Your Justification before God the Judge -
How (on what basis) did God justify you
when you were an ungodly guilty condemned (unjustified) sinner?
Was it by your faith in Christ, or
Was it by the faith of Christ?
How did God justify you, AND
How does your faith justify you?
A Response
to Pastor Noel Espinosa’s Assessment
(Principal of Grace Ministerial Academy,
Manila, Philippines)
by
Sing F. Lau
(Pastor of Sungai Dua Church -
1689 Old School Baptist, Penang. Malaysia)
 |
| Sing and Noel as fellow students at London Theological Seminary. Taken in June 1991 (Noel is presently a principal of an RB seminary.) |
From: sing
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:48:51 +0800
To: Noel Espinosa
Subject: Re: thanks and plea
Dear Brother Noel,
Hello, it is good to hear from you.
Thank you for your email and the Assessment attached.
I will give both some careful thoughts and give some appropriate response that your mail and Assessment deserve. Since your Assessment was given in public, my response to your Assessment will also be in public. I hope you understand fair play in theological discussion.
I heard that you had planned to come up to Penang. How sad you didn't make it. What prevented you? Probably you were contented just to hear one side and concluded the matter. "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him."
by grace and mercy,
sing
--------
From: sing
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:16:45 +0800
To:
Dear Brother Noel A. Espinosa,
Thank you for your email. I will reply within your mail.
Noel: I would like to thank you for your kind and thoughtful gift of your book. Also your assurance of prayer during my recent ministry in Malaysia is truly appreciated.
sing: Thank you for your mail and the attached 'Assessment.'
I was expecting it because someone at the camp reported that you had not only given a defence of the 'standard reformed' view but you would also write an assessment of the views expressed in the 'Pruning' book. Since your 'Assessment' was given in the public forum, I will respond to your Assessment and circulate it to whoever I believe is interested in the gospel truth. [Brother Eng Ghee, I request that you forward my response to all who heard Noel's Assessment at the camp.]
Noel: But it is with sadness that I was to learn of your deviation from the faith. What compounds the matter is the way you have been defending your case through the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. I am sorry to say, brother, that your employment of that Confession is totally wrong and unjustified. Are you an expert in the history of that Confession? You seem to totally ignore those who have expounded the 1689 with so much more scholarship. Do you really think that you have seen in the 1689 something that many more in different generations have seen differently?
sing: Cheer up brother and cast away your sadness. You have rightly appreciated the seriousness of the issue involved, and aptly described the matter as 'deviation from the faith.' So it is no 'obscure doctrine' anymore, is it? Since you with the 'standard reformed' folks and I are disagreed, I hope you realize that it is NOT impossible that you might have deviated from the faith. It is not impossible at all, is it brother?
I am no expert in anything. I really hope one does not have to be an expert in the history of the Confession to read and understand the plain language of the 1689 BCoF. I am ever only a minister of the gospel of Christ seeking and learning the truth of the Scriptures, using the 1689 BCoF as an aid to assist me in understanding how others have rightly divided the word of truth, and to hold to gospel truths consistently.
If my employment of the Confession is TOTALLY WRONG and UNJUSTIFIED, then it would be VERY EASY for you to just prove the falsity and invalidity of my conclusions. You should just proceed straight to demonstrate the truth of your statement instead of making scholarly-sounding but empty innuendos!
I do have due respect for those with a great scholarship like you. The only difficulty is that those with scholarship differ widely among themselves. They use their pseudo-scholarship to push what they want to believe - regardless of whether there is consistency in what they are pushing. Biblical scholars have their proper place and I give their ideas due consideration, but I have long since abandoned them as a source of authority or guide for faith and practice. I have no scholarship and I don't pretend to be one either. You speak as though the study of the Confession is a province reserved for the scholars like you only. I do abhor such elitist patronizing mentality.
I read the plain language of the Confession and endeavour to understand and hold to the truths summarized by the forefathers in a consistent way. Truths can't possibly be inconsistent and contradicting regardless of the most brilliant scholarship and impressive theological juggling-ship!
Noel: Or let me put it to you this way. Do you think you know better than those very men who have been instrumental in the creation of the 1689 Confession? There were some thirty seven signatories of the Confession. Do you really speak their mind?
sing: I have never imagined that I can know better than those very men who have been instrumental in systematizing the teaching of Scriptures in the 1689 Confession. Perhaps a scholar like you may know better than them. However, I do try to know as much as they have they stated in the Confession.
One does not have to think himself better than those very men who have been instrumental in systematizing the teaching of Scriptures in the 1689 Confession BEFORE he can endeavour to understand what they have systematized in plain words. The framers have expressed their understanding of the Scriptures in plain words such that even the simplest of saints can understand them with some effort, most certainly without having to be a scholar. The study of the Confession is not the province reserved for scholars like you. Your rhetorical questions betray an arrogant and elitist mentality.
I don't pretend to speak their mind. I do endeavour to understand what they have expressed in plain words. They have expressed themselves in those plain and exact words. The 37 signatories spoke with one voice and expressed in those plain words that can be understood.
If you believe that I am TOTALLY WRONG and UNJUSTIFIED in understanding their mind, it would be so easy for you to demonstrate the error of my conclusions. Please go ahead. I am always in learning mode.
Noel: Unfortunately, brother, that is not the case. Those men have left records that clearly addressed the issue that you have promoted in your fellowship of churches. And the original framers of the Confession clearly were not in your position.
sing: Fortunately, the task is very easy for you - just show where I have erred from the plain meaning of the words found in the Confession of Faith. I would be very grateful to you. That's all I ask. If my understanding is clearly not the position of the original framers, the task is very easy for you to prove it. You would do me a great favour to show me the right understanding.
Noel: I am enclosing the outline of my lecture to the leaders and interested parties in the last Camp. Very clearly, men like Benjamin Keach (considered as the most eminent theologian of that group) held the position that faith is the instrumental cause of justification. This clearly shows that it is very unbecoming of you to use the 1689 to promote a view that the original framers repudiated.
sing: Thanks for the Outline of your Critique. I have made a response to it. It is attached with this mail. A hard copy has been sent to you by post. Now those interested in the truth can compare your Assessment and my Response. The Berean minded folks will read and learn the truth themselves.
My difficulty with the 'faith is the instrumental cause of justification' view is quite simple. To be able to believe, you must have life. Life is only possible when the condemnation of death has been removed, i.e. justification must have taken place and life imparted. Faith is the effect of justification and regeneration. I think the CoF is quite plain on that point. A simple child could understand this. Scholars and theologians are often blinded by their pride not to see the simplicity of this gospel truth.
Other men - I hope no less clear-minded and spiritual - like Kiffin wrote, “Justification By Christ Alone Sets Forth the True Place of Faith in Salvation As An Evidence of Interest In Christ... That the Scripture holds forth justification by faith in a sense is very clear, but yet under no other consideration, but by way of evidence.”
So which of the original framers is the final source of authority? Are the framers contradicting themselves in public? Or is it you who misunderstood them? Do you want to pit them one against another? To many, the man who 'sounds' agreeable to their view is the most eminent theologian! I don't see things that way. I really don't know who was the most eminent theologian around. I am interested in the plain language of the 1689 BCoF. I take the Confession as the common words of the most eminent as well as the most obscure servants of Christ that represented the true churches of Jesus Christ. Truth is not determined by the most eminent theologians, is it?
Noel: I am pleading with you to set the matters straight. Please go back to the straight paths of theology. Your position is unbiblical, and clearly not held by historical evangelicalism.
sing: Show me where I am inconsistent and contradictory with the biblical teaching as summarized in the 1689 BCoF on the subjects discussed in the book, and I will readily walk in the straight and consistent path of theology. Which part is crooked and inconsistent - I ask in all humility. I have given adequate proofs and demonstration that your position is contradictory to both the Scriptures and the Confession. I am on the straight paths of theology, though I am not on your spiralling paths of theology. Historical evangelicalism is not my authority, unfortunately. It is an impressive label, though!
