will has made me to differ. It is not Christ Who saves after all. Christ does not save anybody, indeed He cannot, unless they cooperate. As they love to say, 'God is not forcing anyone into heaven - He is giving all an opportunity to come of their own free will'. And so they worship their Ashtaroth of Free Will and their teraphim of false christ, who is but partial universal savior.

Just is their judgement, if they repent not of peddling another gospel:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Ga.1:6-9).

I will be very simple here. Again, faith being a condition of salvation does not rule out the fact that faith is a gift of God's unmerited grace. Salvation can still be conditional but be totally of grace if the condition that is met (faith) by sinners is also a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9). True, faith is the means by which we take hold of salvation. Without faith a person is lost and bound for hell. Therefore, faith is also a condition of salvation. (Side note: Final salvation is conditioned upon perseverance and perseverance is also a gift)

To say "Christ died for all people" (without qualification) IS a heretical statement. I think you will find that John Piper uses statements like these to catch the attention of those who are seeking out and studying about TULIP. Therefore, it makes it very easy to take him out of context and say he is teaching heresy. Do I believe John Piper is a heretic? NO, absolutely not. I do believe you must read the entire context of his books before passing judgment.

Renat, have you read the entire book "Faith in Future Grace" (As I have)?

To assume that Piper means that it is our works that "obtains" this future grace is treading in dangerous waters.

Please provide evidence that this is what Piper means and not a straw-man argument.

Some scripture showing faith in the past grace and future grace are both the basis for purity (obedience).

See what kind of love the Father has given to us (PAST GRACE), that we should be called children of God (CURRENT GRACE); and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. [2 ] Beloved, we are God's children now (CURRENT GRACE), and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know (FAITH) that when he appears we shall be like him (FUTURE GRACE), because we shall see him as he is (FUTURE GRACE). [3 ] And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. (OBEDIENCE)
(1 John 3:1-3 ESV)

This is what John Piper teaches in "Living By Faith in Future Grace".

By the way, my pastor even warned me about the book. He knew I liked to read John Piper but did not know I have read that book. People who claim that John Piper is a neo-legalist are doing so out of ignorance.

In Christ,

Kevin

Kevin,

All of the fruits of 1John 3:1-3 are really a "present perfect" grace, flowing from an event in the definite past. The children of God are so now, but that is not "current grace", it is a present perfect grace, i.e., an abiding result of an event that has caused it in the past. The same goes for our knowledge, our final transformation into His likeness and our present hope and purifying are all effects of the same grand cause: the cross of Christ.

Now I should confess, that it was years ago that I read the Future grace text of Piper and even then, I took a rather sketchy look at it - I was beginning to wean from my former enchantment with Piper. I don't have the text at hand now, so I cannot bring up any specific evidence of his faith-and-works mentality, but you, if you are familiar with Piper's writings will probably recall that methodologically, his hermeneutics were impressed by Dan Fuller's understanding of the "Unity of the Bible", as well as, by the latter's characteristically atomistic approaches to interpretation of Scripture texts. Now Dan Fuller's core idea of the unity of the Bible is that all covenants in Scripture are conditional and that in all dispensations, from Adam into the NT, man lives by faith in NOT in God who justifies the ungodly in Christ Jesus, but by faith in a God who promises things IN RETURN for obedience, produced by that faith. There is the same confusion, the same Norman Shepherdism, as regards the true basis of justification and life of obedience. Piper has imbibed this teaching and slightly modified it into a more Scripture soaked, Puritan-like concept, but the core idea is, IMHO, the same.

The above said, may have very little immediate connection to Piper's heretical confession on the Atonement...He may have been simply "sloppy" in his pronouncements (as some of his sympathizers suggest), but that does not justify him at all! He is a public figure, who has a throng of admirers who are sure, Piper can't be wrong! I personally have no interest in a person, who makes such blunders on fundamentals of the faith!

He may have some points in his writings, that may be worth considering, but, by the same token, one can glean also some food for thought even from Roman authors, but that does not make them orthodox, or a model to follow.

