Sunday, March 14, 2010

The wrath of God and the heresy of Eternal Justification

I was formerly introduced to the Facebook group entitled Predestinarian Network and decided to join it, as being a High Calvinist (Teleological Supralapsarian) I am definitely interested in the doctrine of predestination. Once there, I felt a growing uneasiness with the posts done especially by the administrator, Brandan Kraft. In a recent update, I was directed to this particular post done (again) by Brandan Kraft, and I was appalled to see what exactly is taught by people who call themselves supralapsarian "High Calvinists".

Let is be said that I am not one to soft-pedal the doctrines of grace. Although I am charitable to weaker and uninformed Christians (especially Arminian-leaning Evangelicals who know not their theological right hand from their left), I hold unapologetically to the five points of Calvinism as the Scripture teaches them. Furthermore, I am not one to mince words against the "Ponterite" Neo-Amyraldian error which imputes irrationality and nonsense to God. Although I have yet to post anything regarding the logical order of God's decrees here on this blog, my personal conviction is teleological supralapsarianism as expounded by theologian and pastor Robert Reymond in his excellent magnum opusA New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd Ed. (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, 1998), pp. 488-502. It is therefore manifestly not the case that I think all is well even in contemporary Reformed circles, especially with the Federal Vision and New Perspective errors floating around in the churches.

This does not therefore however mean that the opposite error of Hyper-Calvinism will be tolerated. Previously, I do not see many "hypers" around, but it seems with this that times are a-changing. In their reaction to the (neo-)Amyraldism that is floating around, the pendulum at least for some have swung to the other extreme, as we shall see.

In this post by Brandan Kraft, the ancient error of Eternal Justification comes to the forefront. As I was telling my good friend Joel, it was as if you have seen a corpse rise from the grave (and I am not referring to the Resurrection!). Eternal Justification was one of those quaint doctrines which I have read in passing in articles on historical theology, never expecting to see such things see the light of day once more, except probably in small traditional "primitive" Baptist churches which are presumed dying in light of the onslaught of modernity (and post-modernity).

With this, let us examine this article by Brandan Kraft according to Scripture .

There are three main point of this article by Kraft which he teaches: 1) the idea that there is no difference between God's decrees and the execution of these decrees; the idea of time has no relevance at all to God, 2) the elect are justified from eternity and were always viewed with love, and thus 3) the elect were never under the wrath of God,

All three of these ideas are unbiblical and unjustified inferences that do not flow from the text of Scripture but are rather inferences inferred from viewing the world using a hermeneutical framework of "absolute predestination" as the be all and end all of Christian theology, instead of the proper biblical and historically Reformed framework of Tota Scriptura or all of Scripture. Predestination is and always must be a deduction from Scripture, never something that is used to norm the interpretations of Scripture. Systematic Theology of any kind proceeds by the systematizing of doctrine from disparate truths obtained from the texts of Scripture, never from utilizing any one particular set of Christian truth (i.e. predestination) and using that set of truths to norm all other interpretations in the rest of Scripture.

The first error committed by Kraft can be seen in the confusion, conflation and collapse of God's decrees made in eternity past with the execution of God's decrees in time. This is of course a primarily philosophical theological issue which is not overtly discussed in Scripture. Rather, the truths regarding such issues are inferred from other truths taught in Scripture itself. Scripture indeed teaches that God has a plan from eternity which includes election and reprobation (cf Eph. 1:4-11, Rom. 9). God IS in fact immutable (cf Num. 23:19). However, and this is where the problem lies, the Scripture teaches other things of which these crypto-hyper-Calvinists deny.

As it has been said, we must look at the totality of Scripture before we attempt to systematize them. While logical consistency is a virtue and indeed is a must in theology, such must take place only when all the data is in on the subject, otherwise errors would very likely occur.

Looking further at Scripture, we see that unregenerate people, EVEN believers at one time before their conversion, were at one time children of wrath just like the rest of mankind (Eph. 2:1-3). It is the plain teaching of Eph. 2:1-3 that believers before conversion were under the wrath of God (which incidentally touches on our third point of contention), and we do well to believe in that truth instead of eisegeting the passage in service to the "absolute predestination" hermeneutical framework. But we would go back to the gist of our first issue for now — the conflation and collapse of God's decrees made in eternity past with the execution of these decrees in time.

