Doug has responded here to my post, and I think we are getting at some extremely important issues here. The question is this: can justifying faith be described in any way as obedience to God’s command? The reason I believe that Doug has not engaged my exegesis is that he does not yet realize that I have actually addressed this question. What my exegesis is intended to show is that the obedience of faith is not in reference to justification, but in reference to sanctification in the passages indicated. This allows faith to have its full force as obedience in those passages, and yet preserves the complete absence of obedience as a category to describe justifying faith. Doug would like to describe this as simply a way for me to preserve my theological categories. But I believe that there is an exegetical reason for the distinction of categories here, and that is why I engaged in exegesis to prove it. Of course, Doug can seek to prove that my exegesis is wrong, which would require the handling of the Greek (I really would like to see some FV’ers actually engage the Greek New Testament). As of now, however, he has not tried to do that. Instead, he has claimed that I have not addressed the problem.
The problem with the semantic range of obedience is one that has been noted on the comments on Doug’s post, and is a crucial problem. I suspect that Doug and I will simply not agree on this issue, because my position is based on the law/gospel distinction, which I see as being present in the text, and which Doug sees not as part of the text, but as part of the application of the text. Here is what I mean: justifying faith has no relation to law, but to Gospel (this is referring to what happens in us: obviously, with reference to what Christ has done, it has a great deal to do with law). Therefore I can draw a distinction between the aspect of faith that justifies (and is part of Gospel, not of law) and the aspect of faith that sanctifies (which has relation to the third use of the law in particular, without leaving behind the first use). We are not talking about two faiths, but rather of one faith that has distinct but inseparable aspects related to different benefits that God graciously gives to us. The use of the term “obedience” with regard to justifying faith has to be qualified so carefully that it is practically qualified out of existence. I do believe that the passive aspects of faith (such as receiving and resting) are much more conducive to a proper understanding of the difference between justification and sanctification.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 16, 2008 at 5:45 pm
If we understand saving faith as a sovereign work of God whereby He subdues a person’s heart and renews the entire soul after Christ, then it is easy to see that elect infants can be justified by faith alone prior to comprehending the gospel or believing gospel propositions. Accordingly, if a justified infant lives to years of maturity, he will in time believe to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word… and in particular will accept and rest upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life…
However, if justifying faith is belief, which I reject, then of course it can be obedient faith because belief always engages the mind and what we believe can be in response to a command. However, if what I say is true, that justifying faith is the propensity to believe all of God’s truth from a posture of being recreated, then it is “by this faith” one can believe in obedience. I would argue that faith itself is not obedient anymore than Adam was obedient by being created out of the dust of the earth or Lazarus was obedient by coming forth from the grave.
In Chapter 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, saving faith is distinguished from believing. Through the grace of faith, the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls (paragraph 14.1). “By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word…” (14.2.). The Confession does not teach that by this faith a Christian is enabled to have faith, for that would be unintelligible. Rather, the Confession teaches that by this faith – saving faith – God enables his elect to believe. In other words, by distinguishing faith and belief the Confession teaches that God effects the grace of faith by the Spirit of Christ in the hearts of His elect, whereby those with true faith, when confronted with the propositions of Scripture whereby they are understood, exercise this faith unto “obedience to the commands…” and many other “acts” of faith such as “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life…” Notwithstanding, these “acts” of faith – even the principle act of faith – are not to be confused with the essence of faith, for as we have shown – by faith one believes, which in its principle act is accepting, receiving and resting upon Christ alone for the whole of salvation.
Because faith is distinguished from believing in the Confession’s chapter on saving faith, it is most reasonable to read 11.1 of the same Confession with that in mind. “Those who God effectually calls, He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness in to them…nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness…” In other words, it is most reasonable to interpret the Confession as not defining “faith itself” as “the act of believing,” but rather again distinguishing faith from the act of believing, just as it distinguishes faith from “evangelical obedience.” In other words, the Confession teaches that God does not credit either (a) faith, (b) the act of believing, or (c) any other evangelical obedience to the sinner when he is pardoned, accepted and accounted as righteous.
Given such a distinction between faith and belief, it is easy to understand how a regenerate infant who is united to Christ can be justified by grace through faith alone – apart from understanding, believing and willfully embracing gospel propositions. However, if justification is through faith alone and the three “classic” elements of faith are necessary conditions for justification, then infants (and those incapable of being called) cannot be pardoned for their sin! However, if infants can be justified, yet cannot have faith, then justification is by regeneration alone, apart from faith. The simple solution is that faith is exercised when on believes and although believing can be in response to a command, which makes room for believing in obedience, justifying faith is the direct result of the monergistic work of regeneration, apart from law.
Repentance is a similar matter. “Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ. By it [the grace of repentance], a sinner… so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.” In other words, by the grace of repentance, men turn from their sin. Turning from sin, just like believing, can be obedient; whereas repentance, like faith, is not obedient but rather gifts of propensity that are effected through regneration, apart from law.
Chew on the meat and spit out the bones.
Ron
tim prussic said,
June 16, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I think that you and Pr. Wilson are arguing two different things. You’re arguing via exegesis (with a jab to the ribs for no apparent reason) that phrases like “the obedience of faith” are properly applied to the sanctification aspect of our salvation, not the justification aspect. Pr. Wilson seems to have a very simple argument: If God commands us to believe, that command is either obeyed or it’s disobeyed. If it’s obeyed in our initial believing, then justifying faith has, in some way, to be understood as obedience. Thus, your exegesis of particular passages may stand, but has not touched what Pr. Wilson is arguing. In order to overturn his arguments, ISTM, you’d need to produce a passage of Scripture that justifying faith is in no sense whatever to be considered obedience. I don’t think that’s possible, Pr. Lane. Thus, why can we not rightly and carefully qualify faith as evangelical obedience as seems to be clearly implied in WCF 11:1 and move on?
tim prussic said,
June 16, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Ron, #1, what distinguishes regeneration from “faith” in your thinking? In other words, this: “a sovereign work of God whereby He subdues a person’s heart and renews the entire soul after Christ” sounds an awful lot like regeneration to me and not much like faith.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 16, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Tim,
Regeneration is what God does to sinners. Faith is what results in sinners. One has saving faith when his heart is subdued. What brings that to pass is regneration.
