Yeah, I understand the post. But you are wrong. And clearly you do not understand Romans 8:29-30 since Romans 8:28 defines who is being referenced in Romans 8:29-30; i.e., who are they that God did foreknow, predestine and call.
When are God's Elect Justified?
- Thread starter Arthur81
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
“Not Imputing Their Trespasses”
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.(2 Corinthians 5:19)
This was what he resolved upon from all eternity, that inasmuch as Christ was become the surety and substitute of his people, he would not impute their sins to them, or look for satisfaction for them from them; but would reckon and place them to the account of their surety, and expect satisfaction from him; and accordingly he did, and accordingly he had it. And this will, not to impute sin to his people, or not to punish for it, which existed in God from everlasting, is no other than a justification of them; for to whom the Lord does not impute sin, he imputes righteousness, and such are properly justified. John Gill 13
I did. I explained what you are wrong about. The foreknowledge spoken of in verse 29 is the foreknowledge of "those who love God" in verse 28. Then in verse 29 Paul says that those are the ones He predestined to be conform to the image of Jesus Christ. Ahd those He predestined He called. This then explains the rest of 28, that is those who loved God are the ones he has called. And in verse 30 they are the ones God has justified and glorified. It all begins with God's foreknowledge of those who love God.
If God did not impute their sins to them, they wouldn't need to be reconciled. Forgiveness of sins is not the negation of sins but rather the negation of the penalty demanded for the sin. That is accomplished through Jesus Christ's sacrifice of having paid the penalty demanded. That is how our account of the required penalty for sin is reconciled.
It is much the same process as in the case if one paid off your credit card debt. You charged the purchases against your card. You owed the money. If you did not pay it, there would be some measure of a penalty for not paying. Then someone comes along and pays off the debt. You are no longer in jeopardy for the punishment. Your account has been reconciled.
The word "impute" in the KJV of 2 Corinthians 5:19 is a poor choice. Although technically correct it gives the wrong slant to the passage. The need for imputed righteousness is due to the imputed trespasses.
@JBO
They dont need to be reconciled, they were already by Christs death and non imputation, they needed to know about it, embrace it by faith, then its reconciled in their understanding.
If u had a large debt you owed to a bank, and one day without your knowing about it, someone paid that debt off you owed to the bank. The bank sends you a message and when you read it, it details to you that your debt you owed has been paid for, someone took care of it for you. You no longer owe the debt, the record books for you are closed and paid in full. Now reading such you just became informed of a transaction that happened on your behalf in the past, having been conscientious of your debt, you now can in your mind be reconciled to the truth of you having no more debt you owe the bank. You probably now want to know more about who paid your debt, and thank them and love them for their unmerited kindness to you. So thats why Paul tells the reconciled, be ye reconciled to the word of reconciliation.
They dont need to be reconciled, they were already by Christs death and non imputation, they needed to know about it, embrace it by faith, then its reconciled in their understanding.
If u had a large debt you owed to a bank, and one day without your knowing about it, someone paid that debt off you owed to the bank. The bank sends you a message and when you read it, it details to you that your debt you owed has been paid for, someone took care of it for you. You no longer owe the debt, the record books for you are closed and paid in full. Now reading such you just became informed of a transaction that happened on your behalf in the past, having been conscientious of your debt, you now can in your mind be reconciled to the truth of you having no more debt you owe the bank. You probably now want to know more about who paid your debt, and thank them and love them for their unmerited kindness to you. So thats why Paul tells the reconciled, be ye reconciled to the word of reconciliation.
The Supralapsarian view of Salvation contributes to the Truth of Eternal Justification, Salvation before the foundation. I quote Vincent Cheung:
Although consequent absolute necessity is the "classic Protestant position,"4 there is a more accurate position on the necessity of the atonement. In an earlier discussion on the order of the eternal decrees, we have established supralapsarianism and refuted infralapsarianism. And from the perspective of supralapsarianism, the decree to redeem the chosen ones is logically prior to the decree for the fall of man. Thus the work of Christ in redemption was not a reaction to the fall of man; rather, God first decreed atonement for the chosen ones, and then he decreed the fall of man so that the atonement could happen. Christ was "chosen before the creation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20) to be the lamb of God, that is, an atoning sacrifice. Paul writes that "eternal life" was "promised before the beginning of time" to "God's elect" (Titus 1:1-2), and that God selected the individuals that he would redeem "before the creation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). God selected Christ as the redeemer and decided to redeem the elect before the creation of the world. In God's mind, he saved the elect before they sinned. This means that the possibility never existed that God would not redeem his chosen ones by the death of Christ. According to the logical order, the salvation of the elect was a certainty before the fall of humanity https://www.vincentcheung.com/books/Systematic Theology.pdf 13 f
Although consequent absolute necessity is the "classic Protestant position,"4 there is a more accurate position on the necessity of the atonement. In an earlier discussion on the order of the eternal decrees, we have established supralapsarianism and refuted infralapsarianism. And from the perspective of supralapsarianism, the decree to redeem the chosen ones is logically prior to the decree for the fall of man. Thus the work of Christ in redemption was not a reaction to the fall of man; rather, God first decreed atonement for the chosen ones, and then he decreed the fall of man so that the atonement could happen. Christ was "chosen before the creation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20) to be the lamb of God, that is, an atoning sacrifice. Paul writes that "eternal life" was "promised before the beginning of time" to "God's elect" (Titus 1:1-2), and that God selected the individuals that he would redeem "before the creation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). God selected Christ as the redeemer and decided to redeem the elect before the creation of the world. In God's mind, he saved the elect before they sinned. This means that the possibility never existed that God would not redeem his chosen ones by the death of Christ. According to the logical order, the salvation of the elect was a certainty before the fall of humanity https://www.vincentcheung.com/books/Systematic Theology.pdf 13 f
Last edited:
Similar threads