According to Rom. 8:29-30, believers are mentioned to be 'foreknown (foreknew)', 'predestined', 'called', 'justified', and 'glorified'. All of these verbs are in the aorist tense, which is normally shorthand for simple past tense for beginners in Greek (an oversimplification of the facts). Regardless, because of this, the verbs when translated into English are translated into the past tense.

Now, if God's decrees made in eternity past are the same as the execution of these decrees, then aren't all the decrees of God already executed so to speak? If so, aren't all believers already glorified now on earth, and therefore believers are not only considered righteous, they being glorified are actually righteous now? If such were the case, aren't all believers sinless? But of course, for Bible-believing Christians, 1 Jn. 1:8-10 exists, which functions as the proposition that accomplishes the refutation through reductio ad absurdum of the nonsense coming out from this conflation of God's decrees and the execution of them.

Philosophically, such an error would also logically create the specter of a denial of sequences in time, ironically having more to do with Zeno's ideas denying motion than Scripture. For if "whatever He [God] declares, it's accomplished the movement He says it", then since God decrees many things, they must all be accomplished the movement He decrees them. So since God decrees that for example a person named John will believe in the Gospel, I guess John must have believed in the Gospel from eternity past since God's decrees are made in eternity past? But this is the kind of theological hubris that a denial of the basic idea that God's decrees are executed in time creates! I guess in this ridiculous system, all of Christian growth is just a realization that we were _____ (fill in the blanks - ie regenerated, have faith, justified, sanctified, even glorified etc) in eternity past, and we are just coming to realize those truths. Of course, we would then ask the next question: Are these realizations similarly decreed by God (who after all is sovereign)? I guess this should hammer the final nail in such philosophical and theological skubalon.

Kraft in defending the conflation and collapse of God's decrees with its execution utilizes a certain variant reading of Rev. 13:8, which states as follows:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8 - KJV)

and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain (Rev. 13:8 - ESV)

Now, it can be seen that there is a variant reading here. Are we to read the phrase "from the foundation of the world" as descriptive of "the Lamb who was slain" (KJV), or "the writing of names in the book of life" (ESV)? Knowing my limitations, I am not going to pursue this issue further as to which is the correct interpretation. However, seeing this divergence, it is simply astonishing that Kraft utilizes this one disputed text to buttress the entire concept of decree = execution. Furthermore, the whole reasoning at this point is an exercise in circular reasoning — this verse teaches that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world in the sense that God's decrees are treated as executed. Thus Christ is truly represented not as assured to be slain (decreed), but as actually slain (execution of decree). Based upon this, we know that "But God, being the Eternal Almighty has no need to wait for things to be accomplished in time. He created time and sees it all at once", therefore there is no difference between the decrees and its execution. The problem of course is that their conclusion that there is no such difference is assumed already in their interpretation of Rev. 13:8!

Basing his philosophical construct on a disputed verse is bad enough, much worse the inherent contradictions within itself and with the teachings of other parts of Scripture which we have previously seen. The whole philosophical assumption that God's decrees are no different from their executions is thereby philosophically bankrupt and self-defeating, contradicts the plain teachings of other parts of Scripture, and its sole proof text too fragile to support such a huge failed theological system.

The second error made by Kraft follows from the first and in fact may be the rationale for embracing the first error. The doctrine of eternal justification is a most pernicious error in making justification prior to faith, contradicting the vital doctrine so explicitly taught especially in the book of Romans - that justification is by faith. In fact, just reading the book of Romans without any prior presupposition and allowing the text to interpret itself would sound the death knell for any such teaching. Rom. 8:29-30 have already mentioned that Justification comes after calling. If one believe in eternal justification, then are the elect called from eternity past? Are we believers in the pre-existence of souls in some form of "heavenly nursery" in eternity past so that when God decreed (or in their system executed His decrees) the calling, that calling can in fact take place in eternity past, otherwise there would be no souls for God to through His decrees call? The very thought is blasphemous — that human souls are in the same way uncreated just as God is!

This brings us to the third point — that of denying that the elect of God were never at any stage under the wrath of God. We have previously looked at Eph. 2:1-3 so we do not have to repeat the same exegesis of the text. Instead, let us look at one of the narrative accounts in Scripture: the story of the wicked king of Judah, King Manasseh the son of King Hezekiah (2 Ki. 21:1-18; 2 Chron. 33:1-20). We know from Scripture that King Manasseh was under the wrath of God for his gross wickedness (2 Ki. 21:6). Yet at the end of his wicked life, Manasseh repented of his sins (2 Chron. 33:13,19).

