David Simpson and Ken Wimer AGAINST Justification from Eternity

[Brandan Kraft]

From an e-mail sent to me by Wimer...

David Simpson wrote the following:

Thirdly, a sovereign grace pastor believing in “eternal justification” and to explain his view, referred me to the website of Job Hupton, a current Primitive Baptist pastor. Hupton in an article titled “Thoughts Upon the Date of Justification”, said: “Justification is a simple act of the divine eternal mind, or the absolute determination of God not to impute sin to his people, and to place the righteousness of Christ to their account” (Mount Zion Home Page).

Much could be said of the view of “eternal justification” itself, but I leave it at that. Now, let’s turn our attention to six relevant passages used by the eternal-justification men

“eternal justification”. ... is an affront to the scriptures, the God of the scriptures, the Christ presented in the scriptures, and the gospel declared by the scriptures. (eternal justification) is in contraposition to the plumbline of gospel truth. (eternal justification) is a hybrid gospel, part of the gospel of confusion, and therefore no gospel at all.

Amos asked an appropriate question: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Some may ask: do we have to agree on everything? No, but we must agree on the gospel.

The rest of the e-mail can be read in the attached document...

There is a battle brewing over these doctrines and lines in the sand have been drawn by Wimer and Simpson. Shall we as a group pick apart Simpson's arguments against JFE for the sake of others?

[Brandan Kraft]

Attached is my article dealing with Wimer and Simpson two years ago. This issue is now raising its head again and this time it appears there are many more people involved.

Let us counter these arguments with the Truth - that is with sound reason and scriptural propositions.

Wimer and Simpson, while correct to take on the ludicrousness of the idea that Christ was a sinner have started with an incorrect understanding of Eternity. You can see that as they argue their position of Justification at the Cross. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the doctrine of Justification by Faith if it is seen simply as a coming to knowledge of justification by faith alone. It IS the Gospel. Imputation is based on Christ alone. And imputation is an act of God's eternal MIND alone. Failure to understand these premises will lead one down the wrong path.

Brandan

[Highlyfavored]

They are blind leading the blind.

[Saint Nicholas]

Let them continue in their denial. Until the Holy Spirit reveals the truth of EJ to their mind, they will continue in their rebellion.

We must pray that God would continue revealing truth to His Elect.

When one lights a candle in the daylight it is hardly visible. But when lit in darkness, it becomes a guiding light to all that have eyes to see.

The darker and more evil the world and religions get, the brighter Christ shines in the hearts of His people.

Nicholas

[lionovjudah]

Ill be on Wimer and Simpsons side. Attempt to pick apart as you will BK, it is like spitting into the wind. DO not forget they do not deny the eternal decree Brandon, they scripturally denythe actual time of justification prior to the cross.

You Greg and Nick could form your own Star Chamber and stack the deck..

[Whammer]

These men (Wimer, Simpson, all who agree with them like Joe [LOJ]) place a greater emphasis on external creation than on the reality that exists in God's mind, and to some degree seem to fit in this catergory in Rom. 1:25.

I would only add what I already put on my blog about Matt. 11, these men in railing against scriptural justification, will most definately wound themselves, which may be okay (Gal. 5:12) and if Jesus was not punished for them, then they will bear the penalty for their deception (Gal. 5:10)
and the rest who follow them will fit here 2 The. 2:11-12

They do appear to be blind leaders of the blind to me also as they not only show the evidence of no "revelation" here, but also violate the natural properties of logic itself in their vain arguments!

[Robert R. Higby]

You Greg and Nick could form your own Star Chamber and stack the deck..

But no one here cares who has the most clout or numeric might--only what the truth is!

[Brandan Kraft]