As to your insistence that faith is a condition: it is not. The very term is unscriptural and so is the concept. Faith cannot be viewed as a condition, because faith is not a sine qua non without which the impetrated blessings of Christ's oblation will never be realized / bestowed. NO! Faith is an intrinsic part of the salvation package! 'Believe and thou shalt be saved' is not to be construed as faith being a condition of salvation! The original command, BTW, is given to the penitent Philippian jailer and the same salvation was also promised to his house {a thing frequently ignored by Baptists, but that is an aside point here}(Ac.16:31). Greek connectives in general and "kai" (translated commonly as "and") can be ambiguous, sometimes. In this particular instance, God's Word by no means teaches that "IF you believe you will be saved", but rather, 'Believe, even be thou saved', i.e., 'Believe, that is, be thou saved' for faith IS salvation, a sure evidence of regeneration - "life": And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die(Jn.11:26). Faith is not a cause of finalizing full salvation, but a means of conscious entrance into the union with Christ and all His saving benefits for those, who have been redeemed by His blood.
The MAIN reason, but not the only one, why faith cannot be viewed as a condition unto salvation, is because conditionalism, necessarily implies a deficiency in the Atonement, which deficiency, though supplied by God in the case of the elect, as the Amyraldians assert, yet comes from a different source than the cross. The cross itself, according to conditionalism, does not provide that "condition". The idea inevitably means, that the reprobate, fr instance, IF they fulfilled this condition, hypothetically, should surely have to be saved, but ON WHAT JUST BASIS? There is only ONE basis for any and all remission - the shed blood of Christ. If then, their [reprobates'] salvation be possible, upon this condition [of faith] then that means that there must be a conditional provision of the shed blood of Christ for them also, IF they believe, which means that in a sense, Christ died for all men, conditionally (and if you are an Amyraldian, you will add) and for some men efficiently, by superadding one lacking thing, without which the atonement will remain just a potentiality...

That's in essence my "beef" with John Piper's heretical statements concerning a fundamental article of faith - the meaning of the death of Christ.

Renat

Renat,

I appreciate the time it took for you to write that. It will take a while for me to digest it and get back to you.

In Christ,

Kevin

Renat,

Well put, including a little of the historical information re: Piper and Dan Fuller. His Future Grace has been the object of much criticism; justified IMHO. There is but one GRACE which is from eternity and found ONLY in the Lord Christ. It is true that the merits and blessings accrued by His perfect life and full satisfaction in His death are distributed at different times to be sure. But grace cannot be bifurcated and thus labeled "past", "current" and "future" grace. (Rom 8:32; 11:36; 1Cor 3:21; 8:6; Col 1:16-20; Heb 2:10; 2Pet 1:3) If one is 'in Christ', i.e., united to Him by a true living faith then all things are owned; now and for all eternity.

Re: faith as a condition. I also agree that this is at best poor phraseology. It would be far better to say that repentance and faith are prerequisites to salvation, i.e., there is no salvation without them for Christ's salvation includes them. Faith doesn't save... Christ saves. Faith is nothing more than the vehicle which embraces Christ who is salvation. Thus there is no "final justification" for those who are truly in Christ for He is indeed the beginning and end of all things. NPP (New Perspective on Paul), Shepherd, FV (Federal Vision) are damnable heresies which diminish, denigrate and deny the all-sufficiency of Christ's perfect substitutionary atonement (active & passive obedience) and forensic imputation whereby God pronounces the believing sinner, not guilty. We ARE justified in Him once and for all and thus heirs of all things. (Eph 1:3-14)

Lastly, and to repeat, IF Christ died for all men without exception, then of necessity all men must be saved. For in Christ the means are just as surely and infallibly secured as is the end.

That's it! The means are just as surely and infallibly secured as is the end! God indeed raised Christ for to give BOTH repentance AND forgiveness of sins to Israel, which shall all be justified by Christ's blood (Ac.5:31,Isa.45:25).

Christ is not a half-savior to some, but a perfect Savior for all of His people. He indeed "was delivered because of our deviations, and was raised because of our justification" (LITV. Ro.4:25)

Christ's very resurrection is bound up with justification of all those for whose transgressions He was delivered, according to Romans 4:25, which means that He would not have been raised from the dead, had not even one soul for whom He died, been justified! But He was raised "because of [or "through" - Gk "dia"]our justification"! This text completely demolishes all Amyraldianism - the notion that Christ died for more people, than the Father chooses to save. For if Christ be dead for all, then He is also made alive for all, and so, all, being justified in His resurrection are now awaiting future glory!

Kevin, mark this passage (Ro. 4:25) well, think of the consequences and be delivered out of this Amyraldian / Piperian delusion, if God permits.