Ron
David Gadbois said,
June 16, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Ron, that is a fairly idiosyncratic interpretation.
While we can distinguish faith as a faculty of the human mind, as distinguished from faith as the act of receiving Christ’s righteousness, it is not legitimate to say that either one without the other can result in justification.
Faith must have Christ as the object in order to be saving. Every time in Scripture we find the “by faith” formulation in relation to justification, this is what it means. An active and conscious faith with Christ as the object.
You won’t get far into the Heidelberg Catechism with the scheme you have presented, which defines saving faith by knowledge, assent, and trust. Infants are not capable of this.
I don’t think paedobaptists do well to support the salvation of infants on the ground that they have faith (whether considered as a latent or potential faculty or an active, conscious one). The Canons of Dordt, for example, ground the salvation of infants in the covenant, not in their faith.
It may be better (as Berkhof promotes) to say that infants can be born again, and on that basis are heirs of eternal life. I am of the opinion that even this move is not necessary – God can save by grace outside of either faith or regeneration on the basis of his covenant promise.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 16, 2008 at 9:18 pm
David,
If God ever pardons infants and accepts them as righteous in his sight it is only because they have received saving faith because faith alone is the instrumental cause of justification.
You stated: “God can save by grace outside of either faith or regeneration on the basis of his covenant promise.”
Do you really want to say that a person can be saved while in Adam, without having been united to Christ by the Holy Spirit? The promise of which you speak was made to Christ as the Second Adam, the single Seed of Abraham. Yet the promise indeed extends to all who are in union with Him, the one true Seed. As the apostle teaches in Galatians 3: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ…. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.”
Being united to Christ by the baptismal work of the Spirit, pictured in water baptism, is necessary for justification. It’s also sufficient, which means that faith need not require belief in the case of infants yet justification is still present.
As a side matter, I would suggest that Galatians three is speaking of water baptism but attributing the thing signified (i.e. the reality of the Spirit’s work) to the sign.
Ron
David Gadbois said,
June 16, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Ron, I don’t have a problem with saying that infants are federally in Christ. It is useful, however, to keep the distinction between legal union and vital union in mind. It is the former that is the basis for our acceptance in God’s law-court.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 16, 2008 at 9:57 pm
So one can have the imputation of Christ without being existentially united to him? In other words, you believe one can be justified without being definitively sanctified?
Ron
Roger Mann said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:19 pm
1: Ron wrote,
Ron, the only problem I see with your proposed solution is that God does not justify us by the “grace of faith” (WCF 14.1) alone — that is, apart from “the act of believing” (WCF 11.1). The Confession seems quite clear on this point:
“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” (WCF 14.1)
The “grace of faith” enables the elect to believe; but it is through the “act of believing” itself that they are justified — “to believe to the saving of their souls.”
“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification.” (WCF 11.2)
Faith is the alone instrument of justification only by “receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness” — which takes place through the “act of believing” itself.
“But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.” (WCF 14.2)
It is only through the “principal acts” of saving faith — “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification” — that a man is justified. Once again, this is equivalent to the “act of believing” itself, not merely the “grace of faith” as a passive quality in our hearts.
Moreover, Scripture also clearly teaches that we are justified before God “through faith in Jesus Christ” (Romans 3:22) or the “act of believing” itself:
“For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:3)
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:5)
“He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore ‘it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” (Romans 4:20-25)
I could cite many more examples, but the above should suffice to demonstrate my point.
Mark Chambers said,
June 17, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The “grace of faith” enables the elect to believe; but it is through the “act of believing” itself that they are justified — “to believe to the saving of their souls.”
Really? It is the action of the individual himself by which he is justified? Even an accusation of synergism would be a kindness.
David said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Therefore I can draw a distinction between the aspect of faith that justifies (and is part of Gospel, not of law) and the aspect of faith that sanctifies (which has relation to the third use of the law in particular, without leaving behind the first use)
But do the Scriptures make this kind of technical distinction in regard to faith? Every time we read the word “faith” in the bible, are we being asked to stop and ask what “aspect of faith” we are talking about here? ISTM that faith is wholistic. When you have it – you all of it. The same faith is the insturment of our justifying and sanctifying. It isn’t like a yummy homemade pie you can slice up how you like it. Rather, it’s like being pregnant – either you’re with child or you’re not.
The Bible does speak to two aspects or kinds of faith – true or false faith – but beyond this, I don’t see the Scriptures then seperating true faith into even more categories.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Brother Roger,
Let’s review the bidding. I pointed out from Galatians 3 that the promise to which you referred in a previous post is fulfilled in one’s existential union with Christ, which you denied but without argumentation. You posited that infants may receive the promise of salvation without experiencing existential union with the incarnate Seed of Abraham to whom the promise was made. When I pointed out that your position allows people to receive the benefits of life while having no life in them, you simply ignored the point. When I pointed out that the instrumental cause of justification is always faith alone and that, therefore, for infants to be pardoned in Christ they must have faith – you dened this Reformational sola and posited a contradiction to Galatians 3, saying that infants can have the benefits of the promise without faith, or spiritual union with the Seed of the promise. Accordingly, you allow for redemption to be accomplished but never applied.
I can readily deal with all passages of Scripture without violating the paradigm I’ve put forth. We have no reason to believe that one with the faculties to believe will have a faith that is not exercised in the believing of gospel propositions. Accordingly, wherever there is the deposit of faith in an adult with faculties of reason, we should expect belief. Yet until such time comes when faith can be exercised in believing what the Bible teaches especially concerning salvation, the seeds of faith and repentance must reside in those who are forgiven in Christ.
As for believing unto the saving of one’s soul, keep in mind that unto the saving of one’s soul encompasses more than just justification but all of salvation. Accordingly, an infant who is granted the seed of faith will, should he live to years of maturity, believe until the end. Obviously if an elect soul doesn’t obtain unto such years (or abilities) of reason, the gifts of faith and repentance will not be exercised, indeed they cannot.
Where we differ and agree:
1. Your position denies that justification is always by faith alone.
2. Your position allows infants and those who are incapable of comprehending the gospel to be forgiven without being raised with Christ by the Spirit of God. Accordingly, you deny that all who are forgiven are forgiven IN Christ; and you affirm that there are some who are forgiven OUTSIDE of Christ.