From my friend Mike McGinnes in Florida

Greetings Ken,

As usual I enjoyed reading your bulletin, please forgive me for not writing more often to tell you that. In the article that you wrote I thought that perhaps you had reference to some things that I had written on the subject of “eternal justification” during my brief correspondence with David Simpson. If you were indeed referencing what you considered to be my conclusions on the subject, then I have either done a poor job of communicating my position or you have misread it, or perhaps both. I have never said that the elect of GOD were “ ALWAYS saved, redeemed, justified, and glorified”. I did say that I believe there is a sense in which we can refer to the elect as always being “justified” (just or approved) in the sight of GOD and that is the very basis upon which their “justification” in time by the blood of JESUS CHRIST is set. Had there been no election there would have been no “justification” for there would have been none to “justify”. There had to be a people approved (chosen, selected) by GOD in order for there to be any sort of legal justification that could take place in time. Something cannot be lost unless it is first possessed. Nor can something be “redeemed” which was not first possessed and then lost. Now we are convinced (as I believe that you are) that technically GOD cannot “lose” something since HE knows all things having decreed all things to come to pass according to HIS own will. So HE uses the term “lost” (Mat.18:12) to enable men to understand the fact that it has pleased HIM in HIS eternal purpose to subject his elect (along with all of Adam’s offspring) unto sin, bringing them under the curse of HIS holy law which demands death to all who break its statutes.

Obviously HE could have decreed (had it pleased HIM) that they should never fall into sin. But in order to manifest the glory of HIS grace and the holiness of HIS character HE has devised the whole scheme of redemption to unfold in time according to and in keeping with the same law to which it pleased HIM to make HIS elect the subjects of. Therefore HE has determined to send HIS only begotten SON into this world made in the likeness of sinful flesh, (yet without sin) in order to redeem (buy back) that possession which has always been HIS. There is no other REDEEMER and there is no salvation, redemption, legal justification, nor glorification of any of the elect except that which is based solely upon that which the LORD JESUS CHRIST has undertaken in their behalf. It is this redemption and this REDEEMER that shall be their song through the ages to come.

The scripture most certainly speaks of the LORD considering something as done before it has come to pass as we read in Romans 4:17, “(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” The decree of GOD is unto HIM as though it is done. HE doesn’t “wait” for time to pass in order to see HIS decrees fulfilled. HE is not subject unto time nor does time have any relevance to HIM unto whom a day is as a thousand years and vice versa.

You are correct in stating that the redemption of HIS people did not occur until it was accomplished as far as men are concerned, but you are in error to consider that in the mind of GOD it was not accomplished when HE decreed it. Men had to wait until the fullness of time but HE most certainly did not. CHRIST did indeed subject HIMSELF unto the same flesh and blood which HE formed man in and made HIMSELF an offering for sin in time so that this might be observed by the creation. This is indeed one of the greatest of mysteries and miracles, that HE who is eternal made HIMSELF of no reputation and tabernacled among men, subjecting HIMSELF to all that HE subjected HIS creation, yet without sin. Yet HE underwent none of this for HIS sake but for ours, for whom HE became (was made perfect) the AUTHOR of eternal salvation.

When the scripture says that HE “appeared” to put away sin it does not just mean that “it became apparent”, but rather the purpose for HIS appearing was to put away sin by the sacrifice of HIMSELF which HE has done by “appearing” visibly unto the eyes of those for whom HE shed HIS precious blood. It is in this ‘appearance” that they are given faith to believe and be reconciled unto HIM. Those who were in their minds enemies of GOD by wicked works are now made by the gift of faith to embrace HIM whose ways they once despised and to bow their knees before HIM as those reconciled by HIS blood.

There was no need for legal justification until there was a broken law. Those who were seen as just (accepted) in CHRIST were the objects of that atonement which HE made for them after they were made subjects of a broken law. The choice was made before they had done good or evil. There is no law or principle higher than GOD HIMSELF. HE loved HIS people before they ever sinned according to HIS own decree and has now in time demonstrated the great love that HE has had for them by subjecting them to sin and effecting their redemption. Even as the LORD told Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. There is one imputation of righteousness which has its decree in eternity, its accomplishment in time, and its glorious product throughout the ages to come. Blessings, mike

[lionovjudah]

You Greg and Nick could form your own Star Chamber and stack the deck..

But no one here cares who has the most clout or numeric might--only what the truth is!

Exactly. A SJC was only stacked with the kings cronies anyway. That aside Bob, I find it appaling the EJ has become a defining trait to recognize who is elect or not. Greg, Nick, and Whammer are being very slanderous to accuse these men of being blind, and non elect, and in rebellion.

[Saint Nicholas]

Exactly. A SJC was only stacked with the kings cronies anyway. That aside Bob, I find it appaling the EJ has become a defining trait to recognize who is elect or not. Greg, Nick, and Whammer are being very slanderous to accuse these men of being blind, and non elect, and in rebellion.

