Jumping ahead

Our last discussion was on justification. Here's the last series of emails sent out on it. They are clipped together.

And I hope no one thinks I'm a heretic here, but I basically think Douglas Wilson is right in this area, so I spoke of a temporal justification (being grafted into the physical body of Christ) as well as an eternal justification (being grafted into the spiritual body of Christ). I think I tried to explain it clearly. Let me know what you guys think.

On 5/9/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Hi, Mickey. This one will be short. And, once again, I am not in any way
meaning to challenge you here--I just want to understand what you were
trying to tell us.

Your doctrine of temporal justification of the reprobate was unfamiliar to
me; I was really intrigued by it and was wondering if you could clarify
what it is and how, aside from its temporariness and to whom it applies, it
differs from eternal justification of the elect. For example, you admitted
that the temporally justified are "in Christ" (cf. Gal 5:4), are "set
apart" (cf Heb. 10:29), have received grace (cf. Gal 5:4), but are not
"made holy." Peter speaks of reprobate who had previously "escaped the
defilements of the world" through Jesus but have now fallen to a position
worse than their original state (2Pet 2:20). Without actually being made
holy, in what sense do the temporally justified escape defilement? Also,
is the grace from which they eventually fall irresistible grace like that
given to the elect? How can they have grace of any sort acting through
them and yet not grow in holiness?

I would say that they are set apart in the same sense that Israel was set apart from the rest of the nations. Yet they fell in the desert and did not enter into Canaan. In the same way, one can be a covenant member of a church, hear the preaching of the Word, see the good works of the saints, partake of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, yet not take it in faith. Eventually that lack of faith may decisively manifest itself on this earth (or maybe not, as Matthew 7:22ff teaches) and they fall away. Yet, they were never really a member of the true church in the sense of them being one of the elect. Not all Israel is Israel.

They thus escape temporal defilement by living in a community of believers in the church. They are "set apart" in that sense. The community of God acts as salt and preserves and protects them from worse physical manifestations of the spiritual sins that are already present in their hearts.

And no, the grace is not irresistible. It's not the same grace. That grace is an outward grace, like the sun and the rain are. The inward grace is the irresistible one. It's a changing of the heart. Opening the eyes of the blind, new heart of flesh instead of stone.

The grace is not acting through them, but is wholly outside of them (though sometimes it can manifest itself in inward actions, like the person who does charity work because other people do it too).

Does temporal justification always begin with some kind of invalid act of
faith, and is its loss contemporaneous with either the denial of Christian
truth or the committing of a grave sin (cf. Eph 5:5 or Gal 5:19)?

Not necessarily. We're born in rebellion, and some (Esau and Ishmael) are born as members of the covenant didn't necessarily have faith. This is where Ryan would disagree with me, as I believe baptizing infants is part of the NT church and he doesn't. So he might have a different answer here.

But I would say all those who are baptized as adults rather than infants must have had some sort of "faith." And usually false faith is not one specific instance of denial like saying "Today I believe Jesus isn't God" but is actually a continual life lived out in rebellion to God, just like they were before they entered the covenant, it's just it looked different for a time.

Temporal justification could sometimes apply to the elect, could it
not? In other words, one could be temporally justified, fall away, repent,
and become eternally justified?

Hypothetically, yes. I say hypothetically because it depends on how you define your terms. Eternal justification is settled in God's eyes, so in what way is their temporal justification really temporal if it's actually eternal? A person may fall into sin, but if he's eternally justified, he hasn't lost that.

Last question: what is the relation between Christ's sacrifice and temporal
justification? You already said that the process of being set apart
somehow requires the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29). Also, in 2Pet 2:1,
it speaks of false teachers who will "deny the Master who bought them,
bringing upon themselves swift destruction." It think it becomes
increasingly clear as you read on that these folks are headed for damnation
(in fact, I think he's still talking about them in 2:20). If so, in what
sense did Jesus "buy" them? Does this relate to temporal justification?

Regarding 2 Peter 2:1, I've posted about that on my blog before - http://mcshoo.blogspot.com/2007/03/tulip-20-2-peter-21ff.html

And being "bought" i see in the same sense as "delivered" from Egypt (through the passover lamb). Israel was delivered and bought in that sense, but they weren't bought in the spiritual sense.

If God bought someone, paid for their sins by His Son, then there's nothing more to be paid. They no longer have sin against their account but rather stand righteous in God's eyes.

Thanks so much for your patience, Mickey. I was really impressed with how
thoroughly you knew your position and with its internal consistency. From
what little I understand of it, I can already see how this temporal
justification idea really helps bring that position in line with
scripture. I'm interested in learning more about it.

I'll be honest and say that many people don't think it's right, and one of the major proponents of it has been accused of gross heresy. But I think it's more consistent, and not only that, but true.

On 5/9/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you were saying that, from humans'
perspective in this life, there is never 100% assurance of
salvation. While each of us can be sure that we were justified back when
we made our act of faith, none of us (not even Paul) can be sure that that
was an eternal justification and not a temporal justification. We can grow
in confidence when we see ourselves working good deeds, but unless we hold
fast to the end we might discover that it was only temporal justification
after all. Right?

It depends on what you mean by 100%. All our emotions do seem to be subjective and no one can really say "absolutely sure" except God. No one else has an exhaustive knowledge of the truth and thus can say with absolute certainty that "A is true."

But if we profess faith with a true believing heart, then it is a faith that will save us. That's where the assurance comes from. And that's how we can speak of eternal security and preservation of the saints (which are used as "Christians" to protestants). That rests in the promises of God. When Paul writes that "God, who began a good work in you will carry it to completion" (Phil. 1:6) he's talking about facts. That faith was the original good work will be carried to completion. Thus a true believer can point to God's beginning work in their lives and rest in the promises that God will carry to completion that work to the last day. They need not fear that they will fall away, as it is God who preserves them. One of the means by which God preserves them is that He warns them to work out their salvation, to make their calling and election sure. In that warning, the believer hears and obeys and thus does persevere, or, in the passive sense "are preserved", as it is ultimately by God that we persevere

If you might permit to ask a question about your view on that passage...

How do you understand that passage just quoted? Afterall, if the act of faith itself is something wholly of man (enabled by God). In what way has God begun a good work in someone? And in what way does the promise apply, that He will carry it to completion?

After all, if the good works of God are just enabled and it requires our going along (or, as you would say, "refusal to resist"), then how does God carry anything to completion?



Another thing -

I'm not 100% on this "justified" term. I think the concept as I'm using it simply means "in a covenant with God" rather than the legal declaration "Not Guilty" that first comes to mind.

I double checked the verses you cited, and it's not there. It may be there, but I'm not 100%.

So, if just to keep from equivocating, I might move away from stating "temporal" justification, as if there's a time when God says "not guilty" but not more, but I would speak of being "in a covenant with Christ." Some are there eternally (the elect) some are there temporally. John 15, Romans 11 and so.

This also would introduce a distinction between our positions, as I understand you would say that there are times when God says "not guilty" yet that sentence gets changed. Correct?