Noel: But if you will continue to hold to your position, I am urging you to express your repentance in using the 1689 Confession for your defense. To continue doing so after I have shown that its framers are of a different persuasion, that will clearly be spitting upon their graves.
sing: Please show me where I have misused the 1689 BCoF. When shown my inconsistencies, I will repent each one of them. Is it not impudent and arrogant to ask one to repent when you have not even demonstrated or proven where he has gone astray from the Confession of Faith?
You have not even shown where I have erred. You have quoted Keach. Have you read the lengthy article on Justification by Samuel Richardson, a signer of the 1644 First London BCoF? Have you read Kiffin's introduction to that article? [Philadelphia Baptist Association in a Circular Letter in 1785 reads -- ‘…Our justification is by some ascribed to faith as an instrumental cause. Strictly speaking, we apprehend faith as no cause at all in this momentous procedure, but rather an effect… "The reason why any are justified is not because they have faith; but the reason why they have faith is because they are justified."’
You have not dealt with what I have said concerning the plain words of the Confession. You have shown NOTHING thus far, but empty rhetoric only!
Beware brother, you and your 'standard reformed' brethren may be the ones spitting upon their graves, to use your own words!!!
Noel: Brother, disown your unbiblical view. But if you cannot, then disown the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. It is definitely not on your side. You only stand by yourself, and by your revered website. But you are neither on the side of the Bible, nor of the Confession of Faith.
sing: I do thank you for your unbiblical opinion. It would be nice to prove the worth of your opinion - I mean, it would be kind of you to at least show me where exactly I have gone wrong and strayed from the 1689 BCoF. Why ask me to disown it when I have not been shown to be inconsistent with Scriptures? I think that is a wee bit too patronizing and presumptuous, don't you think? Who gives you such privilege? Is that the way you deal with your students at GMA?
How do you know I stand by myself? Just how do you know, my dear brother? You make me remember the words of Elisha in 2Ki 6:17, "And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha." Please don't misunderstand me and go around saying that I am equating myself to Elisha.
My point is simple: there are great men, living and dead, that you care not to know nor hear. You speak with so much arrogance, as though you are omniscient. Therefore, "I pray thee, Lord, open his eyes!"
My revered web site? I revere no one BUT the Scriptures alone and its Divine Author. Many people revere theologians and scholars of the 'standard reformed' persuasion. They quote them incessantly as though they are the authority! I am quite puzzled. You may now be revered by some folks here as their theological spokesmen!
Noel: I plead with you to return the Confession where it belongs.
sing: Perhaps these words should be addressed to yourself, brother!
Finally, I believe you have been misled to tell a LIE in public - that I had rejected your offer of coming up to Penang to meet with me. I know of no such offer from anyone at any time. Whoever claims to have made that offer should substantiate that that offer had been made known to me. Otherwise, you have told a LIE in public. I thought you should know this so that you would be a wee bit more careful next time.
Only speaking frankly, and with no disrespect intended whatsoever, and so none should ever be taken, dear brother!
May the Lord bless you and keep you.
In the grace and mercy of Christ,
sing
======
MY RESPONSE TO YOUR CRITIQUE
Since Pastor Noel’s Assessment of my view was given publicly at the RB annual combined church camp, this response to his Assessment shall also be circulated publicly.
I am doing Pastor Noel a big favour by making known to the public his eloquent defence of the ‘standard reformed’ position that the believer’s faith alone is the instrumental cause for his legal justification before God. The following is my response to Pastor Noel’s Assessment section by section.
A. The ‘Standard Reformed’ Folks Have Not Even Believed the Truth summarized in the 1689 Confession of Faith!
--------------------
A. Deviation from the 1689 Confession of Faith
Note: SFL asserts that his position is that which is espoused in the 1689 Confession
“The view summarized in the 1689 CoF above has been held by the faithful remnant throughout the church history.”
Problem: Why should his reading of the 1689 be more accurate than that of the dominant number of its advocates?
1. The framers of the 1689 Confession did not advocate his ordo salutis
Note: The most eminent theologian among the signatories of the 1689 was Benjamin Keach
• He wrote the treatise: Actual Justification Rightly Stated…The Introduction: Proving, There is no Actual Justification, or Actual Union with Christ before Faith
• Whether believers were not actually reconciled to God, actually justified and adopted when Christ died? The answer was: That the reconciliation, Justification, and Adoption of Believers are infallibly secured by the gracious purpose of God, and merits of Jesus Christ; yet none can be said to be actually reconciled, justified and adopted, until they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by faith.• Another treatise: The Marrow of True Justification
Point: The framers believed in justification by faith – taking faith as instrumental cause.
---------------------
You will do better if you can refute what I have actually said concerning the 1689 BCoF. Quoting this great man and that great man is not the way. Men quote men whom they think/assume agree with them. Quoting great men is child’s play. I can probably do it also without too much difficulty. Why did you ignore William Kiffin and Samuel Richardson before the Confession and John Gill and John Brine after the Confession, all of which understood and taught justification by faith differently than you affirm it? Some of these men had, and still have, reputations equal or greater among the Reformed Baptists than Benjamin Keach. Is truth to be determined by dominant numbers or dominant personalities?
Keach wrote, ‘There is no Actual Justification, or Actual Union with Christ before Faith.’ What he said is perfectly true and consistent and logical ONLY when ‘actual’ is understood in its proper sense in light of what was summarized in the Confession, 1689.11.4; 14:1.
There is no actual justification in the experiential sense – i.e. conscious experience of the blessedness of our justified state until we believe. That’s the whole point of Romans 4:1-8. This passage is about ‘his faith is accounted to him for righteousness.’ It is not – not – not the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to him for justification! Open your eyes, brother! You have committed a basic theological blunder. [ Read here: A Massive theological Blunder - http://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/2008/01/massive-theological-blunder.html ]
Keach wrote: “That the reconciliation, justification, and adoption of believers are infallibly secured by the gracious purpose of God, and merits of Jesus Christ; yet none can be said to be actually reconciled, justified and adopted, until they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by faith.”
This statement is also perfectly true. What is legally secured through Christ and applied to the elect personally by the Spirit becomes experientially true ONLY when such are called to believe in Christ, 1689.11.4. By faith, a justified, regenerated and adopted child of God is experientially implanted into Jesus. None but the justified can believe! Understood this way, Keach is in perfect harmony with the Confession of Faith, and in harmony with what Kiffin, another prominent signatory, said.
1689.13.1 “They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally.”
The farther sanctification is where believing in Christ plays its proper and vital role. Union to Christ through effectual call logically and chronologically precedes the exercise of faith in Christ through the gospel call. It is union with Christ that gives life to believe in Christ. And faith in Christ comes by hearing the gospel preached. This is basic gospel truth. That union by divine free grace is experienced personally through faith in Christ in the gospel call.
William Kiffin was an outstanding Particular Baptist minister in England. He was born in 1616 and died in 1701. He was a signer of the First London Confession in 1644 and also the Second London Confession of 1689. Whether Kiffin is less eminent than Keach or not, I leave it to you, a theologian and scholar, to decide.
In any case, he said these words: “Justification By Christ Alone Sets Forth the True Place of Faith in Salvation As An Evidence of Interest In Christ … that the Scripture holds forth justification by faith in a sense is very clear, but yet under no other consideration, but by way of evidence…” [From Kiffin’s introduction to the long article on ‘Justification by Christ Alone’ by Samuel Richardson.] Richardson was a signer of the First London Confession of 1644. I believe this Particular Baptist forefather has stated the exact truth concerning justification by faith as summarized in the 1689 CoF
Conclusion: Whether the framers did or did not advocate the ordo salutis I have concluded from the 1689 is very easy to determine – study the plain wording of the Confessional Statement. If the Framers did not advocate the ordo salutis I have proposed, it would be very easy for a renowned theologian like you to prove the worth of your opinion. It is just that simple. I love simplicity. I abhor presumption.
