Justification: Action of God or Accomplishment of Man?

Let's go to the phones and talk with Brother Peter. Hello, Brother Peter. Hi. Hi.

I had a question about your view on justification. All right. It's my understanding that you believe that a justified believer cannot lose his salvation.

That's correct? That's what you believe? Yes. Well, what would you say in response to a passage such as Ephesians 5, 5 through 8, which not only first describes that unclean people and others are excluded from the kingdom of God, and then it goes on to say to the faithful,

Be ye therefore not partakers with them, therefore clearly indicating that people who are justified believers could be partakers with those who are being excluded from the kingdom of God, clearly proving that a justified believer could lose his salvation through grave sin, which is exactly what the

Catholic Church has always taught. Well, that's an awesome example of eisegesis. I appreciate the presentation of it because when you want to talk about justification, it would seem that you would go to the text in the

Bible that specifically addressed justification rather than going to other texts, specifically warning passages and things like that, make assumptions based upon that, mainly man -centered assumptions rather than God -centered assumptions, and then read it back into the text, which is exactly what the

Roman Catholic Church has done in its definitions, especially on this subject. It would seem to me that if you want to discuss justification, why not go to the texts that discuss justification first, determine what the inspired text says there, and then make application elsewhere?

Isn't that in fact what you do? Because I'm not sure why this information was volunteered, but you are not an

Orthodox Roman Catholic. You're a Sedevacanist, aren't you not? I would consider myself and say that I am a true

Catholic. Would the Pope consider you to be a true Catholic? No, but we can prove that he's not a real

Catholic. But you would do that by going to particular texts.

But before I get to that, it's interesting that you're diverting here from the issue. No, I'm not. I'm demonstrating that you're using two different standards because I would imagine that any arguments you would use to defend your rebellion against the

Bishop of Rome and your identification of him as a false one would involve first going to texts that would specifically address the issue.

But you don't do that here. And so what I'm saying is... Well, no, I could quote passages from all kinds of books in the

Bible. I've written a book on this issue. Oh, that's nice. And the Bible itself says that man is not just.

It says in James chapter 2, verse 24, and there are a host of other passages. But the

Bible is infallible, you claim to believe that. I most certainly do. Have you read my book on justification? No.

Okay. All right. But I haven't read yours, so that puts us in the exact same boat. Okay. Well, so saying that another passage might say something else, the bottom line is that the

Bible is infallible. And so if we have the Bible clearly teaching that a justified believer could be in the camp with those who are losing their salvation, that is a definitive example of how your doctrine is not in conformity with Scripture.

Well, let me give you an example where the Bible actually addresses justification. It's actually addressing the subject and demonstrates that what you believe is a doctrine of demons, specifically.

You believe that a person can be baptized, vowedly baptized, and hence enter into a state of grace, but not gain justification.

That's your whole point, isn't it? A person who, yes, an adult, could receive the mark of baptism without receiving the character.

That's correct. Without receiving the justification. That's correct. If he puts a positive obstacle in the way, an impediment.

So could a person at one point be justified, but then lose that grace of justification?

I just quoted Ephesians 5 .5 .3, which clearly teaches that he can't. Okay. Except the term justification isn't in Ephesians 5, is it?

It doesn't matter, because you would agree that... Okay. Well, I just wanted to point that out. You're reading it into it, and everybody sees that.

Let me go to a text that actually does use the term, and let's see if your interpretation works. Well, it's obvious you don't have a response to Ephesians 5 .5

.3. Actually, anyone who's fair -minded realizes that I'm going to a text that talks about justification, and that demonstrates that since justification isn't even being discussed in Ephesians 5, it's an argument.

But again, here's the text. When we go to the actual work of God in Christ Jesus in Romans 8, we are told there that God works all things together for the good of those who love

God, those who are called according to his purpose. And then it says, For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his

Son, nor that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined, he also called.

And those whom he called, he also justified. And those whom he justified, he also glorified.

This is called the golden chain of redemption. Now, there is the actual term, and it is

God who is doing the justification. Justification is a divine action. And so those whom he called, he also justified.

And those whom he justified, he also glorified. Now, you just told me that there are those who are justified who will not be glorified.

So either your justification... Well, I can respond to that. He's speaking there in the context of those who are actually among the elect.

