The Timing of Justification and Imputation

[harald]

Joe,

Here is a literal English rendering of v. 39, following the Greek word order of the Textus Receptus. With some technical data in parentheses. In places where a hyphen binds words together it means these words correspond to one word in the Greek.

39 And away-from all-things which absolutely-not [OUK, objective (and stronger) negation] you-were-able [even once, aorist tense] in the law of-Moses to-be-justified [once for all, aorist tense] in this-one every one [lit. "the"] believing [present participle, not aorist] is-being-justified [present tense, not aorist - the once-for-all tense]

First a word of remark. The verb "to be able" (here edunêthête) is a "passive deponent". To be brief, it is considered as Active, but morphologically it is a Passive. I rendered according to "deponency", thus "you were able (even once)". Rendering according to strict morphology (Pass. voice) it would be "you were enabled/made able (even once)".
Then. "every one believing" (or "every believing individual" or "every believer") is descriptive, not prescriptive. It answers the question "what kind of characters are they that are benefiting from God's action of justifying ?". Moreover, inasmuch as the verb "to believe" is in the present participle form it does not talk about a once-for-all believing. Rather it could be rendered "every one continuously believing". So, if anyone presumes to use this verse to prove that justification before God follows from initial Christ-ward belief let them know that they have to render continuous belief according to this verb's form here. A one time (initial) believing won't do, the form being present participle. Besides, the "in" of "IN this one" is the preposition EN (in, within, inside, in the sphere of), not EIS (toward, into).
More. Inasmuch as the last verb "to justify" is in the present tense it also strongly suggests the action of the verb is ongoing, not once-for-all (as with aorist). I rendered "is being justified", which, if bringing out the force of the present tense with emphasis, can be rendered "is continually being justified". But, inasmuch as the latter would look like as if meaning "is being justified again and again" it is more proper to render "is being accounted righteous (on a constant basis)".


Here is the same verse with minimum adjustment of word order for the sake of understandable English, and with punctuation, and some other "cosmetic" changes.

39 And from all things which you were absolutely not even once able/enabled in the law of Moses to be justified, in this one every believing individual is being accounted righteous.

Comment: Now this is literal, and it is simple. In no way is Paul here setting forth an initial once-for-all Christ-ward trust/belief as preceeding JBG. What he was saying to those that heard him was that every believer is being (indicative mood, present tense = just at this moment of speaking) accounted righteous "in this one", viz. in Christ as the sphere of the being accounted righteous by God the Father. The "is being accounted righteous" was the same as to say that God the Father was (at that time, and of course everlastingly onwards) in the business of constantly esteeming and accounting and considering "every believing individual" as perfectly righteous in His sight.

As for LITV's rendering it unwarrantedly changes the word order into "believing in". YLT is literal, with the exception that it changes the participle present "believing" into an indicative "is believing", and adds a "who" with no counterpart in the Greek, and renders the last "to justify" ambigously as "is declared righteous". I mean ambiguously in the sense that "is declared righteous" looks like as if the Greek either has a perfect indicative passive (has been declared righteous) or a timeless aorist indicative passive (is/gets once for all declared righteous, or, justified), which latter form is best translated by the English simple present. But inasmuch as the Greek has the present passive indicative the English continuous present ("is being ...") does more justice to the Greek form.

So, to me it is very clear what Paul was signifying to his audience in Acts 13:39:

"in Christ every believer here is being accounted righteous by God. God the Father is in the business of accounting and esteeming you as perfectly righteous in His incarnate Son, your Saviour Jesus Christ".

If some hearers understood Paul's words in the Greek as meaning that their believing had led to, or occasioned, their being accounted righteous before God then they were unregenerate. I do not think anyone who heard Paul and who were familiar with the Koine Greek could have thus misunderstood his words. They are too clear as they stand written in the original tongue.
But today we have unstable and unlearned "Reformed" scholars like Jay P Green Sr., translator of LITV (otherwise a fairly literal and worthwhile version), wresting the Greek so as to make it support solafideism. Woe on the such.

Harald

[whs1]

I saw someone quote the Westminster Confession...well here is the way it should read...

4. "God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are justified" "from all eternity by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone [excluding inherent grace and charity shed abroad in the heart by the holy ghost] and alone bounty of god; which is grace, which only doth justify us."




This is what God has to say about the Westminster lie there.

The Eastminster Confession of Faith
which can be found here...