3. My position, as does yours, entails that belief in gospel propositions is always present with the gift of faith whenever possible.
At the end of the day I can only point out that a position which allows for persons to be forgiven outside of spiritual union with Christ and the gift of faith is a bit alarming. How can one have eternal life without the life of Christ after all?
In His grace,
Ron
Roger Mann said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Ron, I believe you have conflated my post with David Gadbois’ response. I’m sure it was unintentional, but please respond specifically to the points I raised in my post. We can get to the issue of infants later — God willing. But right now I’m simply arguing that both the Confession and Scripture seems to contradict your position that we are justified by the “grace of faith” alone (as an inactive quality in the regenerated sinner’s heart), apart from the “act of believing” itself. So, if you will kindly reply to the specific points I raised, I’ll be more than happy to dialogue with you.
David Gadbois said,
June 17, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Ron, regarding #8,
First we were talking about faith and regeneration.
You respond by talking about union with Christ.
I tried to respond to that, but then you started talking about definitive sanctification.
I’m not sure exactly what your objection is here. Definitive sanctification (depending on definition) is materially the same thing as regeneration. And were aren’t justified on the basis of definitive sanctification or regeneration.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Roger,
Yes, I did conflate the two posts (thank you), but you did not address my points made to David and as I pointed out, my paradigm does justice to those who have the ability to believe propositions.
Again, faith and the act of believing are distinguished in Chpt. XI. The chapter first speaks of the seed of faith in that it distinguishes faith from the act of believing. The chapter rightly goes on to speak of faith as it pertains to the exercise of faith in accordance with Christ as he is offered in the gospel. A faith, that would thus rest on Christ alone, is the sole instrument of justification. Note that faith is the sole instrument, not the resting on Christ.
I’ll go out on a limb here. I suspect that some on this site deny that infants can have faith because they can’t believe. I also suspect that these same persons affirm that elect infants can be united to the Savior through an effectual call. Accordingly, I suspect they allow for infants to be pardoned in Christ but apart from the instrumentality of faith. Given such a position, what occurs when the child grows to first believe and rest upon Christ? What becomes of the justification that occured in infancy due to union with Christ, the Justified One? Or, are we to believe that only those elect infants who die in infancy can be justified?
Ron
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm
David,
There’s not a whole lot more that we can discuss that would be profitable. As I noted above:
1. Your position denies that justification is always by faith alone.
2. Your position allows infants and those who are incapable of comprehending the gospel to be forgiven without being raised with Christ by the Spirit of God. Accordingly, you deny that all who are forgiven are forgiven IN Christ; and you affirm that there are some who are forgiven OUTSIDE of Christ.
3. My position, as does yours, entails that belief in gospel propositions is always present with the gift of faith whenever possible.
What more can be said?
Best of providence,
Ron
David Gadbois said,
June 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm
1. Your position denies that justification is always by faith alone.
Yeah, so?
Your position allows infants and those who are incapable of comprehending the gospel to be forgiven without being raised with Christ by the Spirit of God. Accordingly, you deny that all who are forgiven are forgiven IN Christ; and you affirm that there are some who are forgiven OUTSIDE of Christ.
Well, your last statement is just flat wrong. I specifically said that they are “in Christ”, but that this is speaking of federal union.
And at best I am ambivalent on the issue of regeneration of infants. Again, I said that Berkhof’s position is simply “not necessary”, not that I said it wasn’t true. It is, indeed, plausible. That is simply because regeneration is not the basis of justification.
And are you interpreting being “raised with Christ” as being regeneration?
And to answer another question of yours, I think it is best to speak of the salvation of elect infants in the covenant *who die in infancy*, and not mix this subject up with other elect infants in the covenant. There is no exegetical data that ties the grace shown to King David’s child who died in infancy to all infants in the covenant.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Roger,
“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” (WCF 14.1) The “grace of faith” enables the elect to believe; but it is through the “act of believing” itself that they are justified — “to believe to the saving of their souls.”
Now that I have a bit more time:
The literal wording of the Confession need not be taken that way (and even shouldn’t be given the distinction it draws between the acts of faith and faith itself; AND more importantly, the proof-text forbids such an interpretation. Men are justified by grace through faith and it is this same gift of faith that justifies that also enables the elect to believe to the saving of their souls. The saving of one’s soul does not (as you suggest) refer to justification by faith but rather perseverance by faith. The proof-text is: “But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” Consequently, this portion of the Confession may not be used to argue that the seed of justifying faith cannot be given to those who cannot understand the gospel and exercise persevering faith, let alone belief in gospel propositions.
“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification.” (WCF 11.2)
Again, faith and the act of believing are distinguished in Chpt. XI. The chapter first speaks of the seed of faith in that it distinguishes faith from the act of believing (as I noted in my first post so I won’t rehearse it here). The chapter rightly goes on to speak of faith as it pertains to the exercise of faith in accordance with Christ as he is offered in the gospel. A faith that would (if possible) thus be exercised and rest upon Christ alone – is the sole instrument of justification. It is the faith however that justifies; not the exercising of the faith – yet in the case of those who can exercise faith, the exercise of faith is present with the faith. Accordingly, when it becomes possible to exercise faith through understanding, faith can be exercised. What you want to make the Confession out to mean is that if one cannot exercise faith in belief, then faith cannot be present. That of course would entail a fallacious form of argumentation given the few premises we have to work with. That formal fallacy comes forth below in your writings.
“Faith is the alone instrument of justification only by “receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness” — which takes place through the “act of believing” itself.
That is indeed your position.
“But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.” (WCF 14.2) It is only through the “principal acts” of saving faith — “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification” — that a man is justified.
The Confession is speaking of the ACTS of faith. In other words, it is speaking to the question of how faith will manifest itself. Your task is to prove that the seed of faith cannot be present unless it is manifested, which would mean that infants cannot have the gift of faith. It is to assume your position by definition to state that an infant cannot have faith because it cannot act in faith. Your position requires this because it presupposes that the acts of faith are a necessary condition for the state of affairs of having faith.