-----------------
2. The 1689 Confession deliberately copied the Westminster Confession in many parts, including justification.
Note: It is evident that the Westminster divines upheld the justification by faith ordo salutis.
• The independents, John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, were of this conviction
• John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification: “Whereas, therefore, the righteousness wherewith we are justified is the gift of God, which is tendered unto us in the promise of the gospel; the use and office of faith being to receive, apprehend, or lay hold of and appropriate, this righteousness, I know not how it can be better expressed than by an instrument… If we are justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which faith alone apprehends and receives, it will not be denied but that it is rightly enough placed as the instrumental cause of our justification.”
Point: The 1689 confession was intended to be of the same conviction as the Confession of Reformed theology
For the most part without any variation of the terms, we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both, in these articles wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs, and this we did, the more abundantly, to manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion… Foreword to the 1689 Confession
--------------------
You have a very simple task to prove that the ordo salutis I have concluded from the Confession is not consistent with the plain language of the 1689 BCoF. Why don’t you do it, brother? You are well known for your sharp logical mind. People said you would make a first-class prosecuting lawyer. You could easily demonstrate the correctness of the ordo salutis of the ‘standard reformed’ theology, that it conforms to what is summarized in the 1689 BCoF. But you have not. Where do you read in the whole of the Confession that justification BEFORE God is by the instrumental cause of the believer’s faith? Where? Show it. This is a very simple request. If it is there, show it.
Are you aware of those “divines” that were contemporaries of John Owen that held the view of justification by the faith of Christ I have suggested? Are you aware of Goodwin’s views on Justification? And what about Hoornbeck, Ames, Macovius, Witsius, Hervey, Toplady, Traill, and Crisp among the Reformation churches, and Gill (read here where many of the just mentioned divines are marshalled to prove the point disputed), Brine, Kiffin, Richardson, Hussey, Davis, Skepp, and Maurice among the Baptists? You should not be quoting individual men at all; but if you must, you should be fair to also quote those that disagreed with your interpretation of the Confession.
Owen said, “The use and office of faith being to receive, apprehend, or lay hold of and appropriate, this righteousness, I know not how it can be better expressed than by an instrument…” This is indeed true.
Faith as an instrument DOES NOT cause justification to happen. ‘Standard reformed’ insists ‘no faith, no justification.’ Scriptures declare, ‘no justification, no faith.’ Faith in Christ is the divinely appointed instrument to receive, apprehend, or lay hold of and appropriate, the righteousness of Christ that has been imputed (perfect tense) at effectual calling to life. Faith in Christ is the divinely appointed means for His ALREADY justified, regenerated and adopted people to experience the blessedness of the righteousness of Christ already imputed by free grace. “To receive, apprehend, or lay hold of and appropriate” speak of the acts of the already justified elect (simple past tense) to personally EXPERIENCE (simple present tense) the righteousness. ‘His faith is accounted to him for righteousness’ Rom 4:3,5.
Thus, the Scriptures declare, “faith is accounted to him for righteousness.’ The Confession expressly warns against the common ‘standard reformed’ blunder of mistaking this as speaking of legal or forensic justification. 1689.11.1 says “… not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness.” The imputing of believer’s faith is remotely related to legal justification! The Confession warns against such delusion.
Imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us when we were in a state of sin and death, and the reception of the righteousness of Christ by faith when we exercise faith when we are in a state of grace and salvation, are two very different and distinct theological concepts. The former is wholly a monergistic once-for-all divine gracious act. The latter is a distinct separate activity of those justified, regenerated and adopted elects, which began at initial conversion and thereafter throughout life. You are a teacher of Israel, and ought to know this most basic distinction.
If Timothy and the rich were to lay hold of eternal life, do you suppose that they did not have eternal life yet, but were still in the pursuit of it (I Tim 6:12, 17-19)? Did their laying hold of salvation, actuate it, initiate it, complete it, or what?
If Paul was still seeking to be found in Christ’s righteousness, was he justified forensically or not (Phil 3:8-11)? Or was there a pursuit for the subjective experiential enjoyment and certainty of evidential justification that was very distinct from the imputation at the cross and the application of justification at the effectual call?
A well-known reformed man from a well known reformed seminary, whom a standard reformed’ brother had marshalled with the hope of demolishing my view, said in a matter of fact manner, “But of course the Westminster Confession makes it clear that grace (justification) precedes faith…” [emphasis original] He described what I was doing in these devastating words, “He is arguing against a straw man--or else, against people who call themselves Reformed but are really not.” Yes, what I did wasn’t to argue against a straw man, but to wake up brethren who parade themselves as ‘standard reformed’ but who are really not, much less ‘standard’, from their delusion. But you have lured them into deeper slumber!
B. The ‘Standard Reformed’ Folks Have Not Even Embraced the Scriptures as Summarized in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.
--------------------
B. Departure from Historic Reformed Theology
1. Justification and Adoption are not subsumed under Effectual Calling in Reformed Theology
• Effectual calling is by His Word and Spirit… enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God (i.e. to believe)
• The one called is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it
Point: The immediate effect of effectual calling is saving belief in the gospel
-------------------
1a. I am not interested in what Reformed Theology says. I am interested in the teaching of Scriptures as summarized in the 1689 Confession. My standard is not the ‘Historic’ or the ‘Standard’ Reformed Theology. The Scriptures alone is. What conforms to Scriptures is good, otherwise, they are deformed, however ‘historic’ or ‘standard.’ 1689.1.10.
You said justification and adoption are NOT subsumed under effectual calling to grace and salvation. Let us see the theology summarized in the 1689 Confession regardless of what your Historic or ‘Standard Reformed’ Theology claims.
Let’ us examine what the Confession says. What is effectual calling? “Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ…”
We see quite plainly that effectual calling is calling a person predestinated to life out of his NATIVE state of sin and death, in which he is by nature, to righteousness and life, i.e. to ‘grace and salvation by Christ Jesus, to eternal life. It is calling an elect person out of that state of condemnation, spiritual death and being a child of wrath. It is calling to grace and salvation by Christ Jesus, i.e. to life, eternal and spiritual life.
Is it not very simple and plain that to call an elect out of that state of condemnation, spiritual death and being a child of wrath, there must be the removal of that condemnation (by justification!), there must be the removal of that spiritual death (by regeneration) and the removal of that standing of being an alien and stranger (by adoption)?
Is it not very simple and plain that to call an elect to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ, there must first be the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (justification) by God the Father, the impartation of spiritual life by the Spirit of Christ, and the reception into the family of God (adoption)? Can an elect be effectually called to grace and salvation without these divine and monergistic acts of grace, i.e. justification, regeneration and adoption? Simple question demands simple answer!
1b. The Confession states simply: “Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ… Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth… All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption… They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them… The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word.”
PLEASE note carefully that the grace of believing does not come into the picture of the order of salvation until the grace of faith has been worked by the Spirit in the hearts of those who have been justified, regenerated and adopted. Do you see this plain and most basic gospel fact? Only the adopted ‘have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.” Faith is a privilege of the sons of God – it is a fruit of grace worked in the sons.
1c. Read carefully what is declared in 13.1: “They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them.” The process of further sanctification beginning with faith in Christ is described in 1689.14.
We have been informed earlier that justification follows (i.e. is embraced in) effectual call, “Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth.” So justification is embraced in the effectual call. This truth can’t be disputed. We are also informed that justification logically precedes adoption, “All those that are justified, God vouchsafed to make partakers of the grace of adoption.’ This truth can’t be disputed either. To be made partakers of the grace of adoption is NOT possible without the prior grace of regeneration. That which is not born cannot possibly be adopted. This can’t be disputed either. To be made partakers of the grace of adoption is ONLY possible through the regenerating work by the Holy Spirit. We are born by the Spirit of Christ to be sons of God. Who dares to dispute this?