Joe, can you please show me the statement that I or others made, that stated that those who disagreed with EJ were non-elect? They may be blind and rebellious to certain truths, but that does not equate to being non-elect.

Have fun searching!

If you cannot find this statement, then I will conclude that you too are adding false accusations and statements to stir up trouble, resulting in a possible ban or infraction.

I request as a facilitator, for you to produce such a statement you claim was made, before you can post on other topics.

Thank You,

Nicholas

[MCoving]

Joe, can you please show me the statement that I or others made, that stated that those who disagreed with EJ were non-elect? They may be blind and rebellious to certain truths, but that does not equate to being non-elect.

Have fun searching!

If you cannot find this statement, then I will conclude that you too are adding false accusations and statements to stir up trouble, resulting in a possible ban or infraction.

I request as a facilitator, for you to produce such a statement you claim was made, before you can post on other topics.

Thank You,

Nicholas

Sweet Nicholas.. Good to hear moderators sticking up for the Gospel.. that our lives our based around it, and its not about doctrinal regeneration. I am SO THANKFUL to be a part of this forum where most people dont believe in doctrinal regeneration.. and the simpliest of faith in Christ and belief in the Gospel proves one elect... we dont have to know that someone believes in EJ, etc.. to know them to be a believer in the Lord. Its not so much as that to be a defining truth to whether one may be not converted right now.. I think it depends on other circumstances.. like have they been told about EJ and reject it.. or are they still just learning about the doctrine..

I think if someone rejects EJ then it is possible they are not converted yet.. and still walking in darkness and lost. Doesn't mean they are not elect just that God hasn't opened their eyes to the Gospel. FOr how can one believe the true Gospel and reject EJ? Maybe not understand it or need more time to digest it.. but if they fully understand what it is, can explain it, etc.. and yet still argue against it.. dont ya think there may be something wrong there and possibly not brethren?

I say maybe.. and possibly because for me its hard to say FOR SURE.. for I am not God.. and only God knows the true heart and when one is converted, etc. and who the elect are.

[lionovjudah]

Joe, can you please show me the statement that I or others made, that stated that those who disagreed with EJ were non-elect? They may be blind and rebellious to certain truths, but that does not equate to being non-elect.

Have fun searching!

If you cannot find this statement, then I will conclude that you too are adding false accusations and statements to stir up trouble, resulting in a possible ban or infraction.

I request as a facilitator, for you to produce such a statement you claim was made, before you can post on other topics.

Thank You,

Nicholas

You said : We must pray that God would continue revealing truth to His Elect.

I concluded that only those who have had EJ 'revealed' to them is elect.

Nick, you bring enough trouble on yourselves without anyone stirring it up!! am sure BK will agree.

Gregg said ; They are blind leading the blind


Wham said: They do appear to be blind leaders of the blind to me also as they not only show the evidence of no "revelation" here, but also violate the natural properties of logic itself in their vain arguments!


So I stand by what I said.

Did I meet your request? Perhaps I was concluding wrong and if so I apologize.

[Robert R. Higby]

One of the evidences of election is advancing belief in and joyful embracement of more and more gospel truth as it comes to be understood.

If one rejects propositional truth on a point of doctrine, it is either because the person is non-elect or else because the Lord is currently shutting up the meaning and beauty of that teaching from being understood by the truth seeker.

[Whammer]

Wham said: They do appear to be blind leaders of the blind to me also as they not only show the evidence of no "revelation" here, but also violate the natural properties of logic itself in their vain arguments!


So I stand by what I said.

I will also stand by what I said Joe All I know of these men is what I have read in past times so that is ALL I have to go on. Whether or not these men or you are elect......I don't know. All of you have been confronted with this aspect of the gospel that you all continue to deny....and give out the lable "false gospel" to us.
There is darkness in this area for you guys....ie you lack "revelation" and are blind..........you guys on the other hand think that it is us that lacks correct revelation. Whatever
You appeared to me to give hearty assent to their (Ken, etc) position....did I misunderstand you?

[MCoving]

I dont get why people dont believe and understand EJ? It makes perfect sense.. God has always loved us before we were converted. And God in eternity before His events unfolded declared His children justified by the blood of His Son. Then of course all the events had to unfold, Christ's atonement, regeneration, faith... To me it is crystal clear I see nothing wrong with EJ. Whats the other position that we were justified at time of faith? I guess that would be the end of the events but wouldn't make sense because before we were even born God loved us and His son died for us. How can God love us if we weren't already declared justified? It may be a tricky doctrine at times with the eternity and time idea but it makes more sense than our FAITH justifying us.