“For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:3)
Yes, this was the case with Abraham. What you would like to verse to also mean is that because infants are not in a position to believe God, then they cannot have faith. That, however, is nowhere to be found in the text and would be fallacious to conclude. As I said earlier, we should expect that faith will manifest itself in the acts of belief whenever possible but when it is not possible we may not expect it to occur; but that doesn’t mean that faith cannot be present, such as in the case of infants.
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:5)
THE FALLACY I BELIEVE IS BEHIND ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS:
Your argument in the quote immediately above takes the classic form of “denying the antecedent”. It goes like this:
p1. If belief, then justifying faith
p2. No belief
Conclusion: Therefore, no justification
That’s obviously fallacious because it takes the form: If p, then q; ~p, therefore, ~q
My dear brother, I don’t think it’s likely you’re going to give up your position right now, even in the face of questionable proof-texting from the Confession and formal fallacies. So rather than appear contentious, I’ll simply let you have the last word.
Warmly yours,
Ron
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 17, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I better flesh this last part out a bit more so there is no misunderstanding:
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:5)”
THE FALLACY:
Your argument in the quote immediately above takes the classic form of “denying the antecedent”. It goes like this:
p1. If belief in gospel propositions, then justifying faith
p2. No belief in gospel propositions
Conclusion: Therefore, no justifying faith
Your argument is obviously fallacious because it takes the form: If p, then q; ~p, therefore, ~q
What you need to show is: “If Justifying faith, then belief in gospel propositions.” Yet that would mean that infants cannot be forgiven, unless of course you allow them to be forgiven apart from faith as you define it. But if you make that move, then you’ll have to explain what happens to such forgiven infants when they actually believe? Does their first justification become replaced by a second? Or can only elect infants dying in infancy be forgiven and are all other infants not justified?
My dear brother, I don’t think it’s likely you’re going to give up your position right now, even in the face of questionable proof-texting from the Confession and formal fallacies. So rather than appear contentious, I’ll simply let you have the last word.
Warmly yours,
Ron
Mark Chambers said,
June 17, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Or can only elect infants dying in infancy be forgiven and are all other infants not justified?
Correct. For in Scripture we have the unstated but everywhere implied Baptist proposition that “justification is by faith alone except when it is by death for those dying before the mystical age of accountability. Borrow some glasses from a Baptist brother and you’ll see it in there for sure.
I don’t know whether I like the term Lutherterian or Bapterian better. I suppose which is best depends on how close one lives to Escondido.
:)
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 18, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Well, your last statement is just flat wrong. I specifically said that they are “in Christ”, but that this is speaking of federal union.”
David,
From what I can tell, all you have done is manipulated the term “in Christ” to mean something that is contradictory to what it means to be “in Christ.” “In Christ” refers to one who has been baptized into Christ. Given your use of the term, you end up with no moment in time in which one transitions from being outside of Christ to “in Christ” for the simple reason that you you index “in Christ” to federal union, not the work of the Spirit. Yet one must transition out of the status of “child of wrath” and that is accomplished by being baptized into the finished work of Christ.
“And at best I am ambivalent on the issue of regeneration of infants. Again, I said that Berkhof’s position is simply “not necessary”, not that I said it wasn’t true. It is, indeed, plausible. That is simply because regeneration is not the basis of justification.”
Regeneration is not the basis of justification but it’s a necessary condition for it, which seems to have escaped you (at least for now). We must be baptized into the vicarious work of Christ. Redemption must be applied and that’s the work of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, given your view, people can be justified apart from faith based upon federal union. Well, since federal union is not a work of the Spirit, I must assume that for you federal union exists prior to regeneration, the source of faith. Accordingly, you either are forced to say that all of God’s elect are justified prior to faith through federal union, or else only some are justified by federal but that not all are justified this way. You probably mean the latter. Your theology becomes rather arbitrary at this point. In your explicit denial that faith alone is the sole instrumental cause of justification, you have opened yourself up to an arbitrary theology that allows for some but not all to be justified by federal union alone. At the very least, maybe you might rethink the necessity of union with Christ by the Spirit with respect to justification, even if you don’t accept that faith is always present upon regeneration. In doing so, at least you would be acknowledging that redemption must be applied by the Third Person of the Trinity.
As w/ Roger, please take the last word.
In His grace,
Ron
Roger Mann said,
June 18, 2008 at 1:49 pm
18: Ron wrote,
Ron, the proof-text hardly “forbids” such an interpretation. To begin with, the context of the passage clearly includes justification by faith: “Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him” (Hebrews 10:38). Calvin comments on this verse:
“Then the Apostle announced this truth, that all who are counted just before God do not live otherwise than by faith. And the future tense of the verb live, betokens the perpetuity of this life. Let readers consult on this subject Romans 1:17, and Galatians 3:11, where this passage is quoted.”
Therefore, when the passage refers to those who “believe to the saving of their souls” (v. 39), it certainly doesn’t exclude the initial act of believing in justification. Moreover, the context of WCF 14 also clearly includes “justification” (WCF 14.2) — so it’s a strange interpretation indeed that views the phrase “to believe to the saving of their souls” as excluding the initial act of believing in justification.
No, that is not what I “want to make the Confession out to mean” at all. I believe that the gift or seed of faith (“grace of faith” WCF 14.1) is present before it is exercised in belief (that is a logical necessity). What I deny is that the Confession teaches that “justification” is present before (or apart from) the seed of faith being exercised in belief, as you are claiming.
No, that is not my task — I already believe that the seed of faith is present before it is exercised in belief, as I stated above. Your task is to prove that “justification” is present before (or apart from) the seed of faith being exercised in belief, since both the Confession and Scripture seem to explicitly teach otherwise.
“But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification…” (WCF 14.2)
Notice the “for justification” here. When is a man justified according to this passage? At the moment the “seed of faith” is bestowed upon him, or at the moment he actually believes the gospel by “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification?” The answer is obvious. It is only through the “principal acts” of saving faith — “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification” — that a man is justified (see also WLC 72).
“For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:3)
When was Abraham justified according to this passage? At the moment the “seed of faith” was bestowed upon him, or at the moment he actually believed God? Again, the answer is obvious. You wrote, “Yes, this was the case with Abraham.” But it wasn’t the case only with Abraham. Scripture declares: “Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (Romans 4:20-25).