Page 1 - Go To - http://mysite.verizon.net/resor7ps/protestant1.htm

To God be all the glory from now to all eternity!


Bill

[Mark Lewis]

Brandon, I noticed your response to this person. In Catholic theology, regeneration occurs at baptism. This then allows for the possibilty of faith, which if present and sustained, would result in justification. But either way you slice it, there's is a synergistic viewpoint. Mark.

[Brandan Kraft]

Brandon, I noticed your response to this person. In Catholic theology, regeneration occurs at baptism. This then allows for the possibilty of faith, which if present and sustained, would result in justification. But either way you slice it, there's is a synergistic viewpoint. Mark.

I think you have me confused with John

[jmgipson]

Brandon, I noticed your response to this person. In Catholic theology, regeneration occurs at baptism. This then allows for the possibilty of faith, which if present and sustained, would result in justification. But either way you slice it, there's is a synergistic viewpoint. Mark.

Mark,
That was me that had a misunderstanding of terms with St. Nicholas. He gave me a run down of how the terms are explained in Romes view which made sense. I now understand how the Romish terms are defined.

John

[Robert R. Higby]

But today we have unstable and unlearned "Reformed" scholars like Jay P Green Sr., translator of LITV (otherwise a fairly literal and worthwhile version), wresting the Greek so as to make it support solafideism. Woe on the such.

Solafideism is not what we are debating here! We have gone over that one again and again--but let's not diverge into it while on this subject. The view of sola fide that I support has been clearly distinguished from the typical Reformed or Lutheran approach; though there are similarities.

On the Acts 13:39 issue, yes-- the Greek clearly indicates that justification is not time-bound by the act of believing: those who presently believe are those WHO were already perfectly justified (before faith) and continue to be justified now and forever.

[lionovjudah]

On the Acts 13:39 issue, yes-- the Greek clearly indicates that justification is not time-bound by the act of believing: those who presently believe are those WHO were already perfectly justified (before faith) and continue to be justified now and forever.

Thanks Bob.

What about the verse "All those ordained .....believed" In the same chapter I believe. The principle must be different here then.

[jmgipson]

I was reading the tread My views concerning the different aspects of Justification this morning and there is alot of good writings on this subject if anyone is interested.

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1775

John

[Brandan Kraft]

For years, many sovereign grace churches have boldly and openly taught of a salvation in Christ that is completely dependent upon His obedience in life and at the cross. A complete dependence upon Christ is what unites men together as brethren, as the only form of unity is doctrinal unity. And the central doctrine which unites all believers is the doctrine of Christ which of course must include His substitionary life and death for His people. This is simple and straight forward. Yet sadly, this good news (gospel) for God’s people has been corrupted over the years and men have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:25).

Because of the vast web of deceit that has been spun by religious zealots and works mongerers, even God’s people have not always held a very clear understanding of the once for all at-one-ment. There has been a cloud of fuzz that has hovered over men’s minds for many centuries, and I for one am glad to see many men and women including myself break through this fog and by God’s Grace throw down the baggage that has plagued us for so many years. One of the things that many have come to understand with more clarity is the timing of imputation and when it is based upon. In Albany, it was such a joy to see men and women buzzing with their recent discovery of righteousness being imputed based on the moment of the finished legal obedience of Christ (the cross). Most, if not all (including myself) at one point in their lives had been taught and erroneously believed that the timing of God’s constituting of righteousness occurs at the time the Holy Spirit gives faith to an individual. This belief, in my opinion, and in the minds of many other men logically leads to a form of conditionalism that is not based upon Christ and His work, but the work of the Holy Spirit. Much like the Roman Catholic dogma of infused righteousness, one could easily be led to believe that the constituting of righteousness is not based upon the obedience of Christ, but the presence of some other quality (eg. faith) within an individual.

This basic understanding of the cross being the entire focal point of history and the purpose of God from eternity by which the elect are constituted as righteous is something that has been absent from preaching for much too long. It is time that all of us who claim to love the Gospel of an accomplished salvation openly submit to and rejoice in this plain truth. If we do not understand the issue, then we must be willing to examine our doctrine and even be willing to change for the sake of the truth. If men and women are to be experientially united in Christ, then we must be clear on our understanding of justification for there is not a more important doctrine in the entire Bible! An indifferent attitude toward, or an unwillingness to discuss justification and the different perspectives of it is something that is not tolerable, and we must be strive with each other patiently in honest and open discussion if we are to maintain any form of fellowship with each other.