And in their case, they are justified, and they wind up being glorified. But that's not necessarily the case with every single individual who is ever justified.

And that's why the book of Romans itself teaches that believers, if they don't continue in goodness, will be cut off.

For instance, in Romans 11, it's speaking to believers, and it says, But toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness, otherwise thou also shall be cut off.

Why would he say that? Yes, Romans 11 is actually talking to Gentiles in comparison to the Jews. So you've just introduced a distinction here.

He's not talking to the Jews. Okay, I've let you make a presentation.

I'm going to respond to it. I've given you more time than I've taken. So this needs to be a dialogue, not simply preaching.

You're the guest, okay? I just want to make sure you understand that. You've just introduced a distinction where you have individuals who are not predestined, who are not called, yet are justified, and then don't become glorified.

Could you show me where Paul presents that? Because to be justified, since that's a divine act, has to be done on the same basis for all men.

That's the whole point of Paul's argument in Romans 3, 4, and 5, is that justification for anyone is all on the same basis of faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Okay, so you have some people, because they are of the elect, who are justified, and they therefore will be glorified, but evidently you have other people who have a different kind of justification?

Where is this justification discussed in Scripture? It's a gratuitous assertion, because you would have to prove that St.

Paul is saying that every single person who is justified is glorified, and he's not.

And just responding to what you were saying about the passage in Romans, which also contradicts your entire belief, he's not talking about unbelievers there.

He's talking about the believers, and he says, be not high -minded, but fear.

And he's speaking to them, the believers, and he says, you also shall be cut off unless you continue in goodness.

If you are assured of your salvation, if a believer can never lose his justification, he would never say that.

A couple of things. First of all, this is a wonderful example, and I really do appreciate your calling, so people can hear the vast chasm of difference between those people, because I've talked about this many times in the program, but having someone actually do it illustrates it far better than my describing it.

There are those who read the Bible in a God -centered way, and there are those who read the Bible in a man -centered way, and there are those who read text about salvation as something that God does, and there are those who read text about salvation as something that man does.

And this is one of the best examples that I can give, because I keep going to these texts where in Romans 8 you say

I've made a gratuitous assumption that all those that are justified are glorified. Well, that's what

Romans 8 .30 says. You gratuitously say, well, that's because you're just looking at the elect there, but there's these non -elect people that are truly

Christians, and I say, could you show me where there's anybody like that? And, of course, nowhere in Scripture do you have anyone who is non -elect who is going to be justified because the obvious reason that the non -elect are dead in their trespasses and sins and hence are never going to exercise saving faith in Jesus Christ to be justified.

But you're the one that keeps looking at these things, and you look at Romans 11 where Paul is addressing groups of people, specifically here the

Gentiles who are in danger of boasting against the Jews, and turn that into a text that then overthrows the rest of what

Romans 8 actually says when it says, What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all. Now, who is this us all?

Was Christ given up for all men? Or was Christ given up for different groups of people?

Who is this that is, how will he not with him also graciously give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

Those are the ones for whom Christ gave up his life. No, what is going on is in fact that you are applying your misunderstanding of certain passages and ignoring the entire tenor of the rest of Scripture.

If you look at the parables of Jesus, they have no meaning. Let's see if you can walk through Romans 8 with me.

Let's see if you can answer my questions. Who is the us? I don't think you did.

He who did not spare his own son. I know you don't want to go to anything else because you want to focus just on the one misunderstanding you have.

Well, show me the misunderstanding from the text. You don't want to go to anything else, such as the parables of Jesus.

That's what you can't do, sir. No, I responded by saying that you have not established or proven because it's not there.

Then let's walk through the text. I guess I can't finish the text. He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all.

How will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who is this talking about? Who is the audience? Did he hang up?

No, I'm here. Okay. I couldn't hear anything. Who is he talking about? Well, I mean, every time I try to speak, then I can't finish the sentence.

Everybody knows that that's not the case because they've been listening. And we do record this so people will know that's not the case.

Well, the last few times I've tried to respond, you have just interrupted me. That's a fact. And the tape bears that out.

But you're asking me about Romans 8. And I responded by saying that he does not say that every single person who is ever justified will, therefore, be glorified.

He's speaking of those who are, in fact, among the elect. They are justified and wind up being glorified.