You say that my argument is fallacious; but I don’t believe it is at all. Both Scripture and the Confession seem to clearly teach that we are only justified when we actually believe the gospel by “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification.” There’s nothing fallacious about that. The burden of proof would seem to be on you or anyone else who wants to teach otherwise.
In the case of elect infants dying in infancy, the Confession simply states that they “are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” (WCF 10:3). Now, it may possibly be the case that this means they are justified through the “seed of faith” implanted in their hearts. But since it doesn’t explicitly say that (nor is it a necessary inference), I don’t see how you or anyone else can dogmatically assert that this is what it means.
In Christ,
Roger
David Gadbois said,
June 18, 2008 at 2:03 pm
In your explicit denial that faith alone is the sole instrumental cause of justification, you have opened yourself up to an arbitrary theology that allows for some but not all to be justified by federal union alone. At the very least, maybe you might rethink the necessity of union with Christ by the Spirit with respect to justification, even if you don’t accept that faith is always present upon regeneration. In doing so, at least you would be acknowledging that redemption must be applied by the Third Person of the Trinity.
Ron, first I should comment that I never said that federal union was not a work of the Spirit. Second, “in Christ” language in Scripture takes on many meanings, depending on the context.
To take up your challenge, I’ll accept that infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated. My main concern is just to keep regeneration or vital union as being the grounds of justification.
But you are right – I cannot find support for faith in those infants who die in infancy. I must insist, along w/ Berkhof, that while being born again is an *absolute* requirement of salvation, conversion is not.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“I already believe that the seed of faith is present before it is exercised in belief, as I stated above. Your task is to prove that “justification” is present before (or apart from) the seed of faith being exercised in belief, since both the Confession and Scripture seem to explicitly teach otherwise.”
Is that all you’re after, Roger? Why didn’t you say so? The Scriptures teach that justification is by faith alone and not faith *exercised* – which would not be “faith alone” – since an infant can have “faith alone” – he just cannot have an exercised faith. In your estimation an infant (unless it dies in infancy) cannot be pardoned and considered righteous in God’s sight because of a lack of ability to exercise the gift of faith. The same goes for one who is retarded. In your theology persons with the gift of faith, who have been union to the risen Christ need to wait until they die or grow in knowledge of the gospel or be healed of retardation in order to be forgiven; yet their hearts may be subdued and bent toward God, and they may have been baptized into the propitiatory sacrifice of the Savior. How can one be united in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection but not forgiven?! Such would be truly sanctified in Christ by the Holy Spirit but just not forgiven for their sins. Sounds like you’re making faith into a work – the work of exercising faith. Again, and as I’ve alluded to already, the reason we see the exercise of faith so prevalent in Scripture is because the narratives pertain to adults. We can expect the exercise of faith whenever possible, just like we can expect good works as the fruit of justifying faith whenever possible.
In Him,
Ron
Bruce said,
June 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm
“And without faith it is impossible to please him” Heb. 11:6. Infants have Original Sin in all its aspects to answer for, as much as anyone does, any any of the first stirrings of their own actual transgressions flowing from their corrupt nature.
Ron is absolutely correct, of course, and adherence to the Scripture’s own propositions would be a far better place to begin that the “bapterian” (to quote one of the contrarians on this page) deductive axioms, i.e. “because my theology must deny that infants believe, ergo there must be another (unstated) means of salvation for infants who die in infancy, even if I can’t find it in the Bible.” Here is another example of sacramentology driving the theological bus.
Anyway, since their exercise of the faculty of faith will take place almost exclusively in realms of glory for these persons, that is, their growth in grace and knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ coming concurrent with any temporality of their maturation that remains to be made in the very presence of the Lord who died for them, I fail to see even the shade of an argument that such faith has no room for exercise.
What? No room in heaven? Don’t you think you too will experience in heaven an eternity of post-terrestrial growth in the knowledge of the Infinite? So what if the infant missed out on stage one? If you’re going to posit another “way of salvation,” to what degree does that lessen the weight of your argument against the Schofieldian, and his multivalent tracks to heaven?
David Gadbois said,
June 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Bruce,
Either way you answer the issue, both sides have to posit an “exception” that they can’t find explicitly in Scripture. Your position does not have an advantage on that count.
We find that Scripture says:
1. That faith alone saves in justification.
but
2. we find that King David’s son, dying in infancy, is in heaven.
Your side deals with this by redefining faith (as not including an active, knowledgable trust in Christ), contrary to EVERY scriptural definition of faith.
We deal with it by saying that (1.) is simply not an absolute truth, and that God grants a “special dispensation” (to use Sproul’s terminology). The important thing here is that this is not an *arbitrary* truth, but rather one that is grounded in God’s free grace.
Roger Mann said,
June 18, 2008 at 3:04 pm
If that’s what it sounds like to you, then you haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve been saying. I do not make faith a “work” in justification, which is why I wrote the following in “The Main Issue,” Post #1:
We are justified the moment we “obey” God’s command to believe in His Son (1 John 3:23); but that in no way implies that the “obedience” aspect of our faith (or faith itself) constitutes “any sort of ground” for our justification. It most certainly does not, as WCF 11.1 quite clearly states.
I believe precisely what the Catechism teaches about faith:
“Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.” (WLC 73)
And the notion that “faith *exercised*” would not be “faith alone” is absurd. How does that follow? Where does Scripture teach that we are justified by an inactive, unbelieving faith?
Bruce said,
June 18, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Upon review, it appears as if Mark #20 is being a bit cheeky. I missed the nuance. No one here is using the “bapterian” label to self-gloss.
Bruce said,
June 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Ron,
“Your side deals with this by redefining faith (as not including an active, knowledgable trust in Christ), contrary to EVERY scriptural definition of faith.”
Haven’t redefined faith one whit. Faith as an instrument is plainly distinguishable from that instrument’s use. And we aren’t even denying its use anyway, simply saying that its exercise is entirely a “beatific” exercise or vision. But a saint can’t “see” the kingdom of God unless he’s been given spiritual “eyes.”