With this being stated, I must write about a situation that is very personal and has the potential to either destroy relationships between like-minded believers or I hope bring about a reconciliation and rejoicing in the truth! What we are facing is a situation just as explosive as the “made sin” controversy that to this day is causing church splits and strife across the globe. In my opinion, the topic of Christ being made sin by imputation cannot be entirely divorced from the current dispute over the timing of imputation of righteousness because these topics both deal with the very core of Christianity — the substitionary death of Christ. So what we are dealing with for all intents and purposes is the nature of Christ’s substitution, what it has accomplished, and what benefits it continues to bring to God’s people.

This situation involves Scott Price and the Gospel of Grace church congregation in Cincinnati, OH. Scott is a man who has been helpful to me in learning much of the truth but has taken a position that I believe is contrary to that which is taught in Scripture. He and his church in Cincinnati, OH have not yet learned like many have recently that imputation of righteousness as far as God is concerned took place in Christ’s substitutionary death. They believe, like many, that imputation of righteousness does not occur until at or just before a person has faith. What their position actually is, I’m not fully aware of as I have not seen an actual detailed explanation of it. I’m hoping that this article would motivate them to actually publish their position and answer any questions that we might have about it.

As far as God was concerned, from eternity (as God is eternal and not temporally bound), He has looked upon Christ as the once and for all substitution for His people. He does not look to any other moment in time except the cross where He has no need to wait until an individual possesses faith before He transfers righteousness to their account. In fact, the very reason a person has faith is because righteousness has already been put to their account in the eternal mind of God. An elect person’s entire life is a result of the cross which involves their entire pre-conversion state. From the moment in time that one of God’s elect is born, the events of their life are directed and purposed by God for that person’s benefit. All that God has purposed for that person is because of God’s love for that individual, and that love must be conditioned upon something, which of course is the righteousness of Christ! A question Scott and others like him must ask themselves is what is God’s love conditioned upon? Is it just a willy-nilly love that results in an imputed righteousness, or is it actually based upon righteousness itself? And if God’s love is conditioned upon imputed righteousness, then how in the world is it possible for imputed righteousness to occur at the time of faith or any other moment in time?

Before we continue, we must all ask ourselves what imputation is and where exactly imputation takes place so that we can understand when it takes place. Is the act of imputation something that is physical, or is it something that has occurred in the mind of God? I think we can all safely conclude that imputation is not something that occurs outside the mind of God. Let it not be understood that I do not think the consequences of imputation are not real, such as Christ suffering the wrath of God at His appointed time. However, sin and righteousness are not physical properties, but they are all legal principles that are defined by God and judged by God. Something is deemed as righteous or sinful because God defines it as such — period. Therefore imputation then must be understood as something that occurs in the mind of God because it is something that He has defined. He being the Almighty has the authority and power to deem something as righteous or unrighteous simply because HE is God and can do whatever He pleases. Therefore we must not see the death of Christ as something that had to take place because God’s justice was at stake; but we must view it in light of the fact that His death was necessary to propitiate sin and transfer righteousness to the accounts of the elect because that is exactly what God decreed would be satisfactory to Him. In God’s view of Christ hanging in agony on the cross, God forensically accounted Christ as sinful and He forensically accounted the elect as righteous. There was a judicial exchange in God’s mind of the righteous for the unrighteous and from His perspective all of salvation was accomplished. We must conclude that this is as much true for old testament saints as it is for those in the new testament because God’s view of this was from eternity. This is exactly what I mean when I use the terminology of a vital union. God was not merely an observer of this judicial exchange, but He purposed it and determined it all from eternity and as everything else has always been accomplished from His perspective.

So it is in my opinion not the disagreement on the timing of imputation that has the potential to destroy unity in the Gospel, as imputation is an eternal and immanent act of God. But the real potential for disfellowship lies in the disagreement on the actual moment in time that imputation is based upon! Hopefully we can all agree that imputation is something that occurs in the mind of God and it is something that is transcendent of time as God Himself is timeless. If we can agree on that, then we must strive to come to an understanding of exactly what moment in time that all of imputation is based upon. There can be no such thing as multiple imputations as has been suggested by those who oppose justification from eternity because imputation is something that is timeless and occurs exclusively in the mind of God. Those like Scott who believe that imputation occurs in time (where?) at the time of faith are wrong because they see imputation as a timely event. Based on my observations in Albany, I also think that men like Ken Wimer, Steve Baloga, and David Simpson are also incorrect because they too fail to understand imputation as an immanent act of God. The issue should never be about the timing of imputation because imputation is not something that takes place in time as God is not a timely being. Of course we must never divorce imputation from Christ’s life and death, because without it imputation is impossible as it was decreed to be dependent upon Calvary.