THEREFORE, it is indisputable that in effectual calling to grace and salvation, there must be justification, regeneration and adoption – in that logical order and number. Without these sovereign divine acts of grace, there is NO calling to grace and salvation. Effectual calling is calling of a condemned dead child of wrath to grace and salvation, to the eternal life predestinated. The effectual calling of an elect to grace and salvation is IMPOSSIBLE without justification to deal with condemnation, regeneration to deal with spiritual death, and adoption to deal with alienation.
The Confession declares very simply that justification, regeneration and adoption are subsumed under effectual calling to grace and salvation. Please exegete the Confession with integrity. Eisegesis won’t do. Let the Confession say what it says. Only blind prejudice will refuse to see what is so plainly set forth.
1d. You said, “Effectual calling is by His Word and Spirit… enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God (i.e. to believe).”
I fear you are a little careless here. “Enlightening their mind spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God” IS NOT the same as “to believe.” The effectual calling that enlightens their minds spiritually to understand the things of God prepares and enables such minds to believe the things of God presented in the gospel call. The effectual call to eternal life prepares and enables them to respond to the gospel call to faith in Christ, i.e. to believe. The former is the cause. The latter is the effect – drawn out at gospel call.
You said: “The immediate effect of effectual calling is saving belief in the gospel.” Not true. The immediate effect of effectual calling is the possession of the spiritual life that enable a child of God to answer to the gospel call. Effectual call to eternal life, BOTH logically as well as chronologically, precedes the gospel call to faith. Only those who have been effectually called to life – like Abraham and Cornelius – can be called to faith, to believe what God has done for them.
The one effectually called out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation ‘is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it” 1689.10.1. It is irrational to think that the effectual call is to enable a person to answer to the effectual call. Effectual call to eternal life is to enable an elect to answer the gospel call to faith in Jesus Christ. The gift of faith worked in the heart by the indwelling Spirit, bestowed at effectual calling, is called forth through the gospel call. The gospel ministry is ‘from faith to faith.’
-------------------
2. Justification is objective and legal, not subjective or experiential
Note: SFL forces new meanings on justification just to accommodate his order…
• He distinguishes between the legal (effectual call), and the experiential (evidenced by faith and works)
• The great divide between the Reformation and Roman Catholicism is on the former’s emphasis on forensic meaning
Point: The Confession teaches that God freely justifies those whom he effectually calls [not that he effectually calls those he freely justifies], by imputing Christ’s active and passive obedience for their whole and sole righteousness by faith… so the justification referred to here is by faith
--------------------
2a. Justification has several distinct phases or aspects. Ignorance of this scriptural fact causes much confusion. The legal aspect is just ONE of them. No one denies this. God justifies forensically. Faith justifies evidentially. Note the difference!
It is very accepted and common among Baptist and your Reformed “divines” to allow for several aspects or phases of justification. Please note again Goodwin, Hoornbeck, Ames, Macovius, Witsius, Hervey, Toplady, Traill, and Crisp among the others and Gill, Brine, Kiffin, Richardson, Hussey, Davis, Skepp, and Maurice among the Baptists. You do not have the historical grounds to limit justification to its objective and legal phase only. In distinguishing (1) the immanent act of God’s will in justification before the world began, (2) the legal payment for our righteousness on the cross by Jesus Christ, (3) the vital application of that legal justification to each elect at effectual calling, (4) the subjective experience in the conscience of the believer by faith, and (5) the final and formal declaration of the righteousness of the elect before the tribunal of God, there must be divisions made to avoid confusion; and historical theology has always allowed these distinctions. Why are you trying to remove them to slander my position? You betray your ignorance of this most apparent fact.
- There is the decretal or covenantal aspect. This happened before time.
- There is the legal and objective aspect. This happened at the cross.
- There is the vital and personal aspect. This happened to each elect at God’s appointed and approved time. See 1689.11.4 carefully on these three aspects that are logically and chronological PRIOR to the experiential justification by the believer's faith in Christ Jesus (1689.11.2)
- There is the evidential and practical aspect. Faith not only evidences (simple present tense) the justified state, but it is accounted (present passive) for righteousness, i.e. it is blessed of God to experience the blessings of one’s righteous standing with God through the righteousness of Christ imputed (simple past tense) when one was ungodly and in enmity against God, i.e. when one was a condemned dead child of wrath. Works of faith also evidence (simple present tense) the justified (simple past) state of a man. Faith in Christ justifies the believer in his conscience that he is indeed a child of God justified by the faith of Christ. My faith in Christ declares to others that I am a child of God. Both my faith and works demonstrate my justification by God’s free grace.
- And finally, there is public vindicatory aspect on the great day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Romans 2:1-10. This is still in the future.
Dr. Joel R. Beeke, a theologian no less reformed or scholarly than you, expounds the five-fold view of justification in his writings.
May the Lord grant you eyes to see the riches and the fullness of the Scriptures’ teaching on justification! There is an article in the ‘revered website’ [save your sarcasm, brother] on this subject. And the great Baptist writers Gill and others have also identified and described these distinct aspects of justification quite well. Don’t sink into the muck-hole tactic of dismissing them by smearing them with derogatory ‘hypercalvinistic label’ if you can't refute their views.
2b. The great divide lies here:
The Roman Catholicism insisted: legal justification is by both faith and works.
The ‘standard reformed’ says: legal justification is by faith alone.
The Scriptures, as correctly summarized by the 1689 BCoF says: legal justification is by grace alone through the righteousness of Christ alone. This legal justification by free grace alone through the righteousness of Christ alone is evidenced by both faith and works of faith. “Faith is not alone in the person justified” (1689.11.2) not only tell us that faith is an effect and evidence of justification, but that faith is one of the many effects and evidence of justification. Works is also an evidence of justification. In the cases of Abraham and Cornelius, it is plainly evident that works of faith were manifested long before their faith in Christ was.
Consider this biblical statement, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified [present passive indicative], and not by faith only." James 2:24. I am in perfect agreement with this biblical statement. Let's consider the implication of this grand statement. This statement in its context is declaring at least two truths:
i. The works of faith, as well as the faith of a person, justify (present active indicative) him. The justification by works and faith spoken of is a present reality. This cannot possibly refer to the once-for-all past act of divine grace in the legal justification at the effectual call.
ii. The way works of faith justify [simple present] a man is the same way his faith justifies [simple present] him. Please note that forensic justification is a simple past once-for-all unrepeatable action. That simple past action is presently manifested and evidenced by faith and works. Both works and faith justify EVIDENTIALLY, not FORENSICALLY. Look at father Abraham. Look at Cornelius the Gentile.
The 'standard reformed' folks recoil from and reject this simple truth - which explains their confusion, deficiency and inconsistency. Martin Luther despised and ridiculed this epistle, tore it from some Bibles, and placed in last in the New Testament canon due to his confused obsession with justification by faith alone. They insist that faith is the instrumental cause of justification. To be consistent, what they ascribe to faith they must also ascribe to works of faith [works here is not the works of the law – man’s effort to establish his own righteousness through his obedience to the law. The ‘works’ here is a saving grace that accompanies justification, 1689.11.2].
And the only consistent way to do so is to recognize the simple and basic truth that both faith and works are evidential in nature. They justify evidentially, not legally. Faith and works justify that they are indeed children of God. They are [present tense] evidence of a person justified, regenerated and adopted, i.e. effectually called unto eternal life. Faith and works justify evidentially. Get this fact right.
Abraham was a justified man long before he believed God’s promise of a great seed (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:1-3) or offered Isaac on an altar (Gen 22:11-18; Jas 2:23-24). He had left Ur of the Chaldees by faith long before (Heb 11:8-10)! Why must you force Abraham to be an unjustified condemned man for many of his faithful and obedient years of wandering in Canaan! You need to rightly divide the word of truth about Abraham and faith and justification because the Holy Spirit has chosen him as the single greatest illustration of this doctrine. His faith (Gen 15:6) and works (Gen 12-14, 22:11-18; Jas 2:23-24) simply evidenced and proved his justification! They did not initiate, actuate, complete, or finalize his justification. He was a justified righteous man long before these events, but these events made manifest God’s declaration of his righteousness by free grace.