The eyes in your head are not the sight of those same eyes, neither is that physical sight (which is essentially passive, just like faith/exercise) separable from the eyes. When your eyes popped open this morning, wasn’t the exercise of your faculty the most natural thing? Sure it was–because you possessed the faculty of seeing. You even possessed it while you were sleeping. You could “see” even before you were born, even if the faculty wasn’t exercised yet, or properly developed.
This is not some made up analogy either. This is the very way Scripture itself analogizes faith. So we aren’t redefining anything. That dying-infant sort “opens his spiritual eyes” for the first time in heaven, and sees and loves his Savior. As soon as you find a theological contradiction in this position, I hope you’ll post your analysis. I’m after truth, not scoring points.
Bruce said,
June 18, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Sorry, that was for David, and not Roger (for whom I wrote “Ron”, whoops, with whom I’m agreeing)
Roger Mann said,
June 18, 2008 at 11:16 pm
29: Bruce wrote,
Yes, but we are not justified by the mere possession of the “instrument” (the “seed of faith”), but only when the instrument is “used” by actually believing the gospel — “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification.”
“But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification…” (WCF 14.2)
Notice the “for justification” here. When is a man justified according to this passage? At the moment the “seed of faith” is bestowed upon him, or at the moment he actually believes the gospel by “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification?” The answer is obvious. It is only through the “principal acts” of saving faith — “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification” — that a man is justified (see WLC 72 also). Scripture teaches the same thing.
“For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:3)
When was Abraham justified according to this passage? At the moment the “seed of faith” was bestowed upon him, or at the moment he actually believed God? Again, the answer is obvious.
That is what you and Ron are missing (and have failed to address). You want to make an inactive, unused, unbelieving faith the “instrument” of receiving Christ and His righteousness, in complete opposition the explicit teaching of Scripture and the Confession.
Mark Chambers said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:02 am
Yes, but we are not justified by the mere possession of the “instrument” (the “seed of faith”), but only when the instrument is “used” by actually believing the gospel — “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification.”
Synergism.
“But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification…” (WCF 14.2)
Roger if you had even a trace of logical savvy between your ears you’d understand that the fact or condition of saving faith exists prior to the exercise of the will and it is that out of which that exercise occurs. Additionally Roger one does not will to believe any more than one wills to see light. Ontology and epistemology are not your strong points. I’m confident you don’t even know why I say that.
its.reed said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:58 am
Ref. 32:
Mark – cut it out! I’m not sure if Roger likewise made such rude and offensive comments as you did here, but I can read these from you.
Such personal attacks are never appropriate for Christians, brother. It seems you’ve let the heat of debate get the better of you. Even if provoked, our call is always to meet wrong with grace.
Please, consider and pray, and then offer appropriate remarks.
Thanks,
Reed DePace
moderator
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 19, 2008 at 8:11 am
This is more clear:
Mark and Bruce might want to press on the following quote to Roger. Roger didn’t deal with the quote so much as he did with my statement that followed the quote, which was that he was making faith out to be a work.
“In your theology persons with the gift of faith, who have been union to the risen Christ need to wait until they die or grow in knowledge of the gospel or be healed of retardation in order to be forgiven; yet their hearts may be subdued and bent toward God, and they may have been baptized into the propitiatory sacrifice of the Savior. How can one be united in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection but not forgiven?! Such would be truly sanctified (i.e. definitively sanctified) in Christ by the Holy Spirit but just not forgiven for their sins.”
With respect to David, he seems undecided whether such can be regenerated. He holds to some sort of “union” with Christ that can be apart from regeneration. Accordingly, for David, the benefits of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice can be applied apart from one being baptized into the Christ who made propitiation. David’s position, unlike Roger’s, seems way outside Reformed thought. Roger’s, though I think theologically incorrect, seems to be held by many Reformed pastors. I don’t say that to give it credence. I say it to distance his position from David’s.
Roger takes a more moderate position. Roger acknowledges that regenerate wrought faith can be present within those incapable of comprehending the gospel. He simply denies that those who possess such a faith are pardoned for their sin and found righteous in God’s site due to Christ. In a word, Roger allows for people to be engrafted into Christ yet without the remission of sins, which is to put asunder the benefits of baptism. One may be spiritually united in the death, burial and resurrection of the Righteous One, yet without all the saving benefits of that union, namely the remission of sins and imputation of righteousness. We might say that they’ve been baptized into His death and resurrected life yet without having received the vicarious work of Christ by way of imputation.
We must remember that the grace promised in baptism is not merely offered and exhibited in the sacrament but also conferred by the Holy Ghost (to those whether of age or infants) according to the counsel of God’s own will, at his appointed time. Consequently, infants (and those incapable of ever coming to a literal understanding of the gospel) can receive what baptism signifies, even in infancy, should God so will. Accordingly, this would mean that such a one who has received the reality of being engrafted into Christ (one of the benefits of effectual baptism) would also receive the remission of sins. No place can Roger find a justification to put asunder all that is entailed in the reality of Spirit baptism.
Regeneration is never separated out from remission of sins with respect to baptism into Christ; yet Roger quite plainly denies this. Now rather than deal with his placing asunder the benefits of what baptism into Christ contemplates he simply points to passages that when taken alone might imply that justifying faith always entails belief in propositions; yet this doesn’t relieve his tension. At best all it can do is introduce another one! I’ve tried to deal with that tension by noting that in the case of those who can believe in gospel propositions, faith is part-and-parcel with belief, or as I’ve called it, the exercising of faith. They are so inexorably tied that it makes more sense to speak of the manifestation of the seed of faith, which is to believe this, that or the other. At the very least, I would hope that those who would hold to a view similar to Roger’s would at least appreciate that they would have regenerate people in the church who have not yet received the remission of sins. People would be engrafted into Christ’s body and baptized into his finished work, yet without having received remission of sins. Redemption would only be partially applied, which is nowhere to be found in the Confession or Scripture. I believe Murray called the putting asunder of regeneration and justification a monstrosity indeed.
Ron
Roger Mann said,
June 19, 2008 at 3:52 pm
32: Mark wrote,
Synergism only applies to the doctrine of regeneration, not justification. Synergism is “…the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives” (Century Dictionary). So, your statement simply demonstrates that you don’t understand what the term “synergism” means. The fact that repentance unto life and justifying faith are “Two Divine-Human Activities” (Reymond, Systematic Theology, p. 721), is Reformed Theology 101.