The question for those like Kraft therefore is this: Is the Bible lying when they state that Manasseh repented of his sins? If he did in fact repent, he must be saved and one of the elect, or isn't he? If he indeed is one of the elect, then the Scripture do in fact teach that he was at one time under the wrath of God, thus falsifying their ridiculous teaching that the elect of God were never under the wrath of God even before conversion.

With the demolition of their system done, we would look at the hyper-Calvinist implication of the false teaching of eternal justification. All their protestations that hyper-Calvinism denies the necessity of proclaiming the Gospel to all aside, the fact of the matter is that such teachings logically results precisely in the denial of what they claim to affirm — the necessity of proclaiming the Gospel to all.

In light of eternal justification, the elect of God were never under the wrath of God. Therefore, they cannot be any time under the federal headship of Adam. This implies no spiritual commonality of any kind with the reprobates. Now, Christianity teaches that all humans are all united in the fact that we are all sinners, and it is only because of particular grace that I as a sinner am saved out of my sin and out of the hellfire I justly deserve. Advocates of eternal justification however logically should deny this. With no spiritual commonality between the elect and reprobates (constituting a denial of the Imago Dei to some extent), the two are as light and darkness. No longer are Christians to be considered as undeserving sinners saved by God's amazing grace, but as saints who happen not to realize that they are already justified. (This of course will logically lead to various forms of Antinomianism but we will not go there).

In such a scenario, the Hyper-Calvinist system will start to rear its ugly head. Since there is such a clear demarcation between the elect and the reprobates, why bother wasting time preaching to all men? Rather, shouldn't we seek out "sensible sinners" and as such be more efficient in evangelism?

The form of crypto-Hyperism paraded by advocates of Eternal Justification is a terrible abomination which is outrightly heretical when carried to its logical conclusions. We have not even mentioned the fact that since the article of Justification by Faith Alone is the article by which the Church stands or falls, the doctrine of Eternal Justification through its rearrangement of the Ordo Salutis undermines if not destroy this vital evangelical doctrine. Truly, this doctrine of Eternal Justification is a serious error at best, and heretical at worst. May we avoid such philosophical sophistry and rather follow the teachings of Scripture without the imposition of such a rationalistic framework. Amen.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ (Col. 2:8)

22 comments:

Beng said...

For he says, "In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you." Behold, NOW is the favorable time; behold, NOW is the day of salvation.
(2Co 6:2)

As it is said, "TODAY, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."
(Heb 3:15)

The point being, there is a point in TIME when regeneration occurs, when repentance is granted, when faith is exercised. A point in history when a sinner (who was previously dead in trespasses and sins and facing the wrath of God) is justified and saved.

PuritanReformed said...

@SB:

totally agree.

Matt Powell said...

Thanks for this article. Your analysis is excellent and your appreciation of the severity of this error is absolutely correct.

PuritanReformed said...

@Matt:

you're welcome

Darth Gill said...

"The form of crypto-Hyperism paraded by advocates of Eternal Justification is a terrible abomination which is outrightly heretical when carried to its logical conclusions."

My response: "The form of crytp-ARMINIANISM paraded by those who would oppose Justification from Eternity is a terrible abomination which is outrightly heretical - PERIOD."

PuritanReformed said...

@Darth Gill:

thanks for proving that you have nothing but venting. Now, why don't you interact with the logical arguments and discard your Neo-Platonism (as seen in your unbiblical view of eternity) while we are at it?

Darth Gill said...

We did - on our website. You have failed to deal with Eph 2:3-4 properly and you fail to understand eternity. Unless we can agree on those points there will never be any reconciliation between us.

Further, your interpretation of Rom 8:28-30 is out of whack. You quote it out of its context - theorizing that it gives us an "order" of salvation. Rom 8:30 though points to what has ALREADY happened in the mind of God - ALL things pertaining to salvation. There is no TIME order to the decrees of God as you would have us believe.

Ta Ta for now! - B.

PuritanReformed said...

