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

Renat & Pilgrim,

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

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

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

In Him,

Kevin

Kevin,

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

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

Pilgrim,

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

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

KEvin

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

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

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

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


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

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

-Robin

Renat,

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

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

Robin & Renat,

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

Dear Pilgrim,

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

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

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

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

Renat

Renat,

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

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

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

Pilgrim,

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

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

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

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

Does this make sense to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But thanks for the good exchange nonetheless.

Pilgrim,

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

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

Renat