Mark, I’m not denying that the “condition” or “grace of faith” exists “prior to the exercise of the will” (I believe that is a logical necessity). So you are not making any sense. Rather, I’m arguing that the Confession teaches that we must actively believe on Christ by “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification.” In other words, justification is the result of believing on Christ and receiving His righteousness, not the mere possession of a propensity to believe as an inactive quality in the heart. Moreover (and more importantly), your position flatly contradicts the explicit teaching of Scripture: “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness” (Romans 10:10). We believe “unto righteousness” — we don’t receive the righteousness of Christ simply because God grants us the propensity to believe in regeneration. In the future, perhaps you can try to address the specific points that I raised, instead of simply insulting my intelligence.
Ron, I don’t have the time to respond to your latest post today. I’ll try to get to it tomorrow.
Roger
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“Ron, I don’t have the time to respond to your latest post today. I’ll try to get to it tomorrow.”
Dear Roger,
Please respond if you like but I must tell you that if I don’t see better from you, I probably won’t bother to respond. Please take no offence to my saying so, or my silence should you respond in a way I don’t find adequate. If you advance a valid argument and perform a valid internal critique of the opposing position, then I’ll engage you.
You committed with Mark just now the same fallacy I pointed out before. You never dealt with the fallacy when I pointed it out the first time; you simply said that you don’t believe your argument was fallacious and then went on to make the same and a few new assertions. Let me now point out the formal fallacy that you committed in your interaction with Mark. I’m doing this for any lurkers and not as much for you, since you haven’t showed any serious interest (as of yet anyway) in dealing with the internal critiques of your position.
You stated: “Moreover (and more importantly), your position flatly contradicts the explicit teaching of Scripture: ‘For with the heart one believes unto righteousness’ (Romans 10:10). We believe ‘unto righteousness’ — we don’t receive the righteousness of Christ simply because God grants us the propensity to believe in regeneration.”
Your argument takes the following fallacious form:
If p, then q
Not p
Therefore, not q
Your argument reduces to:
p1 If one believes in gospel propositions, then righteousness is obtained (i.e. “we believe unto righteousness”)
p2 and conclusion: If one does not believe in gospel propositions, then righteousness is not obtained (i.e. “we don’t receive the righteousness of Christ simply because God grants us the propensity to believe in regeneration”)
Your argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The antecedent needs to take the form of “if and only if” for your argument to become valid.
Moreover, the verse you are using is simply an elaboration of what precedes the verse: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Yes, Roger, confession with a sincere heart (the implications of cognizant faith) is a sufficient condition for being saved. Your task, however, has been to show that confession with a sincere heart is a necessary condition for being saved. Again, your argument can be written as follows:
p1. If confession with a sincere heart, then salvation
p2. No confession with a sincere heart
Therefore: no salvation (for those who do not confess the Lord Jesus Christ)
Yet you know that such is not biblical because there are many who will be saved who never confess the Lord Jesus Christ with a sincere heart, such as elect infants dying in infancy. Even if your conclusion were true, it would not have been argued cogently. I sincerely cringe at the thought of you ignoring, as you have I’m afraid, the weight of these observations. In the final analyses, all you have “argued” is: “since sincere God-sent belief in gospel propositions saves, then faith that does not include such belief does not save.”
Having said all that, I’m more interested in hearing how you defend putting asunder the benefits of being baptized into Christ.
Most kindly intended,
Ron
Mark Chambers said,
June 20, 2008 at 7:38 am
Mark, I’m not denying that the “condition” or “grace of faith” exists “prior to the exercise of the will” (I believe that is a logical necessity). So you are not making any sense. Rather, I’m arguing that the Confession teaches that we must actively believe on Christ by “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification.”
Roger once again your suspect logic is exposed. You fail to distinguish between conditions that are inclusive (sufficient) and causal (necessary). You do not understand the difference between doing and being; between knowing and learning; between volition and revelation. I am not confident that you are able to make those distinctions. Naturally then, you don’t think I’m making any sense.
Thanks for the conversation.
Roger Mann said,
June 20, 2008 at 12:50 pm
36: Ron wrote,
No, that is not my argument at all. My argument, properly formulated, is this:
P1 If and only if one believes the gospel propositions, then he is justified by faith (i.e. “we believe unto righteousness”)
p2 and conclusion: If one does not believe the gospel propositions, then he is not justified by faith (i.e. “we don’t receive the righteousness of Christ simply because God grants us the propensity to believe in regeneration”)
Or, to put it more simply:
Scripture teaches that justification by faith only takes place upon sincerely believing the gospel propositions — “Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 2:16); “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness” (Romans 4:4); “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness” (Romans 10:10). Therefore, according to Scripture, only those who sincerely believe the gospel propositions are justified by faith.
That’s a perfectly valid (and sound) argument. Notice that I didn’t conclude that only those who sincerely believe the gospel propositions can be justified. That would be a fallacious argument, because the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise. But that’s not the argument I’ve been making. In the special case of elect infants dying in infancy, or other elect persons who are mentally incapable of sincerely believing the gospel propositions, God justifies them apart from the ordinary means of faith in the gospel propositions: “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.” (WCF 5.3). Needless to say, this doesn’t affect my argument at all: God only justifies a person by faith when that person actually believes the gospel propositions.
Your argument is unsound because you wrongly conclude that God can only justify a person by faith (which is not a necessary implication of Scriptural teaching), and then redefine justifying faith as the mere possession of the “seed of faith” or “propensity to believe” in order to include elect infants among those who are justified. Not only does this redefinition of justifying faith contradict the scriptures I cited above, but it is out of conformity with the Westminster Standards:
Question 72: What is justifying faith?
Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
This is crystal clear and incontrovertible. It agrees with the definition of justifying faith that I used in my sound argument; and it contradicts the redefinition of justifying faith that you used in your unsound argument. Justifying faith is not the mere possession of the “seed of faith” or “propensity to believe,” but rather “assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel” and “receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.”