And that's why we see in the Arabic text. Can I finish? No, you cannot. Of course, exactly, because you can't handle

Scripture. Sir, you are the one who cannot walk through this text.

Right. You can't even provide a semblance of a response to Ephesians 5. Okay, I just put you on hold because, obviously, everyone can see what's going on here.

I want to do exegesis. I want to walk through the text. You can't. As soon as you get to the point where the text is demonstrating your error, you jump to another text and to your interpretation of that.

I want to walk through the text. I want to ask you a question. You tell me that Romans 8 says,

I have not established that all those who are justified are glorified. Upon what basis? You said, well, this is just about the elect.

Okay, then. If this is just about the elect, I'm about to put you back on so you can answer this question.

If you want to answer this question, there's no reason to continue this because I think the demonstration has already been very well made as to who's doing exegesis and who isn't.

But here's the question in Romans 8 .32. He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all.

If you say that's only the elect, then are you agreeing with us that Christ has been given only for the elect and that how will he not also with him graciously give us all things only has to do with the elect

And then does that not then mean that only the elect can be justified, that there is no basis for justification for the others?

There's the question. Can you answer it from the text? Your question is, did

Christ die for all men? Yes, he did die for all men. So the us all in Romans 8 .32

is universal. Hello?

It includes the believers. He shed his blood for all men, which necessarily includes the believers, because they are part of humanity.

That doesn't prove that everyone who is justified is therefore glorified. And actually, if you look at the extended context of Romans, because the chapters, as you know, were put there afterwards.

And so if we look at the extended context, it's all throughout Romans that you can lose your salvation.

And that whether or not you have salvation is dependent upon whether or not you observe the laws of God, whether or not you continue in goodness.

And so the extended context, and even before that in Romans 2, it's clearly teaching you that unless you observe certain things, and it's not a given that a believer will do that, you will lose your salvation.

I honestly couldn't think of anything more opposite of what Paul actually teaches than what you just said. But again, I've got to bring you back.

I don't know why, as you pointed out, you don't like to talk about the parables of Jesus. I've got to bring you back to the text, because you just contradicted yourself.

And I think people find it very useful to see this. You, first of all, tell us that in Romans 8 .30,

that's just the elect. And so justification doesn't necessarily result in glorification for everybody.

But then, in the next sentence, you just abandoned the context of that being just the elect and made it universal.

What in the context indicates that all of a sudden things have changed?

Because the text itself says, who shall bring any charge against God's elect in verse 33?

So you keep... Exactly. You just made my point. Am I still on? Yes, you are.

Okay. Exactly. He's talking about the elect. You just made the point in verse 33. Who shall bring a charge against the elect?

What's the next phrase? Read the next phrase. I don't have it in front of me. It is God who justifies.

Right. He justifies those among the elect who will eventually wind up being glorified.

You just refuted yourself. And so the preceding part of the sentence that says, he who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all would be the elect, right?

What's your point? My point is that you can't walk through this text and keep making all the differentiations you do when the text doesn't allow you to.

I'm not making any differentiation. Yes, you did. Your entire point in Romans 8 .30 has been that that isn't a text that's relevant to whether God's justification is an eternal justification, that it is a divine act, and that it cannot fail because I'm limiting that solely to the elect.

And then you introduce the idea that there can be people who can be truly justified but are not of the elect.

And I'm saying to you, that distinction throws the entirety of Romans, all of Romans, and especially

Romans 8, into a complete uproar, and you have not been able to be consistent in following it. Right, which is why anyone who reads any bit of Scripture in depth who is honest, can see that there are many passages which clearly teach that a believer can lose his justification.

Well, thank you, Brother Peter. I appreciate you joining us on the program today. Oh, there you go.

Excellent, excellent example. Once you start making charges of dishonesty, I figure the phone call's over with because that just gets a little bit silly, but there you go.

Excellent, excellent example of how you can... There is the difference between a

Scripture -derived theology and one that is forced upon Scripture from outside.

Remember just, was it the last program? I think it was the last program that I went through John 6 and George Bryson.

And what is it about Arminians? They can't walk through John 6 beginning at the beginning and going to the end.

They can't do it. Why? Because their theology is derived from external sources rather than Scripture.