Phinehas was a justified man long before he made shish-ka-bob of two fornicators (Num 25:6-15; Ps 106:30-31). Or will you maintain that he zealously obeyed God in a condemned state of sin and death? His faith and work of judgment by faith were evidence of his righteousness, which God declared to all generations. His faith and obedience were counted to him as evidence and proof of his righteousness! Sir, they were not the conditions, instruments, or means of his justification. Open your eyes!
2c. You assert: “The Confession teaches that God freely justifies those whom he effectually calls [not that he effectually calls those he freely justifies], by imputing Christ’s active and passive obedience for their whole and sole righteousness by faith… so the justification referred to here is by faith.”
Please show one instant from the Confession where it says justification is by faith. The Confession does say “Those whom God effectually calleth, He also FREELY justifieth.”
It is a SERIOUS ERROR to say, “by imputing Christ’s active and passive obedience for their whole and sole righteousness by faith.” Please show one place in the Confession where the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience to an elect is by faith. I do read that the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience is by God’s free grace and free grace alone. “He freely justifies.” “They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ’s righteousness.” Nothing of your pet idea about ‘by faith.’
I do read, “They receive Christ’s righteousness by faith, and rest on Him.” Imputation of Christ’s righteousness is by God’s once-for-all, free and sovereign gracious act. Reception of Christ’s righteousness ALREADY IMPUTED is through faith exercised [present] by the justified [past] regenerated and adopted child of God. They receive [present tense] Christ’s righteousness by faith. Saving faith is a faith that receives Christ’s righteousness and rests on Him. It is not a faith that is the instrumental cause to secure Christ’s righteousness.
The once-for-all imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us when we were (past) in a state of sin and death, and the ongoing (simple present) reception of the righteousness of Christ by faith when we are (simple present) in a state of grace and salvation are two very different theological concepts. You are a teacher of Israel ought to know the simple distinction. A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.
“Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins, and accepted us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.”
ALL those whom God predestinated to life, He also freely justifies. But not EVERY ONE of those whom He justified (finished and unrepeatable) receives the righteousness through faith in Christ. It is acknowledged that some elect never exercise faith – see 1689.10.3. The framers were not speaking of hypothetical situations. There are effectually called elect who are INCAPABLE of being called by the ministry of the word, i.e. the gospel call didn’t reach them. But they are not less eternally saved. Justification, regeneration and adoption – effectual call unto eternal life is by the unconditional, free and sovereign grace… NOT by faith!!! By faith in Christ a justified regenerated child of God enters [simple present tense] into the conscious and personal experience of the blessing of righteousness. “Faith is accounted to him for righteousness.” He experiences his righteous standing before God.
----------
3. Justifying faith is itself the gift of God’s grace
Note: SFL aligns faith with work so as to make it appear that sola fide undermines God’s grace
Point: The Confession teaches that the faith of the elect is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts
----------
3a. Justifying faith [i.e. faith that evidences, vindicates justification, faith that is a fruit of justification] is indeed a work of God’s grace - BUT ONLY in the sense that it is the Spirit of Christ who works this faith in the heart. It is a saving grace that accompanies justification, 1689.11.2. But in whom does God work this gift of faith? Is it in His justified regenerated children OR to those who are still condemned dead children of wrath? Does God give this gift to those still under condemnation? Does God work this grace in those who are still spiritually dead? Does God give this gift to those that are still children of wrath? Is justifying faith an activity of a condemned but regenerated elect in order to be justified (standard reformed view)? Please answer. For the common idea that faith is a gift - read here.
This justifying faith is indeed a fruit of God’s grace. But who is able to exercise this gift of faith? I believe you do agree that only someone with spiritual life can be given spiritual gifts in order to exercise the spiritual gift. Spiritual life is the absolute prerequisite to spiritual activity. You would also want to agree that a person who has the spiritual life to exercise spiritual gift CANNOT possibly be an unjustified person, i.e. still under the just condemnation of death due to sin?
Is ‘justifying faith’ a faith that legally justifies a condemned person, or a faith that demonstrates, proves, justifies, manifests, vindicates the believing person to be a justified, regenerated child of God? Is justifying faith the cause of justification or the effect of justification. What says the Scriptures? “The just shall live by faith.” It is NOT ‘by faith the condemned shall be justified and live” – i.e. ‘standard reformed’ view.
3b. Is justifying faith an activity of a justified regenerated child of God or that of a condemned dead child of wrath? If it is an activity of a justified regenerated child of God, then it is his RESPONSE to grace. His response is his work nonetheless. Believing is a righteous work of God performed by His justified living children. To believe is to do the work appointed by God. Only a justified regenerated child of God has the capability to do such work appointed by God. The dead can’t respond nor do the work of believing. Goodwin said, ‘though faith be a difficult work, yet we are to use our endeavors to believe.’
John 6:28-29 “Then said they unto him, what shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, this is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
Saving faith is a faith that receives and rests on Christ and His righteousness alone for salvation. “Saving faith” is one among many other saving graces that accompany salvation, 1689.11.2 “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts.” Faith is indeed a fruit of the Spirit – “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, FAITH, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law” Gal 5:22. Nevertheless believing is the act of the believer, not the act of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not believe for the believer. Christ Himself describes believing Him is doing the work of God. The gift of faith in the elect as the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts and the exercise of that faith in believing Christ from their heart are two very different things. One is the monergistic sovereign work of the Spirit of Christ. The other is the responsive work of the one effectually called to grace and salvation.
Saving faith receives and rests on what is ALREADY true… it receives and rests upon the righteousness of Christ that has already been imputed when an elect was dead and in enmity against God. It is preaching a false gospel asking people to believe in order to make something come true. The gospel is good news of what has happened. Preaching the gospel to reason and persuade and plead with the hearer to believe what is true. And only those whom God has justified, regenerated and adopted and bestowed with gift of the Spirit will believe the gospel, because it is already true of them – i.e. salvation has been bestowed upon them. Saving faith is NOT the instrumental cause to make his justification happen. Double imputation for ALL the elect has taken place at the cross. That double imputation is APPLIED to each elect at effectual calling at God’s appointed and approved time. That justification applied is evidenced, and consciously experienced through faith.
Saving faith is a faith that flows out of the justification already bestowed by free and sovereign grace. It is not an instrumental cause to secure justification. Saving faith is an instrument appointed by to make manifest the justification ALREADY bestowed by His free and sovereign grace. A teacher of Israel should know this very basic gospel truth.
3c. Sola Fide understood as the sole instrument to evidence the justified state of a person is consistent and safeguards the grand and glorious doctrine of salvation by grace alone. To do otherwise is to pervert the grand doctrine. Faith is the effect and evidence of salvation bestowed at effectual calling, not a condition the elect has to meet in order to obtain salvation. Breathing is an effect and evidence of life; it is not a condition to obtain life. Eternal salvation is not conditioned upon believing. Believing is the effect of eternal salvation bestowed by free grace. Seeing it any other way undermines free grace – whether in the Arminian as well as the ‘standard reformed’ circles. They don’t differ!
C. The ‘Standard Reformed’ Folks Distorted the plain Scriptures
----------
C. Distortion of the Scriptures
Romans 4:16 = Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace
• Clearly, faith is not meant to undermine grace, but precisely it safeguards salvation by grace alone
• This is totally distorted by SFL’s insistence that by faith is in the category of works
----------
1a. Romans 4:16 reads,
“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.”
“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” It is of faith indeed.
Of whose faith is it that it might be by grace? Of whose faith is it that grace is not denied? You would insist that it is by the believer’s faith that it might be by grace. The Scriptures speaks repeatedly of the righteousness that is by faith of - of - of Jesus Christ in contrast to the righteousness by the deeds of the law. Consider these verses (KJV):
Ro 3:22 “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.”