Since I never put asunder the benefits of being baptized into Christ, I have no obligation to defend such a silly notion. As to the benefits of being baptized into Christ, I fully agree with Robert Shaw, who writes:
“The efficacy of baptism is not confined to the moment of administration; but though not effectual at the time it is administered, it may afterwards be effectual, through the working of the Spirit.—John iii. 5, 8.” (The Reformed Faith, 28.6)
And A.A. Hodge:
“That the efficacy of Baptism, even in cases in which the grace signified is really conveyed, is not tied down to the moment of time wherein the sacrament is administered, but is conveyed to the recipient according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” (Commentary on WCF, 28.6)
Thus, in the case of baptized elect infants dying in infancy (or those who are otherwise mentally incapacitated), God directly (apart from the ordinary means of faith in the gospel propositions) justifies and conveys all the benefits of Christ’s redemption to them before they die — “according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” In the case of baptized elect infants who grow to the age of maturity, God grants them the gift of faith and justifies them when they believe the gospel propositions.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Roger,
I’m sorry for you that you spent so much time writing such nonsense.
“Scripture teaches that justification by faith only takes place upon sincerely believing the gospel propositions — “Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 2:16)”
Does that mean those who do not believe but have the seed of faith are not justified by faith? NO, it doesn’t. It only says that those who believe are justified. Your argument is just as fallacious as it ever was. You insert “if and only if” without philosophical / grammatical warrant. Your justification of the premises is still based upon the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
“(Galatians 2:16); “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness”
It’s no less than amazing that you think that this verse also teaches that one is not justified by the seed of faith. Roger, the verse doesn’t even teach that one cannot be justified by works! All it can teach is that belief justifies, but not that ONLY belief justifies. You continue to commit the same fallacy because of your precommitment, which drives your thinking.
Roger, I can go on and on but what would be the use? You’re simply not paying attention or not able to get it for some reason. I’m sincerely sorry.
Ron
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 20, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Roger,
I’m sorry for you that you spent so much time writing such nonsense.
“Scripture teaches that justification by faith only takes place upon sincerely believing the gospel propositions — “Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 2:16)”
Does that mean those who do not believe but have the seed of faith are not justified by faith? NO, it doesn’t. It only says that those who believe are justified. Your argument is just as fallacious as it ever was. You insert “if and only if” without philosophical / grammatical warrant. Your justification of the premises is still based upon the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
“(Galatians 2:16); “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness”
It’s no less than amazing that you think that this verse also teaches that one is not justified by the seed of faith. Roger, the verse doesn’t even teach that one cannot be justified by works! All it can teach is that belief justifies, but not that ONLY belief justifies. You continue to commit the same fallacy because of your precommitment, which drives your thinking.
Roger, I can go on and on but what would be the use? You’re simply not paying attention or not able to get it for some reason. I’m sincerely sorry.
Ron
Roger Mann said,
June 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm
40: Ron wrote,
Ron, my point in citing these verses was to demonstrate that this is the only definition of “justifying faith” that Scripture teaches — that God justifies (constitutes and declares righteous) those who believe in Jesus Christ and upon the event of believing. Therefore, unless you can demonstrate from Scripture that the seed of faith itself constitutes “justifying faith” apart from believing in Jesus Christ (which you can’t), then you are merely making up your own definition of “justifying faith” in contradiction to both Scripture and the Westminster Standards. Westminster Larger Catechism 72 clearly states that “justifying faith” includes “not only assenting to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiving and resting upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.” Notice that believing upon Jesus Christ is the necessary antecedent to being justified here. A sinner receives and rests upon Christ (i.e., believes) “for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.” According to your redefinition of “justifying faith,” this would not true. We would not believe on Jesus Christ for justification; we would believe on Jesus Christ because we had already been justified by being granted the seed of faith. Your position reverses the Biblical order and turns the doctrine of justification by faith on its head.
The reason the Westminster divines included “believing,” “receiving,” and “resting” upon Jesus Christ in its definition of “justifying faith,” is because that is how Scripture itself plainly defines “justifying faith.” John Murray concurs:
“Paul here [Galatians 2:16] says that we have believed in Jesus Christ in order that we might be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ. In a word, faith in Christ is in order to justification, and is therefore regarded as antecedent to it (cf. also Romans 4:23, 24). We may conclude that the Scripture means to teach that the justifying act of God supervenes upon the act of faith, that God justifies those who believe in Jesus and upon the event of faith. But faith, we must remember, is an act or exercise on the part of men. It is not God who believes in Jesus Christ, but the sinner who is being justified. Therefore faith [i.e., the “act of faith” or “believing”] is an indispensable instrumentality in connection with justification [by faith].” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 129)
Furthermore, denying the antecedent is a fallacy except when the argument also instantiates some other valid form, as my argument does. For example, when using the proper Biblical and Confessional definition of “justifying faith,” my argument can be expressed in the valid form of Modus tollens:
If a man is justified by faith, then he has believed on Jesus Christ for justification.
The man has not believed on Jesus Christ for justification.
Therefore, the man has not been justified by faith.
This argument is both valid and true, since it relies upon the proper Biblical and Confessional definition of “justifying faith.” If you want to prove it false, then you need to demonstrate from Scripture that “justifying faith” does not include believing in Jesus Christ “for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.” Good luck. Moreover, you need to demonstrate from Scripture that the seed of faith itself constitutes “justifying faith” apart from believing in Jesus Christ. Again, good luck.
Additionally, when you make the fallacious argument that God can only justify a person by faith (which is not a necessary implication of Scriptural teaching), and then redefine justifying faith as the mere possession of the “seed of faith” or “propensity to believe,” are you not doing precisely what you accuse me of doing — denying the antecedent? Thus, it is your argument that is fallacious, not mine.
Well, I never said that “ONLY belief justifies” (e.g., infants who die in infancy are justified apart from the means of belief). I said that “ONLY belief justifies us by faith.” That’s because being justified by faith means believing on Jesus Christ “for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of [our] person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.” Moreover, I can scripturally prove the additional premise that’s implied by this verse — that a sinner is justified by faith “apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28; 4:2; 10:3-4; Galatians 2:16; 3:11; 5:4; Philippians 3:9; etc.); but can you scripturally prove the additional premise that’s imposed upon this verse by you — that one can be justified by faith apart from believing the propositions of the gospel? Absolutely not.