I personally believe much misunderstanding has taken place because of a failure to understand imputation as an immanent act. Misunderstanding also exists because of an erroneous understanding of eternity and time. For example, I heard David Simpson preach that justification is not something that happens in eternity and then happens at the cross and then later happens at the time of faith. I wholeheartedly agree with him! However, his proclamation in my opinion shows that there is a misunderstanding of exactly what eternity is. Eternity is not an extension of time as so many would have us believe. But eternity is transcendent of time, and while I cannot describe it fully with my limited faculties, I believe the Bible teaches it to be something that surrounds time and is from what all time proceeds. Time is defined as a succession of events, but eternity does not consist of such! All the events of time in the mind of God were decreed in a single moment (see we can’t even escape using timely language to describe eternity!) Yes, there was a logical order in the decrees, but they can all be summed up as a single decree. God said let there be light, and there was light! Could we not also conclude that God also said “let my people be righteous”, and they were righteous? God perfectly decreed and saw all the events of time, and this includes Christ’s sacrificial death. These things were not determined because God had to do so in order to abide by some eternal bar of justice which is often taught, but because this was His pleasure. He was pleased to create men and cause them to sin for the purpose of redeeming them in Christ. Adam’s fall, and thus his elect posterity was perfectly purposed by God because He had also determined to be glorified in their salvation. And He had everything that He decreed as soon as He thought it as His word is all powerful. He is God! And He needs not wait as an observer for His will to be accomplished! To suggest that He was waiting for something to happen in time (any condition) before He could view His elect as righteous is ludicrous because as far as He was concerned, it had already happened. Yes, the death of Christ, and the condition necessary for imputation of Righteousness was accomplished from His perspective. We may witness the events of time as participants and observers, but God is not merely an observer. He has done it all from beginning to end, and while we may have yet to experience His wonderful creation, we can rest knowing that it is completed in His infinite mind. Let us not take away from this at all!

There can be no reconciliation amongst brethren if we are unwilling to discuss these important topics. I am personally calling upon Scott Price to boldly place his opinion and a defense of his position in a paper. He should welcome all criticism from those who are opposed to him, and he should be willing to change, as should us all, if we are shown that we are holding to an erroneous position. No man’s beliefs should be beyond the intense scrutiny of another. I beg those involved in the current controversy to please consider coming to the table together without hostility in hopes of searching the Scriptures and learning together. I of course believe everything I’ve written in this paper is correct, or I wouldn’t have written it. But I do not believe I am beyond reinvestigating the Scripture in order to learn more of the truth, or even changing my opinion if shown to be wrong. I welcome the scrutiny and challenges of others as I know that in answering, I will either be further convinced of the truth, or by God’s Grace, I will be shown to be wrong and be forced to change my position. I also think this is the attitude of Scott Price, Bill Parker, Ken Wimer, and David Simpson. They have shown themselves in my opinion to be honorable men and zealous for the truth. I therefore fully expect them to work this issue out. This is an appeal to patience, humility, and honesty. Let us not be like others who are puffed up and show ourselves to be blustering fools if we are shown to be incorrect in our position. Also, please let us put aside for a moment the issue of whether or not we accept each other as brothers in Christ. Let us approach the table together in hopes of learning from the Lord. The ball is in everyone’s court. How will you respond?

[Brandan Kraft]

He does not look to any other moment in time except the cross where He has no need to wait until an individual possesses faith before He transfers righteousness to their account.

Correction! He looks at the entire life of obedience of Christ which is culminated at the cross!

[Saint Nicholas]

Dear Brandon............I am overly joyed, that you and many of the brethren on this site, SEE that the Primacy of Justification is the central issue, that the church either stands or falls.

I have been contending for the past 20 years or so, that most professed Christians and theological seminaries, (not all), have abandoned the true doctrine of Justification, in favor of the Heretical Roman Church's View.

Many protestant seminiaries, have been thoroughly penetrated by clever Jesuits posing as protestent theologians, to spread their venomous doctrine of gratia infusa.