Gal 2:16 “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith OF Jesus Christ, even we have believed IN Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith OF Christ, and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Ga1 3:22 “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith OF Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
Php 3:9 “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith OF Christ, the righteousness which is OF God by faith.”
The Scriptures bear witness that it must be by the faith OF Jesus Christ that it might be by grace. Any other way would NOT be by grace alone. Justification is by the faith of – of – of Christ alone, and not – not – not by believers' faith in – in – in Christ alone. It is by the faith of Jesus Christ that secured the righteousness of God for the justification of ALL His elect people.
If, as you imagine and insist, faith is the instrument to secure justification, then how can it be by grace alone? It must be grace PLUS man’s act of believing, without which there would be no justification. BUT if faith is an instrument to evidence the justification by the faith/righteousness of Christ freely imputed, then it is by grace indeed.
If legal justification is by the faith of the believer, as you and the ‘standard reformed’ men insist, then how might the promise be sure to ALL THE SEED? I repeat, if justification is conditioned upon the believing activity of the believers, as you imagine and insist, then HOW might the promise of salvation by grace be sure to ALL THE SEED? How about those elect who are IN-capable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word, who do not receive the gospel call to faith in Jesus Christ? How? Is there a different or another way to justify those who cannot exercise faith if faith is indeed the instrumental cause of one’s justification? Is there an exception clause in the divine scheme of redemption for those mentioned in 1689.10.3? Are there two ways for the elect to be justified, just as the ‘standard reformed’ folks insist that there two ways for the elect to be regenerated?
Clearly whose faith is not meant to undermine grace? Is it the faith of Jesus Christ that secured the righteousness of God for His people, or the believers’ faith in Jesus Christ as the instrumental cause of justification? The ‘standard reformed’ view that see believer's faith as the instrumental cause of justification undermines and repudiates salvation by grace alone.
Believer’s faith safeguards salvation by grace alone only when it is understood as the instrument to evidence the salvation by grace alone. Faith as the instrumental cause to secure justification undermines salvation by grace. It repudiates salvation by grace alone despite all its religious shibboleths. It makes man’s act of believing a determining factor in his salvation despite all its pious disclaimers. It is no use saying that faith is a gift of God. Faith is a saving grace within a child of God. No one is denying that. The point is: that it is insisted that it is the man that must consciously and personally exercise faith to believe in order to obtain justification. This more than undermines salvation by free grace. It denies grace, and exalts man.
‘Faith is not the only EVIDENCE of salvation’ (Dr Peter Masters). Therefore faith is an evidence but not the only evidence of justification, 1689.11.2. Works of faith is also an evidence of justification. Both faith and works are evidences of justification. Their works and faith demonstrate their justified state. They justify evidentially, not and never legally. If faith is considered anything more than an instrument to evidence of salvation, it undermines salvation by grace alone.
Point: You and other ‘standard reformed’ men have distorted the Scriptures and pervert the grace of God.
----------
Acts 13:39 = by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law…
• SFL’s construction of this makes believes present tense, and justified perfect tense
• In fact, dikaiou/tai is present passive… SFL has distorted a simple fact!
• Note the contrast with justified by the law of Moses… clearly in the instrumental sense
----------
There are two ‘justify’ verbs in the passage – the first is present passive, the second is aorist passive. You have misquoted the Scriptures by confusing the second aorist verb, which speaks of aorist act of legal justification not by the law of Moses but by Christ, with the first present verb, which speaks of the present evidential justification by the faith of all that believe. Acts 13:39 “And by Him all that believe (present, active, participle) are justified (present, passive, indicative) from all things, from which ye could (aorist passive indicative) not be justified (aorist passive infinitive) by the law of Moses.” [Greek study resource at http://www.blueletterbible.org/]. You have ignored and obscured the last verb to which I referred.
The simple point I made still stands as sure as the word of God. The simple fact is that the ‘standard reformed’ notion that believing precedes legal justification is the serious distortion of Scriptures. The elect were justified (aorist passive) legally by Christ at the cross, and this justification was applied (past once-for-all action) to them personally at their effectual calling to eternal life (1689.11.4) thus enabling them to believe. In believing they are justified experientially and evidentially (present passive indicative) by their faith in Christ. That is the simple fact of Scriptures.
You said, “Note the contrast with justified by the law of Moses… clearly in the instrumental sense.” I believe that in making such statement, you meant to contrast the law of Moses as the instrumental cause of their justification with the faith of them that believe as the instrumental cause of their justification. You couldn’t possibly mean that the contrast is between justification ‘by Him’ and justification ‘by the law of Moses.’ That would debunk the 'standard reformed' notion of faith as the instrumental cause of legal justification.
Assuming that that is what you meant, I believe you err on two very serious points:
First, the contrast is clearly between ‘by Him’ and ‘by the law of Moses’ as the instrumental cause of legal justification. The contrast is not between ‘by the faith of believer’ and ‘by the law of Moses.’ This text does not support the idea of believing as the instrumental cause of one’s legal justification. It is a serious error to conveniently substitute ‘by Christ’ with ‘by believer’s faith.’
Their legal justification that could not (aorist) be accomplished by the law of Moses was accomplished (same tense, voice and mood by implication) by Christ. Their legal justification was not by their faith as the instrumental cause. Their legal justification, which could not be by the righteousness of their own obedience to the law of Moses, was by –by – by Christ’s righteousness alone. And this past-once-for-all (aorist) imputation of Christ’s righteousness manifests (present tense) itself in believing. Faith in Christ is an evidence of justification, and it justifies evidentially (1689.11.2). Christ's righteousness alone justified us forensically - imputed at the cross, and applied at effectual calling. This past, completed acts of divine grace manifests and evidences in faith and works.
“Are justified” is a present, passive, indicative construction. This cannot possibly speak of the simple past divine act of justification by the faith of Christ. All that believe are evidentially and experientially justified by their faith. Their faith evidences/certifies/justifies their once-for-all legal justification by Christ. i.e. all that believe (present) have been justified (perfect) by the faith of – of – of Christ. That’s the simple fact I stated.
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Rom 8:3. What the law could not do was not done by believer’s faith in Christ. Note what are being compared! For what the law could not do was not done by the believer’s faith as the instrumental cause! It was done by Christ, and Christ alone.
Second, there is nothing mentioned about the activity of believing as the instrumental cause of justification. ‘All that believe’ (verbal noun, meaning the believing ones) is present active participle, indicating that their present state is the effect and evidence of the fact that Christ has justified them. Forensic justification is a once-for-all unrepeatable gracious act of God by the righteousness of Christ. These are believers because they have been justified by – by – by Christ’s faith that secured all the righteousness for the justification of His people.
---------
Romans 3:27 = Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
• dikaiou/sqai pi,stei must be understood in its instrumental dative sense
• The contrast with the instrument of works again presses the sense of faith as the instrumental cause of justification
----------
Romans 3:27-28 “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (KJV)
Where is boasting then? There is plenty of boasting when believer's faith is the instrumental cause of justification. It is useless to protest that faith is a gift of God. [More precisely, faith is actually a grace worked by the Spirit of Christ in the heart of God's children. The grace of faith ENBALES believing. Believing is an activity of God's children... not those un-justified condemned sinner.] It is STILL the conscious exercise of that grace of faith in believing in Christ that secures your justification. You cooperated! You may be pious and have no reason to boast. Multitudes of others boast in their believing that they exercised to secure their legal justification before God because of this perverse and deceiving teaching of faith as the instrumental cause of legal justification.
You have forgotten the repeated teaching of Scriptures, ‘The just shall live by faith’ – Hak 2:4; Rom 1:17; Gal 3;11, Heb 10:38. It is the just – those imputed with the righteousness of Christ and declared just - that shall live by faith. It is NOT ‘by their faith the condemned (unjustified) shall be justified and live.' Faith is an effect of justification by grace alone through the righteousness of Christ alone.