@Darth Gill:

>You have failed to deal with Eph 2:3-4 properly

It is you who insists on eisegetically reading the concept of timelessness into the text of Eph. 2:1-4, whereas the whole context is about happenings in time.

>you fail to understand eternity

Au contraire, it is you and the rest of the hyperists who do not understand eternity. First of all, your hermeneutics is shot since doctrines are supposed to be proven from Scripture first without trying to use the idea of "Predestination", or now of "Eternity", as the hermeneutical framework to interpret Scripture. Scripture is its own interpretor and it does not need your help to interpret itself.

Secondly, you refuse to leave your Neo-Platonist understanding of eternity. As I will show later, the biblical understanding of eternity has more to do with everlasting or eternal time, rather than timelessness.


>your interpretation of Rom 8:28-30 is out of whack. You quote it out of its context - theorizing that it gives us an "order" of salvation

I am sure many people would be surprised that Rom. 8:29-30 does not contain the Ordo Salutis. Needless to say, your assertion flies in the face of the verses themselves.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Rom. 8:29)

When it is stated that "those whom he predestined he also called", that shows that if God predestined someone, He would call him. When it is stated that "those whom he called he also justified", it means that if God calls someone, He would also justify that person. The logical form of the verse would be as follows:

If P, then C
If C, then J
If J, then G

So nope, you fail at trying to interpret Rom. 8:30.


>Rom 8:30 though points to what has ALREADY happened in the mind of God - ALL things pertaining to salvation.

You eisegete your false concept of timelessness into the verse, while ignoring the form the verse takes. If there is no order, the verse would read thus:

And all God's people are predestined, called, justified and glorified (Darth Gill's version of Rom. 8:29)


>There is no TIME order to the decrees of God as you would have us believe

You have yet to prove your Neo-Platonic idea of timelessness according to the Scriptures.

larssc said...

For God's glory some vessels were made for glory and some for wrath.
If God loved us when we were yet sinners, where is the wrath? Our carnal natures were legally condemned but not our spiritual beings.

The act of justification is accomplished by Jesus's
death. It is realized by us when we are regenerated and receive the gift of faith.

God is the Alpha and Omega. In a real sense all is complete in eternity. He existed before time, space and matter. Wayne Grudem states "that God's own being does not have a succession of moments or any progress from one state of existence to another."

That is why it may be illogical to
assume some order of God's eternal decrees.

All of this is not Augustian neo platonism, but flows from plain reading of the Bible.

"Before faith the righteousness of Christ was ours, being in the intention of God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, wrought out for us; and, because wrought out for us, therefore God, in his own time, gives us grace of every kind, and among others, faith itself, and, at last, the crown of heavenly glory." Dr Twisse

Larry Smith

PuritanReformed said...

@Larry:

>For God's glory some vessels were made for glory and some for wrath

Yes.

>If God loved us when we were yet sinners, where is the wrath?

As I have stated, such reasoning is rationalistic. You ought to ask yourself what does Scripture teaches first before trying to systematize its teachings. That God's wrath is on the unregenerate elect and that God's love is on those same elect are both taught in Scripture. Your reasoning is flawed. Instead of practising Anselm's "Faith seeking understanding" (Fides quaerens intellectum), you take a portion of truth taught in Scripture, and rationalize it without regard to the rest of teachings of Scripture.

That such is not a contradiction is because love and wrath operate in two different senses. The Puritan High Calvinist Samuel Rutherford wrote that the elect are under "evangelical wrath", not "law wrath". While not necessarily endorsing his view of his terminology, at least he struggles to come to terms with the plain teachings of Scripture in this regard, not pit one biblical truth against another.

>Our carnal natures were legally condemned but not our spiritual beings.

So how do you condemn a "nature" - an impersonal thing? What is "spiritual being"? What relationship do these two have in common in men? Do the reprobate possess a "spiritual being"?


>The act of justification is accomplished by Jesus's
death.

Where in Scripture is that taught? The Atonement was accomplished at Jesus' death, but where is there stated any other?


>It is realized by us ...

So if justification happens at Jesus' death, then the OT saints were only justified after their death, and thus they realize it only after their death?


>... when we are regenerated and receive the gift of faith

So where in Scripture is it taught that faith happens via justification?

>God is the Alpha and Omega

Alpha and Omega; Beginning and End - all these terms implies sequences.

>In a real sense all is complete in eternity

Please define eternity. Do you believe in timeless eternity or everlasting time?