Any understanding of Justification that would insist that man must first believe, via regeneration (Augustine) or without regeneration (Arminius),as a condition TO BE JUSTIFIED, Is teaching a GRACE-WORKS gospel. This is not a JUSTIFICATION ACCORDING TO ROMANS.

It's either GRACE or WORKS. Not a synthesis.

Ro. 11:5-6..." Even so at this present time also there is a remnant according to the e lection of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work ".

Love you in Christ,
Nicholas

[GraceAmbassador]

Dear Brandon............I am overly joyed, that you and many of the brethren on this site, SEE that the Primacy of Justification is the central issue, that the church either stands or falls.

Many protestant seminiaries, have been thoroughly penetrated by clever Jesuits posing as protestent theologians, to spread their venomous doctrine of gratia infusa.



Love you in Christ,
Nicholas

Of of them is your "buddy" TreyFrog... according to some reliable sources.

Any understanding of Justification that would insist that man must first believe, via regeneration (Augustine) or without regeneration (Arminius),as a condition TO BE JUSTIFIED, Is teaching a GRACE-WORKS gospel. This is not a JUSTIFICATION ACCORDING TO ROMANS.

Yes! Justification is the CENTRAL issue of our Christian faith! Christianity would be nothing but an insignificant Jewish sect would it not be by the doctrine of Justification by God with no sinergy with "believing" or "positive acceptance" as if God needs our sympathy first to save us! Keep reminding us of Justification as the central issue, Saint!

Milt

[Saint Nicholas]

Of of them is your "buddy" TreyFrog... according to some reliable sources.



Yes! Justification is the CENTRAL issue of our Christian faith! Christianity would be nothing but an insignificant Jewish sect would it not be by the doctrine of Justification by God with no sinergy with "believing" or "positive acceptance" as if God needs our sympathy first to save us! Keep reminding us of Justification as the central issue, Saint!

Milt

Milt........Who in the heck is TreyFrog ?


In Christ,
Nicholas

[Brandan Kraft]

Milt........Who in the heck is TreyFrog ?


In Christ,
Nicholas

Milt, I think you have Nicholas confused with TartanArmy.

[GraceAmbassador]

Milt, I think you have Nicholas confused with TartanArmy.

Yup! I did! Signs of old age!

Sorry!

Milt

[ray kikkert]

Milt........Who in the heck is TreyFrog ?


In Christ,
Nicholas

Nicholas, thank you for that reply of yours above.

This "trey frog" is "dave ponter" . His replies are on this forum if you want to see what breaking of wind he has belched forth. He prides himself in prostituting John Calvin's commentaries and institutes to satisfy his own doctrinal lusts and makes Calvin out to be advocating heretical arminian doctrine.

I consider him my enemy and hope he repents of his twisting of Scripture.

[Brandan Kraft]

Nicholas, thank you for that reply of yours above.

This "trey frog" is "dave ponter" . His replies are on this forum if you want to see what breaking of wind he has belched forth. He prides himself in prostituting John Calvin's commentaries and institutes to satisfy his own doctrinal lusts and makes Calvin out to be advocating heretical arminian doctrine.

I consider him my enemy and hope he repents of his twisting of Scripture.

Actually Trey Frog isn't Ponter. Trey is some other twisted individual! I have talked personally with him, and believe he lives in Arkansas. Ponter is an Aussie!

[ray kikkert]

Actually Trey Frog isn't Ponter. Trey is some other twisted individual! I have talked personally with him, and believe he lives in Arkansas. Ponter is an Aussie!

That is right, sorry about that, Mr. Ponter was some "flynn" name on this forum.

"trey frog" is Trey Austin
Pastor, Coeburn (VA) Presbyterian Church (PCA) and a mutual acquaintance of ours on the CO-URC forum. Back then he was in seminary training, now a minister in the PCA.

Have you had any recent interaction with Mr. Austin?

[GraceAmbassador]

Ray:

The secure information I have is that about two years ago TreyFrog was defrocked from his youth pastorship. Brian (Ref. Presby or John6:37) knows the details. Apparently he was defrocked for some trust issue, such as his love for the Roman Catholics, however this could very well be gossip. The only thing is sure is that he was defrocked.

Milt

[lionovjudah]

We cannot sever imputation from justification, or union with Christ. Scriptures says Christ died for the ungodly. Righteouss for the unrighteouss. Is justification the fruit of union and imputation?

What think ye? How do these relate to each other. Is there an order or are the simutaneous!!!