Renat & Pilgrim,

I believe you and Pilgrim are reading too much into or out of the word "conditional". I never once said that conditional means that the condition being fulfilled is of a person's own "free" will.

I agree that faith and repentance are both purchased by the blood of Christ as well and only for those elected before the foundation of the world. Christ only died for His sheep.

It pretty much boilds down to semantics (as do most debates). Salvation requires faith and repentance (conditions OR prerequisites), and the fulfillment of those prerequisites were also purchased by Christ's shed blood. Therefore, salvation is ALL of GRACE.

In Him,

Kevin

Kevin,

I'm not so much bothered by "condition", although I do believe to use the word in reference to the necessity of repentance and faith is unwise. The little chatter going on in this thread is evidence enough of the confusion it can bring even among theologically educated individuals, never mind those who are not.

My objection to the quote/statement you provided by John Piper is his stating that Christ died for all men. And, I am quite sure Piper wouldn't qualify that to mean all "types" of men, but rather Christ died for all without exception. IF he meant the former (types), then could you possibly confirm that? Otherwise, he is not in accord with any of the Reformed Confessions, which for Piper wouldn't be that unusual since he seems to take great joy in coming up with something "new" from time to time which is at odds with the historic Reformed Church, i.e., contra-Confessional.

Pilgrim,

Yes, I understand the confusion that the use of the word "condition" can cause and it must be qualified with the fact that God grants the fulfillment of the condition. Even the word "prerequisite" causes the same confusion. I believe that Renat has more of a problem with the use of "conditional".

I have a problem with saying that "Christ died for all men" as well. I am not sure what John Piper would say about it at this time. He is currently on an 8 month sabattical and will not be answering any question until next year. If I find something in one of his books I will let you know. Also, I know he is not "Reformed" as you regard it. He would be considered in the New Calvinism crowd I am sure.

KEvin

Strictly speaking, the term "prerequisite [unto]" carries with it the idea of something to be done BEFORE or IN ORDER TO enter into something else it is the requirement thereunto. Now there can be no debate as to the necessity of faith & repentance, as absolutely indispensable activities of the redeemed / regenerated soul. Without faith it is impossible to please God, etc. HOWEVER, faith is not a requirement which one must fulfill BEFORE one is "saved", or IN ORDER TO enter into the state of salvation, out of the state of being dead in trespasses and sins, unjustified and utterly alienated from God! But faith & repentance are integral parts OF salvation! The redeemed soul is both required to believe and enabled to believe. Christ's sheep believe, because they are Christ's sheep, because He died for them . The spiritual wolves, dogs and swine do not believe, because they are not of His sheep (Jn.10:26), Christ has not laid down His life for them and He is NOT calling them by name.
The reprobate wicked cannot be saved EVEN IF they fulfilled the alleged universal "prerequisite" of faith and repentance, because CHRIST'S BLOOD WAS NOT SHED FOR THEM! To assert the opposite, implies a hypothetically universal, conditional atonement! To assert the contrary means that Christ in a certain sense died for all men (and we are back to the square one). But Christ did not die to redeem everybody, IF they fulfill the "prerequisite"! He died to save His people and He SHALL save His people from their sins.

Perhaps it is better to say that faith is prerequisite for conversion.

This reminds me of of the whole "altar call" thing we used to do in my old church, where it was supposed that God "couldn't move" unless a sinner "allowed" Him to.

The evangelist always insisted on misapplying Matthew 10:32-33 to his calls to go forward:


Those who truly belong to Christ cannot help but confess Him. Open confession of Christ before the world is certainly one of the marks of a true Christian! But it is not a "pre-requisite" which God requires as in order to become a Christian! If that were so, no mute person could ever be saved, especially since according to Romans 10:9, the mouth must be used in order for the confession to be "valid." Writing it down or signing one's confession, to these literalists, would be insufficient; mute people cannot be saved.

Sometimes in our arrogance we simply cannot resist the temptation to attach some condition or requirement to God's free gift, so that we can distinguish ourselves as somehow "better" than sinners that have not yet been regenerated. God forgive us!

-Robin

Renat,

You really seem to have a problem with even "prerequisite", which obviously I do not. FYI, it was in a private conversation with the late Dr. John H. Gerstner that I was persuaded and convinced that "prerequisite" is an acceptable term to state that repentance and faith must come forth in order to be justified. Repentance and faith do no justify, but there is no justification without them. I am fortunately comfortable in using the term and you, unfortunately, are not.