Now we just listened to an unorthodox Roman Catholic, a Sedevacantist, or they sometimes say

Sedevacantist, whatever, who therefore would not even be considered orthodox from the

Roman Catholic perspective, but hey, like I said, I'd love to hear Gerry Madetik's debate with Jimmy Akin or somebody like that.

It would be great. It would be awesome. But there you just heard someone who has a very man -centered...

Did you hear that? Romans teaches us about what we must do to fulfill... And you're sitting here, the whole point that Paul is making is the exact opposite of that.

And again, if we started, if we went through Romans 2, if we started Romans 1, if we just went through the text point by point, none of that would ever be substantiatable, but it's not exegesis that these folks do.

It's eisegesis. It's reading into the text. Help me understand his argument just a little bit, because in verse 30, he's saying that that is the elect, but somewhere between verse 30 and verse 31, it becomes universal?

It somehow became universal for 32, because it gave up for us all, and then goes back to the elect in the very next phrase in verse 33.

See, believe me, it is sadly unusual for these folks to be challenged to do what

I was just challenging them to do. So 32 is universal?

When it says gave him up for us all. So us all is a universal us all?

Well, Christ died for everyone, but that would include believers. I think that's what he said. But given the context of the passage, why would

Paul use the word us? Well, I can answer that, but I'm not going to try to answer for him.

The point is this. The point is this. Because it would make sense if he just simply said delivered him up for all.

Here it is. From their perspective, there are people who are justified who are not part of the elect. That goes back to Augustine.

There are people who are justified who are not part of the elect. That's the foundational error of the

Roman Catholic view of justification, because it does not understand what justification is. The only person who is justified is the person who has the righteousness of Christ.

The only way to have the righteousness of Christ is to be united with him. The only way to have that is to be amongst the elect.

So they have this distinction. This came out, believe it or not, in a debate with Gerry Matitix in December of 1990 here in Phoenix, where he agreed with John VI, but he said, well, that's just about the elect.

But we've got these other people who are also justified, but they are not of the elect.

Did you get the impression that the caller understood that you don't believe that anyone who's not elect can be justified?

Sure, of course. He understands that? Yeah, but he just rejects that. It's very clear.

See, the Roman Catholic operates on a much lower standard than we do in regards to exegesis, because you've got this external authority.

And so as long as you can find verses that sound like that, well, then that's good, because you're not having to derive your theology from the text.

Your theology is coming from an infallible source outside the text, and so then you find sections in the text that, well, that fits with that.

And see, it's real easy to go to text, like the warning passages, in Ephesians 5, for example. Do not partake with them.

Well, he assumed that meant that do not become like them in the sense that you then would somehow lose your salvation and justification is not even there, so on and so forth.

The warning passages in Hebrews, the warning passages all through the New Testament, are addressed to the people of God.

He's assuming that as long as someone is in the congregation, that means you're in, because from their perspective, baptism brings everybody in.

And, of course, that's where the problem is as well, because they don't have a biblical doctrine of justification that is involved with union with Christ, saving faith, coming from the

Spirit of God, you know, all the rest of these things. It's a package deal. There's no two ways about it.

See, I think that's where sometimes I disconnect when I listen to that conversation, because there's so many things that go by so fast, and in my brain,

I've got this worldview that not all who are sitting in church are in the church.

Right. Yeah, I understand that. I understand that.

But, again, it was useful to me, because even looking at the text in Ephesians 5, even looking at what was there, what does

Paul say? For at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Now, when you address that to the entire congregation, yes, that's very true of those who are truly in Christ.

But as Hebrews makes plain, as John made plain in 1 John 2, there are those who are in the congregation who do not have true saving faith, and they are the ones who will eventually go out from us.

So it might be demonstrated they were not truly of us. Those warnings are given to the elect so that we might know what

God's will is and what is pleasing in His sight, and if our nature has been changed, we will want to do what God has revealed is appropriate and pleasing to Him.

That's how the warnings function for us. So I appreciate that. I've not heard of his book, and evidently he's not heard of mine either.

I would love, again, I would love to compare what he says about James 2 with my entire chapter on James 2 and the

God who justifies. It would again illustrate the exact same thing, and that is one side got external authority.

I don't care what it is. You cannot walk through the text of Scripture and do so consistently.

You'll always have to engage in eisegesis. We just saw that. Great illustration of it. Thanks for listening to The Dividing Line today.