The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Eternal Justification

There has been some disagreement concerning the doctrine of "Eternal Justification" here lately. In the hopes of clarifying the biblical teaching on this matter, I am providing a section for Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology as an attachment for those interested. It is a .pdf document, so everyone should be able to open and/or save it, since most everyone has Adobe's free "Acrobat Reader" nowadays. For those that do not have Acrobat Reader, I hope to have an online HTML version available later on today, D.v. It will be included in the list of articles in the Sola Fide section of Calvinism and the Reformed faith.

In His Grace,

The online version of the article, "Eternal Justification" by Louis Berkhof is now available here: Eternal Justification.

NOTE: The online version includes a section not found in the attached .pdf version due to size restraints for attached files. In the online version, there are 3 sub-sections compared to only the first 2 in the attached file.

The 3 sub-sections are:

• Justification from Eternity
• Justification in the Resurrection of Christ
• Justification by Faith

In His Grace,

Here is a different opinion.


Justification and Election
While we do not believe that God's people are actually justified in eternity, we do believe that there is a very close relationship between election and justification. They are justified by faith, not by election. Nevertheless, their justification cannot be separated from their election.
First, having chosen them to be His own, God also decreed to justify them and them only. He not only decreed that they should be holy, but that they should be without blame (Eph. 1:4), which is nothing more nor less than the decree of their justification.
Second, insofar as they are chosen in Christ according to God's eternal love, He also saw in eternity them as justified and without guilt. Only having foreseen them without sin, could God set His love upon them. And in giving them to Christ in eternity, God gave them to Him as those whom He eternally saw without sin.
Numbers 23:21 is especially important here. The same past-tense language is used, "He hath not seen iniquity in Jacob," that is used in Romans 9:13, "Jacob have I loved." This language has always been understood by those who believe in sovereign grace to refer to God's eternal decrees.
Numbers 23:21 is the answer to Balak and Balaam's attempts to curse God's people. Though Christ had not yet come, nor the blood of atonement been shed, God's people could not be cursed because of what God had foreseen in eternity.
It is in this sense that we are willing to speak of eternal justification, or better, of justification from eternity. Indeed, we believe it is of the utmost importance to emphasize this eternal background to justification.
To separate justification from God's eternal decree of election, is to end up with a justification that is available to all, if only they will believe, i.e., a conditional justification that in some way depends on the sinner's response to the gospel. That is not the free, gracious justification of which Scripture speaks.
Third, it is according to the decree of election, therefore, that justification is made available in the death of Jesus for the elect, and for them only. And, according to that same decree of election, they and they only are given the gift of faith by which that justification becomes their own.
There is no justification or righteousness possible for the non-elect. No forgiveness is available for them. What does not exist, either according to God's decree or the cross be Christ, cannot be offered to them without doing violence to Scripture's teaching concerning the truthfulness and unchangeableness of God.
Such a close connection there is between election and justification, that we know our election by way of our justification. Experiencing through faith the forgiveness of sins, we also know that we have this forgiveness from Him who "hath not seen iniquity in Jacob" nor "perverseness in Israel."
Praise be to His Name who sovereignly justifies His people. Rev. Ronald Hanko

Yankee,

Hanko's comments are in full agreement with those of Berkhof and many others. God did decree the elect's justification, but the decree is not the actual justification which is accomplished when the elect sinner believes upon Christ in time. God decreed ALL things, but the actualization of what He decreed must and will occur. For example, God decreed the time of your birth and your death. But you would be hard-pressed to say that you had no need of being born and/or you are now already physically dead. The death of Christ was decreed, prophesies where given of its sure coming, but Christ wasn't crucified in eternity; the Son of God (second person of the Trinity) took on human flesh in time and thus the Lord Jesus Christ came to be. It was this second Adam who was born, grew in stature, taught multitudes and shed drops of blood in contemplation of the NOT YET crucifixion.

My only criticism of Hanko is his typical paranoia when it comes to the "Free Offer of the Gospel". There was absolutely no need to even mention that, but he was no doubt compelled to do so, since the PRC has continued to make this one of the two issues (which was the basis for breaking away from the CRC) which they seem to want to be known for. One can proclaim there is free justification in Christ to all who believe, universally, without any contradiction of the doctrine of the eternal decree(s) of God. His position is without merit and always has been. And the opposite is erroneous too; e.g. the "gospel" of the majority of Evangelicals and para-church organizations, e.g., Billy Graham Ministries, Campus Crusade, Promise Keepers, etc., etc., which all say that God loves everyone, Jesus died for everyone, and thus all you have to do is raise your hand, repeat a little prayer and you will be a Christian.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

What's your read on or have you read The Doctrine of Eternal Justification (1) – John Marcus in November 2004 Protestant Reformed Theological journal?

Justification is an act in God, , and imputation of righteousness, should not be considered as the birth of time, but is eternal, because all His immanent acts are so. Is actual Justification the same with personal, and cannot persons be justified before they exist? Then they cannot be personally elected, before their actual existence. If there is a personal election from eternity, there also may be a personal Justification from eternity.