It is by the law of faith, it is by the principle of faith. Whose faith? “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” Rom 3:22. Therefore there is no boasting. Any other way, there is plenty of ground for the deceitful and wicked heart to boast. It is ‘the faith of him’, i.e. the faith of Christ Jesus, Eph 3:11-12.
Point: You and other ‘standard reformed’ men have distorted the Scriptures and gives license for men to boast. Their faith is the instrumental cause to secure their justification before God.
------------------
Galatians 2:16 = knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
• The contrast again with justified by the works of the law makes but by faith in the same category of sense
• Moreover, the conjunction ′ina, translated in order that denotes purpose.
-----------------
Please take note of these Scriptures again.
Gal 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith OF Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith OF Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal 3:22 "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith OF Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
Ro 3:22 "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:"
Php 3:9 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith OF Christ, the righteousness which is OF God by faith [i.e. of Christ.]"
Eph 3:11 “According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.”
The contrast IS between justification by the righteousness that comes from the works of the law and the righteousness that comes from the faith OF Jesus Christ. By His faithfulness, Christ rendered perfect obedience to the demands of the laws. Justification is related to the imputation of righteousness – either from works of the law or from the faith of Christ. It is righteousness by your own obedience or it is righteousness by the obedience of Christ through His faithfulness.
The contrast is not – not – not between justification by the righteousness that comes from the works of the law and justification that comes by the believer’s faith in Christ. This is NOT contrast in the same category of sense. You have made a basic theological blunder here – a tenet of the ‘standard reformed’ theology. The contrast is between justification by the righteousness of man’s own obedience to the law, and justification by the righteousness of Christ’s obedience to the law. This alone is the contrast in the same category of sense. This is the most basic, foundational and non-negotiable truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. May the Lord grant you to see this basic elementary truth!
Justification and righteousness are by the obedience of ONE, not by the obedience of TWO (Rom 5:17-19)! You have no more of a role in your legal justification in Christ than you did in your condemnation in Adam. As one man’s disobedience made you a condemned sinner, so one
Man’s obedience made you righteous! Why will you contradict and corrupt this most glorious truth of God’s legal and forensic work by our two representatives? Will you take the time to read Romans 5:17-19 and realize that there is only ONE active person in the justification of any! Praise be to God for the gift of His Son Jesus Christ to be our representative! He lived for us; He obeyed for us; He died for us; He rose for us; He ever lives for us! Our faith is evidence and consequence of our prior justification by His faith, regeneration by His Spirit and adoption by His Father. Salvation is of the Lord!
God's elect are reconciled to God by Jesus Christ regardless of their reception of the word of reconciliation, but as ambassadors for Christ, I reason, plead and implore them to be reconciled to God nevertheless by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.
A man who believes in salvation by grace alone once asked, "Have you accepted Adam as your personal sinner?" Have you? Some discerning believers can conclude that whether or not human beings accept Adam's representation, he represents them nevertheless. Their legal condemnation by Adam’s one act of disobedience is as settled as can be regardless of whether they believe and accept that condemnation. That legal condemnation becomes personally applied at birth. The conscious experience of that condemnation begins with their first conscious act of transgression. That condemnation will be publicly vindicated on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.
“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; EVEN SO by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” Romans 5:18. ‘Even so’ declare the Scriptures. Perhaps the ‘standard reformed’ folks can begin to see that Jesus Christ represents those who are in Him, whether or not they accept that representation. His people are justified in Him. Their believing is only giving evidence of the justification that has taken place at the cross, and applied personally at effectual calling. Believing in Christ is giving evidence to the work of salvation that has been secured, and applied. Faith believes what has taken place. It is not to make something happen!
Too many people are too obsessed with their feeble own faith in Christ. Oh yes, they will admit that their faith is a gift of God. Nevertheless, they speak of their act of believing as the determining factor in their salvation, i.e. when they believe, they are declared righteous and not guilty; when they believe, they are given life; when they believe, they are adopted as sons, etc. These are ignorant of the faith of – of – of Jesus Christ. They consistently read the passages of Scriptures which say ‘the faith of Christ’ as their own ‘faith in Christ,’ see Romans 3:22, Gal 2:16; 3:22, and Phil 3:9. They want to make the faith of Christ as their faith in Christ. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” They who do so are enemies of Christ – they usurp what belongs to Christ. Their language is no different than that of Arminians, who make God’s salvation by free grace conditional on the instrumental means of their own faith!
----------
Final Thoughts
1. SFL’s position is not necessarily damning (or heretical)
• Saving faith is not placed upon one’s order of salvation… SFL’s statements still reveal belief in the grace of God
• There can still be true saving faith amidst much error that is espoused
----------
1a. Saving faith is placed snugly upon one’s order of salvation as the evidence of salvation. Saving faith is a grace of salvation bestowed by free grace, a manifestation of the salvation ALREADY bestowed. ‘Standard reformed’ folks put faith as the instrumental cause to obtain salvation! ‘Standard reformed’ statement betrays a muddled and inconsistent belief in the grace of God, if not actually repudiates salvation by the free grace of God.
Effectual call unto life (grace and salvation by Jesus Christ) includes:
- Justification: condemned is declared righteous
- Regeneration: dead is given eternal life
- Adoption: received as sons, and given gifts
Gospel call is blessed for further sanctification
- Conversion (Repentance and FAITH) through the ministry of the word.
Please open your eyes wide and observe now that faith is placed firmly and squarely upon one’s order of salvation by grace, not by man’s response to obtain salvation. It is faith that justifies a believer evidentially and experientially.
1b. I do believe your words apply most appropriately to those who hold to the ‘standard reformed’ position. Thank you for articulating that on my behalf. Saving faith can indeed be found among muddled headed and inconsistent ‘standard reformed’ folks because faith is evidence of salvation bestowed by free grace, and NOT as a condition or prerequisite in order to obtain salvation as the ‘standard reformed’ folks, as well as the Arminians, insist and espouse.
Salvation is indeed grace alone because it is not conditioned upon theological soundness, upon certain kind and quality of faith. Only prior justification by grace can produce a faith that would want to receive Christ’s righteousness and rest in Him for salvation. It is justification alone that produces justifying faith. Salvation alone produces saving faith. It is only those to whom God have given salvation can exercise faith and understand spiritual things. It is the high calling of pastors and teachers to assist them to GROW in the grace and knowledge of their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But alas, many leave their sheep in the state of muddle-headedness and inconsistencies and confusion.
Thank you for entertaining the possible salvation of Goodwin, Hoornbeck, Ames, Macovius, Witsius, Hervey, Toplady, Traill, and Crisp among the Reformed churches, and Gill, Brine, Richardson, Kiffin, Hussey, Davis, Skepp, and Maurice among the Baptists! Thank you for not calling all these men heretics and raising a furore to expunge them from their positions in the historical development of your theology!
----------
2. SFL’s position is seriously damaging
• It damages the right presentation of the gospel… no serious call for faith as the saving response to the gospel
• It damages the dynamics of biblical assurance of salvation… Spirit’s testimony; promises; faith and fruit
• It damages the side of human responsibility in its unbalanced emphasis on divine sovereignty.
----------
I am sorry to say that you are seeing phantoms of your own futile imagination. A scholar of your stature and renown should refrain from doing such silly things!! You have discredited yourself entirely. You speak from preconceived ideas, and not based on what I have written in black and white.
2a. Have you not read? Did you base your conclusion on hearsay? I said these:
“Preaching of the gospel, the ministry of the word is very important and most necessary, Act 6:4. The Great Commission puts the church generally, and the ministers of the gospel particularly, under divine obligation and the necessity to preach the gospel to all creatures.” Even believers need to hear the gospel, Rom 1:7,15. The gospel is to be preached to all sinners without distinction. All who hear are to be commanded and reasoned and pleaded with to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. All who believe, as the Scriptures declare, HAVE eternal life – i.e., their faith in Christ evidences that they have been given eternal life.” Page 127. Did you read?