I see no problem with the term "prerequisite" when it is qualified by the fact that the prequites (faith & repentance) are only granted (or "gifted") to the elect.

Robin & Renat,

It seems that you think Pilgrim and I are implying to the contrary when we are not. I will say it again, just because there is a "condition" it is not required that this condition or prerequisite be fulfilled by a free will (in the libertarian sense).

Dear Pilgrim,

Am thankful to the Father of lights, that, by His grace, this discussion is being carried on in the spirit of charity.
May the God of all wisdom grant us of His light on this subject.

As to the substance, to wit, whether faith precedes justification. Consider, again, Romans 4:25: who was delivered up because of our offences, and was raised up because of our being declared righteous (YLT Ro.4:25). I quote Young's Literal Translation here, because this version highlights something, that is not so obvious in the KJV, namely, that Christ was delivered through our offences and was raised through our justification. According to this text, Christ was raised from the dead BECAUSE, or THROUGH our justification. The justification of the church is a done deal, objectively. It took place in a definite time period, sometime, between Christ's death on the cross and the early dawn of His bodily resurrection. Your personal act of faith had NOTHING to do with it. The whole body of the elect was justified by His blood. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him (Ro.5:9). Justification by Christ's blood has nothing to do with your faith. When Christ offered His body, He, by one offering, made perfect forever those who are sanctified.
Faith cannot precede justification, for it would mean that a person, in his sins, unjust, alienated, in the state of enmity with God, produces something, which only a righteous person can produce - faith. Recall, that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). But to say, that out of an unjustified state a person can bring forth something that pleases God and brings about their justification? Is the blood of the Atonement applied to the person SUBSEQUENT to their faith? How can they be born again, without being justified by Christ's blood first? For without first being washed in Christ's blood and renewed by His spirit, a new heart, washed and clean, cannot be given. It is out of this new heart that faith then proceeds. But there can be no new heart without a powerful application of Christ's blood to create it:
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].
(Ez.36:25-27), which sprinkling of clean water (The Holy Spirit) presupposes that the receiver of a new heart, is first cleansed by Christ's blood, which cleansing is, among other benefits, JUSTIFICATION. In other words, a person cannot be cleansed, without being justified, for there is no purification without expiation, but expiation means that the sins are COVERED and so those for whom the Atonement has been made are JUSTIFIED by the blood of the Sacrifice.

IMHO, personal faith is instrumental for a conscious entrance into the knowledge of justification which is ours, in Christ's blood, shed for us. Personal faith is the means through which the hears of the promise come to "know" of their salvation / justification in Christ Jesus: To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,(Lk.1:77)He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God [is] with him, and the shout of a king [is] among them (Nu.23:21).

God does not see any iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen perverseness in Israel, because, decretally, eternally, all of Israel's iniquities have been imputed to Christ and His righteousness imputed to them and objectively, all of their iniquities have been propitiated for by Christ on the tree. And since His oblation was received with favor and He was raised from the dead, this means that the sins of Israel were fully expiated and all Israel (the sum of all elect of course) has been JUSTIFIED by Him. That's why personal faith, however important and indispensable, cannot be placed teleologically and chronologically BEFORE justification.

Renat

Renat,

Here we are going to have to disagree, most assuredly. I do not hold to "eternal justification". When I was studying at the PR (Protestant Reformed) seminary, this was the view they tried to teach. And, would it be correct to understand your view as being just that... "eternal justification"?

Be that as it may, I hold to the historic confessional view that one is not justified until faith embraces Christ. One does not simply come to a conscious knowledge of justification, but is actually declared at that moment justified. Barth also embraced a form of this existential justification where the "elect-elect" are those who come to know of their election in this life vs. the "elect-reject" who although elect never come to that knowledge. I am NOT equating Barth's views on election with yours or that of "eternal justification" but rather showing a similarity between the two in regard to one becoming consciously aware of what was eternally accomplished vs. actually taking place in time.

There is a distinct difference, albeit inseparable connection, between redemption accomplished and redemption applied (in time). Without faith taking hold of Christ there is no and cannot be any justification. That the justification of the elect is infallibly secured in the life, death and resurrection of Christ is true. But the actual declaration of that justification and imputation of Christ's righteousness is not a reality until by regeneration faith is exercised.