If by actual Justification, or the application of that benefit, when realized by God's elect, for their consolation and joy, it certainly follows faith; and is that Justification by faith which the Scripture speaks of, when faith is taken in a proper sense, but is no evidence that Justification itself is not eternal.


http://www.prca.org/sermons/romans8.29-30.html


I found this very helpful

Joe

Joe,

I read through that sermon by the PRC minister and he makes the same error; i.e., he negates the temporal and actual justification of a believing sinner in time by claiming that the justification occurred in eternity. And how does he make that error? He says this:

Just a few things about that wonderful work of justification. In the first place, we teach (and we are firmly convinced that this is Scriptural) that there is eternal justification. You will find that many who teach the "free offer of the gospel," deny eternal justification. Eternal justification again takes us back into the eternal Council or purpose of God. When the Bible says that we are "chosen in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world," there is the element of eternal justification. We are chosen IN CHRIST. This means that we are chosen in connection with the cross. We are chosen in connection with sin and grace--eternally!

Here he clearly commits "eisogesis", i.e., he has read INTO the text that which is not there; referring to Rom 8:29, 30. Although it is true that God's decree includes justification, it doesn't mean that ALL that He decreed was accomplished. In the case of justification, the redemption intended was not existent in eternity but rather only after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. If it was complete in eternity, then there would have been no purpose in God becoming man and suffering a vicarious substitutionary atonement, for it would ALREADY have been a "done deal".

He further says:

But as here justification follows out of the "calling," the emphasis in the text is on the conscious experience of the child of God. When God calls, draws, by the power of His Holy Spirit, He also assures us in our minds and in our hearts that we are justified. The child of God who is on his knees, who cries with the publican, "Oh, God, be merciful to me the sinner," that child of God has flowing into his consciousness the assurance that Jesus died for him.

This type of thinking is very similar to that of Karl Barth's idea of election, who embraced neo-Orthodoxy, where he taught that although election is universal, it is the "elect-elect" who come to realize their election in time; i.e., salvation for them was an experience. The similarity here is that the PRC, after the teaching of Abraham Kuyper and a few others, teach that justification is universal (for the elect) and that in time, the elect come to "experience" their eternal justification and not a real and individual justification. Once can easily see the fallacy here from myriad texts which contradict this type of thinking. For example, we have these two examples:

Ephesians 2:3 "among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:--"

2 Corinthians 5:20 "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

If the elect were justified in eternity, then they could not be said to be "children of wrath" even as the reprobate were under the wrath of God. And, if the elect were justified in eternity, why would Paul urge them to be "reconciled to God"? To be reconciled, one must first be justified, i.e., be declared righteous. For God cannot be united to that which is evil or wicked. (Hab 1:13).

Perhaps even more convincing is the text itself from which he took his sermon:

Romans 8:30 "and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

He spoke about God's "calling", which he specifically said was temporal, i.e., it consisted of two elements; regeneration and the outward and effectual call. This "call" is temporal and surely not eternal; that which was decreed doesn't occur until the appointed time when the Spirit comes upon the elect sinner. Skipping over "them he also justified", we read that "and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Again, this glorification, although decreed in eternity doesn't take place until the consummation of all things, when the Lord Christ returns to gather together all His own. Now, returning to "them he also justified", this justification in the text is specifically marked out as being inextricably bound to these other two elements: calling and glorification. One first needs to be called in time in order to be justified. And it is only those who are justified in time, who are then later glorified, in time. It is grammatical and linguistic suicide to posit that the calling is temporal, the justification eternal and the glorification temporal.

Now, I took the time to read the sermon you suggested. Will you extend the same to me and read the article by Berkhof I referred you to previously, which can be found here: Eternal Justification and provide your comments and/or objections?

In His Grace,

I haven't read it, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" /> But if is consistent with the "official" position of the PRC, then I would no doubt find it in error.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim:

I see absolutely nothing inconsitant with the sermon and Scripture. Are we not chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world? Was not the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world? I am still not settled in this issue completely and probably never will be. I see it as a both and, not an either or.

I read Berkhoffs treatiste. As usual He is very clear and concise, but a cookie cutter none the less. I have read the same article by 37 others pilgrim. I do nto believe he is correct in one major point. Justification is an IMMINENT act of God and not transient.

How could the Old Testament saints have been acquitted of their sins? For if we cannot be discharged, unless our sins be imputed to Christ, and they could not be placed to his account, till he "was made of a woman, and made under the law (Galatians 4:4, 5.)," as is suggested; then not one soul was justified before Christ’s incarnation. And nothing could be more false.

they are children full of wrath, or enmity against God, while in unbelief, And in that sense they may be called children of wrath.

they are also children of wrath in a passive sense and are are under a sentence of condemnation by the law before regeneration.