And this: “The Apostolic charge to the pastors and teachers of the NT churches is: “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” Do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry!” Page 128.
Did you read? Or are you too lofty and scholarly to read a simple book by a minister of the gospel? Beware of presumption and making false accusation.
2b. Have you not read? Did you base your conclusion on hearsay?
“Faith in Christ or resting in Christ is absolutely necessary for the believer’s on going spiritual well being and usefulness. The Lord says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing” John 15:5. Often true believers live in such a way that they do not abide in Christ. Such often suffer severe consequences here in this life, though by grace, they have been delivered from eternal condemnation of hell and are kept in the state of grace… Abiding in Christ is a spiritual activity, and only one with spiritual life can perform this spiritual activity. It is just as true that such people, for all sorts of reasons, often fail to abide in Christ, and live wasted lives, and suffer the just consequences in this life. The prodigal son failed to abide with the father and justly suffered the terrible temporal consequences.” Page 110-111.
And this: “Your faith in the blessed Lord Jesus Christ, even if it is little like a mustard seed, is the sure evidence of the perfect and immutable act of God in justifying you. The least faith in the blessed Lord Jesus Christ is proof of a justified state because faith is a product of justification. Oh what comfort! What assurance of salvation! O what grace to humble us to the dust that our acceptance with God is whole by His pure grace and mercy, and not because of our faith! It is indeed that the just shall live by faith – the justified ones shall believe. Truth is the fertile ground upon which true assurance thrives. I hope you are convinced that it does matter, and give attention to consider this subject carefully, to the honour and glory of God.” Page 148.
And again: “Faith is not merely the sole instrument to evidence the justified state of the person by free grace. Faith is also the only means for an elect to enter into a conscious experience and enjoyment of the benefits of salvation, even ‘those benefits which in this life accompany or flow from justification, adoption and sanctification. They include “assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Spirit, increase of grace, and perseverance therein to the end” (SC Q.36). By faith in Christ the Saviour, a justified man experiences the blessedness of all sins forgiven at justification; he experiences the blessedness of the righteousness of Christ imputed at effectual call. These blessings are accounted to him by God’s free grace. By faith in Jesus Christ, a regenerated elect of God ‘really and personally’ enters into the enjoyment and experience the ‘liberties and privileges’ as adopted children of God. This is what Gen 15:6 speaks of concerning Abram. Abram was already a justified man in Gen 12-14.” Pages 161-2.
Did you read? Or are you too lofty and scholarly to read a simple book by a minister of the gospel? Beware of presumption and making false accusation.
2c. Have you not read? Did you base your conclusion on hearsay?
“Repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ is central in the gospel preaching. It is conspicuous in the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. His ministry began with these words, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The Great Commission He delivered to the apostles declares the same truth, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned,” Mk 16:15-16. The apostles who were trained by the Lord did the same thing in their ministry. On the day of Pentecost, apostle Peter preached, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” Acts 2:38-39.
Preaching repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ is central to their preaching of the gospel. The faithful ministers of Christ have continued the apostolic tradition in every generation. So, there is no question about the necessity of preaching the gospel, and preaching repentance and faith. There is also no question about the necessity of repentance and faith. Sinners everywhere are commanded to repent and to believe – “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent,” Acts 17:30. The ultimatum is, “He who does not believe will be condemned” Mark 16:16. Page 109. Beware of presumption and making false accusation.
----------
3. SFL’s attitude needs humble correction
• In presuming to know more the meaning of the 1689 than the framers themselves
• In sweeping allegation that this is the position of “the faithful remnant” without the slightest evidence
• In using such a harsh language against the ordo salutis that God has used much in history, and in the present
• In creating division among the saints for such an obscure doctrine
----------
a. I do attempt to know consistently what the framers have expressed in black and white plain English. If you think I have misrepresented the framers, you have the simple task of proving your accusation. I humbly advise that you don’t presume to correct when you have not even begun to prove the truth of your assumption. That is unacceptable arrogance.
b. The signers of the 1644 and 1689 BCoF, and all those who hold to the original intent of those points are the faithful remnant in the vast landscape of Christendom. Many who profess to hold to the 1689 BCoF treat it as a historical relic for ornamental purpose only.
c. This is your feeling. You are entitled to it. When you can’t refute the ordo salutis summarized in the 1689, you don’t have to resort to emotionalism. In what way is the ordo salutis of the ‘standard reformed’ theology differ from the ordo salutis of the Arminian? It is presumption and arrogance to claim that God has worked to save His people because of the ordo salutis of the ‘standard reformed’ theology. The Lord God saves sovereignly without giving the slightest consideration to any body’s ordo salutis. It is in spite of it. God works sovereignly in spite of much muddle-headedness.
d. Who is creating division? You are not even acquainted with fact. You did not even have a word with me and you leveled all these shameless and arrogant accusations against me. What has happened to your RB churchmanship?
Such an obscure doctrine! For such an obscure doctrine the ‘standard reformed’ folks have severed fellowship against Sungai Dua Church and her pastor!
The standard reformed’ brethren certainly disagree with you that it is such an obscure doctrine! They had officially declared that the doctrines involved are “fundamental and serious and the issues cannot be brushed aside and pretend that it does not exist.” You have just contradicted your fellow ‘standard reformed’ folks. You see clearly for yourself that ‘standard reformed’ men can’t agree among themselves because they actually have different ‘standard’!
You contradicted yourself too - you deemed the obscure doctrine important enough for you to devote several hours at a public forum in a RB combined church camp to urgently and passionately establish your ‘obscure’ doctrine of justification by the believer’s faith as the instrumental cause of his legal justification before God. If the believer’s faith in Christ justifies him EVIDENTIALLY is just such an obscure doctrine, what explains for the haughty and patronizing spirit of the email that you have written? Your whole email indicated that it is an issue that is pretty serious and damning, does it not? [‘Deviation from the faith’ must be more than ‘obscure doctrine’]
There is nothing obscure (or unimportant) about the grace of God in Christ Jesus. Salvation by grace alone through Christ alone is about as important as it gets.
Faith as the instrument to cause/secure justification repudiates salvation by grace.
Faith as the instrument to evidence the justification by free grace alone manifests and magnifies salvation by free grace alone
You can talk all you want about sola fide, but it has no Scriptural basis, for sola fide is the faith of devils. Martin Luther, between baptizing infants for regeneration and putting the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ into his communion wafer, originated this sacramental expression.
My soteriology is consistent from one end to the other – salvation is by grace alone through Christ alone. And it is sure to all the seed, including infants, idiots, or others God may call to eternal life that cannot be touched or influenced by the preached word.
I maintain that the believer's faith is a consequence of justification and regeneration, which means it is the new man that believes. But you are making faith the condition, instrument, or means of justification and regeneration, which requires the old man of the flesh to believe in order to be saved. Or where do you stand?
Take note that this response to your Assessment is for public reading too.
Thank you for your interest in the striving for the truth of the gospel of Christ.
By grace alone,
Sing Foo Lau
Pastor of Sungai Dua Church.
July 2005.
How does God justify the ungodly?
God ALONE justifies the ungodly forensically,
Accepting a condemned dead child of wrath
As righteous in His sight,
By the imputation of Christ’s righteousness ALONE.
How does faith in Christ justify a believer?
Faith in Christ justifies the believer ONLY evidentially,
i.e. it demonstrates and evidences that
He is a justified living child of God by free grace ALONE.
God ALONE justifies the ungodly forensically,
Accepting a condemned dead child of wrath
As righteous in His sight,
By the imputation of Christ’s righteousness ALONE.
How does faith in Christ justify a believer?
Faith in Christ justifies the believer ONLY evidentially,
i.e. it demonstrates and evidences that
He is a justified living child of God by free grace ALONE.