[marcuslid]

I dont get why people dont believe and understand EJ? It makes perfect sense.. God has always loved us before we were converted. And God in eternity before His events unfolded declared His children justified by the blood of His Son. Then of course all the events had to unfold, Christ's atonement, regeneration, faith... To me it is crystal clear I see nothing wrong with EJ. Whats the other position that we were justified at time of faith? I guess that would be the end of the events but wouldn't make sense because before we were even born God loved us and His son died for us. How can God love us if we weren't already declared justified? It may be a tricky doctrine at times with the eternity and time idea but it makes more sense than our FAITH justifying us.

This verse comes to mind
Romans 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

[Saint Nicholas]

[quote=lionovjudah;56269]You said : We must pray that God would continue revealing truth to His Elect.

I concluded that only those who have had EJ 'revealed' to them is elect.

A wrong conclusion on your part Joe. All of the elect prior to regeneration and faith are blind, rebellious, and ignorant of Gospel truths. Even rejecting Christ! let alone rejecting EJ. Your false conclusion is what I deem to be stirring up trouble. Still you failed to provide the statement I asked for.

Nick, you bring enough trouble on yourselves without anyone stirring it up!! am sure BK will agree.

It is true Joe, that anyone who teaches doctrine, and conveys their understanding of scriputure which is in disagreement to the "status quo" will bring trouble. I do not deny this. But your false statement is what I am concerned about. Try not to change the subject.

Gregg said ; They are blind leading the blind

His statement has nothing to do about who is elect or not. Prior to the Lord opening my eyes, when I was a Roman Catholic. I Was telling people that the Roman Catholic Church was the only one true Catholic and Apostolic Church. Looking back now, I consider myself then a blind leader of the blind. However I am elect and saved!


Wham said: They do appear to be blind leaders of the blind to me also as they not only show the evidence of no "revelation" here, but also violate the natural properties of logic itself in their vain arguments!

Was Paul the Apostle prior to regeneration, a blind leader of the blind? Even more so Paul was not only a blind Pharisee, he was a murderer too. Was he not elect Joe?


So I stand by what I said.

It fugures Joe. You are not even humble enough in my opinion to wipe " the egg of your face"

Did I meet your request? Perhaps I was concluding wrong and if so I apologize.

No you did not meet my request, and failed to produce any statement I or other made that stated that those who denied EJ were non-elect.

Nicholas

[lionovjudah]

I will also stand by what I said Joe All I know of these men is what I have read in past times so that is ALL I have to go on. Whether or not these men or you are elect......I don't know. All of you have been confronted with this aspect of the gospel that you all continue to deny....and give out the lable "false gospel" to us.
There is darkness in this area for you guys....ie you lack "revelation" and are blind..........you guys on the other hand think that it is us that lacks correct revelation. Whatever
You appeared to me to give hearty assent to their (Ken, etc) position....did I misunderstand you?

Wham: I have never I denied an eternal aspect of justification. WHat I deny is imputation actually took place prior to the cross. I say God decreed not only the justification of His elect in the COR, but in that decree, purposed it to happen at the cross. To me the cross is the 'end of time" according to Hebrews.Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

I do give a hearty consent to JATC.

[Brandan Kraft]

Wham: I have never I denied an eternal aspect of justification. WHat I deny is imputation actually took place prior to the cross.

I do too.

[lionovjudah]

One of the evidences of election is advancing belief in and joyful embracement of more and more gospel truth as it comes to be understood.

If one rejects propositional truth on a point of doctrine, it is either because the person is non-elect or else because the Lord is currently shutting up the meaning and beauty of that teaching from being understood by the truth seeker.

Bob, this is purely conjecture and subjective. EJ is not a propositional truth revealed in the writ as a barmoeter of election. Ill take my chances on the cross of Christ. And like the widow who once found her mite, stopped seeking, once I find truth, I stop seeking. Which is what the parable teaches anyway.

I could also say that when a 'self developed' propositional truth is embraced with joy as an evidence of election, God has sent such a one a delusion to believe a lie. Only those doctrines CLEARLY revealed in the writ are those to which brings joy and full embracement.