>He existed before time, space and matter

The Scriptures only say that God existed before space and matter, and was present at the beginning of our time. Where is it stated that God existed before time as understood by sequence?

>That is why it may be illogical to assume some order of God's eternal decrees

So can I assume you think that there is no order in God's decrees, and that therefore the controversy over the infra/supra-lapsarian scheme is nonsensical?


>All of this is not Augustian neo platonism, but flows from plain reading of the Bible

OK, please prove it. My plain reading and exegesis of the texts of Scripture prove otherwise.

>"Before faith the righteousness of Christ was ours, being in the intention of God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, wrought out for us; and, because wrought out for us, therefore God, in his own time, gives us grace of every kind, and among others, faith itself, and, at last, the crown of heavenly glory." Dr Twisse

So where in this passage did Twisse taught anything regarding eternal jusification, timeless eternity, justification preceding faith, the unregenerate elect being not under God's wrath etc which this series of posts cover or allude to?

Yes, God's righteousness are stated as being ours by right. But nowhere is it stated here that the elect have them prior to their conversion, at least from this passage you quote.

larssc said...

> If God loved us when we were yet sinners, where is the wrath?

<That such is not a contradiction is because love and wrath operate in two different senses.

Saying it is not a contradiction makes it not? How does God justify the ungodly? By determining in eternity to sacrifice the Son; the covenant of redemption.

That there was, from all eternity, a covenant of grace and peace made between the Father and the Son, on the account of these elect persons; when all the blessings of grace, and promises of life, provided and secured in that covenant, were put into the hands of Jesus Christ for his people; and though they had then no personal or actual existence, yet they had a representative Being in Christ, in whom they were then blessed with all spiritual blessings. (Eph. 1:3) And, if with all spiritual blessings, then with this of justification; which was no inconsiderable part of that grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. (2 Tim. 1:9)
Gill

larssc said...

< Do the reprobate possess a "spiritual being"?

>We have the same carnal nature as the reprobate but have different destinies for our souls. They were made for destruction. Does God have the same regard and action towards those he condemns as those he saves?

>The act of justification is accomplished by Jesus's
death.
<Where in Scripture is that taught? The Atonement was accomplished at Jesus' death, but where is there stated any other?

Rom. 4:25

"Thomas Goodwin made clear some vital distinctions, which if carefully observed will preserve us from error on this point. "1. In the everlasting covenant. We may say of all spiritual blessings in Christ, what is said of Christ Himself, that their `goings forth are from everlasting.' Justified then we were when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head (Eph. 1:3). 2. There is a farther act of justifying us, which passed from God towards us in Christ, upon His payment and performance at His resurrection (Rom. 4:25, 1 Tim. 3:16). 3. But these two acts of justification are wholly out of us, immanent acts in God, and though they concern us and are towards us, yet not acts of God upon us, they being performed towards us not as actually existing in ourselves, but only as existing in our Head, who covenanted for us and represented us: so as though by those acts we are estated into a right and title to justification, yet the benefit and possession of that estate we have not without a farther act being passed upon us." Pink

PuritanReformed said...

@Larry:

you confuse election and justification. They are not the same thing.

larssc said...

I know there is a distinction. But we are elected unto salvation. It is a process. Does it stop at being found legally righteous? Are the elect not saved(eventually)?

larssc said...

Scripture reveals these two positive, but apparently contradictory truths, with equally positive emphasis: (1) that, on the one hand, He has justified us in His own judgment-seat from eternity; and (2) that, on the other, only in conversion are we justified by faith.

And for this reason faith itself is fruit and effect of our justification; while it is also true that, for us, justification begins to exist only as a result of our faith" Kuyper

I will attempt to speak in my own words now (Sorry)

It is indeed nothing but a thought exercise to determine the order of eternal decrees. As a predestinarian, it is of course more "logical" for me to be a supralapsarian. Eternity has to be (to me) out side of time if God created everything. Wiki: God exists before time began, exists during all moments in time, and will continue to exist if somehow the universe and time itself were to cease to exist.

I see nothing heretical by saying it is all of Grace and predetermined. If you read further (Pink,Gill, Bebe) I think you have misrepresented Justification from (not in) Eternity.

PuritanReformed said...