Zanchius said in his excellent book de natura Dei, that the
wrath of God is to be taken in different senses: "First, it signifies the certain and most just will, and decree of God, to avenge or punish the injuries done to himself and his church; thus with John 3:36. He that believeth not on the Son, the wrath of God abideth on him: That is, just vengeance against him is confirmed by the decree of Godf26." The elect are not objects of God’s wrath in this sense, but "are vessels of mercy, which God has afore prepared to glory Romans 9:23.)." "Secondly, it intends
the threatnings of punishment. Lastly, it imports the effects of wrath, or penalties, and the avenging of injuriesf27."

Now the elect are secured from the punishment due to their sins, by God’s decree; for "they are not appointed to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ 1Thessalonians 5:9.):" And also by Christ’s satisfaction, "who has made peace for them by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:20.)."

Therefore it is only in the second sense that they are children of wrath, which is perfectly consistent with their interest in God’s love and delight, and members of Christ, and with their complete Justification in him, their foederal head. The law does not consider men as elect, or nonelect, but as transgressors; and, condemns them. But as God put the elect into Christ, or united them to him in eternal election, he views and considers them in him, and so justifies them, and takes infinite pleasure in their persons as members of the Mediator, in whom he always had the fullest satisfaction and delight even though they are under a sentence of condemnation by the law, as violaters of it, while in unbelief.


Grace and Peace

Joe

Joe,

I'm wondering why you have chosen not to interact with what Berkhof's "cookiecutter" defense of the biblical doctrine of justification? And it's interesting that you have read the exact same thing written by "37 others". You are obviously far more read than I. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Once again, and for the last time, the decree of God doesn't secure anything in and of itself until it is executed. Thus, in the matter of justification, it was decreed that a specific remnant from Adam's fallen race should be redeemed in Christ. However, that decree only guaranteed that which God purposed would come to pass. It is in the execution of the decree in time and through various means that it is secured. Professor John Murray has nailed this down perfectly in his excellent book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. If you haven't read this little book, I would strongly encourage you to do so.

Lastly, you have failed to make your case from the biblical record and offer your exegesis of such texts as Rom 3:28-30; 4:2-5; 5:1; 9:30; Gal 3:6-8, 24, in order to refute the traditional view. If you can do so, I would really like to read it.

In His Grace,

What do you mean interact? Pilgrim I have interacted with his and a lot of others. And I doubt I am much more read than you. I know I am nto as well versed.


I agree it is an excellent book.


The case for eternal justification is nto only based on the decree. IT is based on the covenant of redemption made in eternity. I believe I have offered an explination in regards to the children of wrath scripture. I would much rather approach this from a matter of one text at a time pilgrim. and instead of getting invloved in biblical hop scotch, let us approach this all for the Glory of God. All the scriptures you provided say we are justified by faith. I have read them and understand them to mean exactly what they say. Faith =Grace=His Blood. Paul uses all interchangeably. We are justified by His grace, In fact, scripture also says we are justified by HIS faith. A translation you have refuted in previous threads. Which BTW creates a whole other issue of understanding. One that cannot be thrown out as trivial as you have done. What is the faith of Christ? anyway I am digressing.

by faith does not equal because of faith. I still insist that faith wqould be a work then if God justified people after showing their faith.

I also believe there is merit in the distinction of being justified before God and Justified before men and Justified before conscious.

I will also state that this is a both and, not either or. If we have been given to Christ from the foundation of the world, would that not mea that the elect in the Cov of Redemption are not under condemnation while in Christ?

In Adam, we are all sinners deserving of His wrath. In Christ there is no condemnation Paul says. So if we have been in Christ from the foundation of the world, then that would mean in Christ we are not condemned ie; we are Justified.

I believe the traditional understanding has merit also Pilgrim, but I also believe the deeper truth rests in the eternal covenant within the triune Godhead.

Joe

Joe: Just curious...Who are you quoting here and not giving credit? Where did you get this?


and..in your previous post....who is saying this that you are not crediting..so we can all read from the same article?


Dave

Sounds like JOHN BRINE (Hyper-Calvinism?)

Joe k,

Well, again you have offered basically nothing to refute the traditional view which the vast majority of orthodox Calvinists have held and of which I too hold tenaciously from my study of the Scriptures. I can only conclude that you either don't have the time to exegete all or any of the myriad passages I have offered, you have no interest in doing so, or you simply cannot. Further, you have not offered any cogent refutation of the myriad reasons I have given in defense of the traditional/biblical view either. But whatever the reason is for you not bring forth a biblical, rational defense of "Eternal Justification", I see no possibility of me considering casting off that which cannot be refuted.

FYI, I spent a very unhappy period of my life studying at a hyper-Calvinist seminary and was exposed to this and other errors in great depth. I found their defense of there views to be more than wanting, for they were based more on deductions rather than sound exegesis of Scripture. That is why I was hoping YOU could offer something more substantive than a few potpourri cut & paste quotes from unmentioned authors.

Undoubtedly, you have read this too, but I am moved to offer it nonetheless: Justification by Faith Alone: The Relation of Faith to Justification, by Dr. Joel Beeke.

In His Grace,

John Brine. Defending the Doctrine of Eternal Justification. As Znanchious which I stated