Pilgrim,

You studied at the PR seminary in Grandville MI? Interesting! Be that as it may, yet the PRC do not espouse eternal justification, nor do I, BTW, but for a different reason. Their position is actually identical with what you have just clearly stated concerning the issue (and, I do not disagree with you, however paradoxical it may seem to you). I could quote to you from Professor Engelsma, arguably the brightest star and foremost of present day PR theologians, on this point, but I don't think that is necessary now.
My own position is this: I believe in a threefold justification, or in one grand justification which has three different aspects, or facets:
#1 - A decretal justification, an eternal perspective upon the elect as they are viewed IN Christ, the Perfecter of the Covenant;

#2 - A real, historic justification through the oblation of Christ on the cross,

#3 - An entrance by faith into a conscious enjoyment / possession of justification.

Perhaps, in distinction from the real "eternal justification" folks I don't stress the eternal decretal aspect to the point of downplaying the other two. I may be revealing colossal ignorance, but I don't tie up my position to my supralapsarianism either. My only real difference with you, as I perceive it, is this: I would be careful not to confuse the application of justification to the conscience of the regenerate elect, with the ACTUAL justification which took place two millennia ago. I would also say, that in a real sense, faith does not precede justification, but justification, with the subsequent resurrection (regeneration - resurrection with Christ) precedes faith, yet personal faith does precede a conscious learning / knowledge of one's salvation / justification in Christ.
Again, the "beef" with the traditional rhetoric is this: how can regeneration, with the subsequent faith and via it, justification occur without prior justification? Please, recall that Christ would not have been raised without our justification (Ro.4:25), and so our spiritual resurrection / regeneration being effected by our justification in Christ, cannot precede it!

Does this make sense to you?

Yes, but when I was there, David Engelsma wasn't teaching. My profs were Hanko, Decker and Hoeksema. My experience was less than amiable. I also studied at WTS (Philly), which was extremely challenging but very rewarding.

I would, of course, reject your #2 and posit that it belongs with #3. For #2 I believe that Christ's life, death and resurrection secured the basis for our justifiction, which is then realized when the regenerated sinner believes on Christ. Although Christ infallibly secured the justification of the elect, they are not actually justified until they believe (conversion) and the assurance (conscious enjoyment) of that justification comes at various times; immediately to some time later.

This is most assuredly at variance with the biblical testimony Cp. Rom 3:28,30; 4:3,5,9; 5:1; 10:4; Gal 3:6,24; Eph 2:8,9; Phil 3:9; Jam 2:23. As one can plainly see from these texts, the forensic nature of justification is in view and not simply a conscious acknowledgement/experience of it. When the sinner believes, a cosmic declaration is made and the sinner's "state" is changed from one who is under judgment and condemnation to one of reconciliation and eternal life. And, it is at variance with all the Reformed Confessions. Cp. Belgic: Article XXII, Canons of Dordt - "Articles of Faith": Article 7, The French Confession - Article XX, The Larger Catechism, Questions 70-71, The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XI - Articles 3-4, The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, Chapter XI - Articles 3-4, The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter XV, The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article XI, The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI.

Re: Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification." (ASV)

1. dia I believe, along with most all respected exegetes and commentators, that it should be rendered "for" = "causality". Notice that dia also preceeds "our trespasses" and must be taken into account to properly understand this "justification". Although Murray sees both phrases as pointing forward to their respective acts; receiving the punishment due for our sins and being raised to secure our justification, I believe Hendriksen has an equal alternative. He sees the first phrase as point back to the cross and the second as pointing forward to the elect's actual justification. In either case, the justification seen in this passage cannot be bifurcated from all that Paul has written concerning being justified by faith.
2. dikaiwsin = the state of justification vs. the act where it appears as dikaiwma in 5:18.
3. One of the best articles written in modern times on the relationship of faith to justification came from the pen of Dr. Joel Beeke, which can be found here: Justification by Faith Alone.

Unfortunately, I don't see the logic in it.

But thanks for the good exchange nonetheless.

Pilgrim,

The scope of this discussion is evidently going beyond the original title-theme. The grand subject of justification by faith of Jesus Christ is certainly worthy of a separate thread devoted to it.
I may wish to return to it, in a different thread, if the LORD wills that we should live.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (Ro.3:21,22)

Renat