@Larry:

>>We have the same carnal nature as the reprobate but have different destinies for our souls. They were made for destruction. Does God have the same regard and action towards those he condemns as those he saves?

You are not addressing the main problem. Since you said that the carnal nature was condemned while our "spiritual being" is not, then what is the relationships between those two entities? It seems you are embracing some form of dualism between the wicked old man and the completely spiritual and sinless new man. So are you embracing this teaching?


>Rom. 4:25

Rom. 4:25 in context states that the goal of the atonement was to purchase our justification. Nowhere is it stated that justification itself was accomplished fiat at Christ's death.

It is extremely revealing to me that you quoted Pink who quotes Goodwin in defense of your position, instead of Scripture. First of all, while Pink seems to teach eternal justification, you have not even proven that Pink has quoted Goodwin properly in context. As per your earlier quotation of Twisse, you seem to play the game of quote mining and reading your teachings into the writings of these Reformed divines. Now, whether they do actually teach it is a research project of its own, but your quotes so far do not prove that it is so.

PuritanReformed said...

@Larry:

>I know there is a distinction. But we are elected unto salvation. It is a process. Does it stop at being found legally righteous? Are the elect not saved(eventually)?

Precisely the point you are ignoring. You refuse to see that the process works out in time. Those whom God has yet to justify in time, though their justification is certain, are not yet justified.

PuritanReformed said...

@Larry:

>Scripture reveals these two positive, but apparently contradictory truths, with equally positive emphasis: (1) that, on the one hand, He has justified us in His own judgment-seat from eternity ...

Again, where is the Scriptural proof? Please stop giving me quotes for once and exegete the Scriptures to tell me where in Scripture is it taught.


>It is indeed nothing but a thought exercise to determine the order of eternal decrees. As a predestinarian, it is of course more "logical" for me to be a supralapsarian.

If it is nothing but a thought exerrcise, then it is not actually important. And if there really is no order, then neither position can be more "logical" than another - in the same way as taking a position on the order of which comes first - velocity or kinetic energy - is illogical.

>Eternity has to be (to me) out side of time if God created everything.

Again, see my other post on the issue of time. You have not even defined what "time" is.


>Wiki: God exists before time began, exists during all moments in time, and will continue to exist if somehow the universe and time itself were to cease to exist

Again, you do not understand the issue. Read my other post.


>I see nothing heretical by saying it is all of Grace and predetermined

Again, that is not the issue under question. The issue has to do with the ridiculous theory of eternal justification which has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation Sola Gratia Sola Fide.

>If you read further (Pink,Gill, Bebe) I think you have misrepresented Justification from (not in) Eternity

There is no such distinction in Scripture between "justification from eternity" and normal justification; you will not find it taught anywhere in Scripture. That is the error made by people like Gill who creates categories where none exist in Scripture.

Darryl said...

The elect were Justified by God, because of the non imputation of their sins ! 2 cor 5:

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

How can this world not be Justified before God, if their sins never were laid to their charge ?

PuritanReformed said...

@Darryl:

Christ came to reverse the effect of the Fall, so where there was imputation of sin to sinners, Christ reversed it so that there is non-imputation of sins to the elect. Once the elect were reckoned as sinner, upon justification by faith, they are reckoned as righteous.

Darryl said...

@puritan reformed:

Faith is not required for God not to impute the sins of the elect to them, this non imputation was before they were ever created in Adam, their sins were laid on Christ and He was slain in God's purpose from the foundation rev 13:8

For Christ left heaven to be incarnated with the sins of the elect already imputed to Him, so they were never legally imputed to them.

PuritanReformed said...

@Darryl:

>Faith is not required for God not to impute the sins of the elect to them, this non imputation was before they were ever created in Adam, their sins were laid on Christ and He was slain in God's purpose from the foundation rev 13:8

1) I have dealt with the misuse of Rev. 13:8 in this post itself. Since it has a varient interpretation, to build an entire doctrine on one verse is poor hermeneutics.
2) You have yet to quote Scripture for any of the points you have made (besides Rev. 13:8)


>For Christ left heaven to be incarnated with the sins of the elect already imputed to Him, so they were never legally imputed to them.


Again, all in this assertion is made without any citations of Scripture, which clearly teach that double imputation occurs at justification (cf 2 Cor. 5:21), which is always in Scripture achieved by faith (cf the book of Romans)