Featured The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults"

James, there is not one word or statement in this confession that says sanctification is inclusive in justification. This confession clearly states precisely what James stated "are fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith."

I suggest you read them in their fuller context and go to their articles on Justification and on Sanctification to correctly represent them.

ON JUSTIFICATION

I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

For you to claim they believe exactly what I am condemning is inexcusable.

 

I have always taught that the evidence of regenerative faith is good works and I have never taught that regenerative faith, good works, or progressive sanctification is justification.

I have always taught that justification never occurs in a vacuum but that regeneration and justification are simeltaneous events, distinct from each other as actions, but not distinct from each other in time and that good works are the essential consequences of the new birth (Eph. 2:10) as the new birth and good works are in a cause and effect relationship.

There is no such thing as unrepentant salvation.

 

The "accursed" category is clearly delineated by the words "justification by works". It is the denial that all the works God required for justification of the believer were performed by Christ in his own body. To claim that ANY works performed in the body of the believer either prevent or obtain ultimate justification is to fall under that condemnation. The denial of eternal security is the affirmation that ultimate justification is prevented or obtained by works.

 

....and your evidence for this accusation is??

 

I assume you are referring to the phrase: " that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life."

The bible does say "without holiness no man shall see God" and good works are the fruits unto holiness. There is no such salvation in scripture without true gospel repentance and true gospel repentance is manifested in good works. Now how much good works is another question altogether as a child of God can range from Lot to Abraham in that category, but there is no such thing as a saved person void of all good works. That does not mean the good works are causal in obtaining eternal life or included in justification but they are the necessary evidence of regeneration and that evidence will be manifested either a change of attitude and/or action.

A faith that does not work is not saving faith but the faith of demons (James). However, that does not mean good works are inclusive in the doctrine of justification or that justification is progressive in nature.

The Biblical view is justification WITHOUT WORKS not sanctification or regeneration without evidential works.

 

However, the Bible is not speaking of the doctrine of election or the doctrine of regeneration or the doctrine of sanctification or the doctrine of the atonement, but is only speaking of the doctrine of justification is "without works." The doctrine of regeneration is "unto good works". The doctrine of sanctification is inclusive of works. The doctrine of election is inclusive of "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:13). Everyone believes in the doctrine of justification by faith, but not everyone believes in the doctrine as defined as justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS.

Did John Wesley or any of the others define their doctrine of justification by faith so that it excluded all works performed in the life of the believer, thus distinguishing justification from sanctification? Did they admit to justification as a completed action at the point of faith?

The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is the doctrine of eternal security as Biblical justification demands the bill has been paid in full not merely in part and that it is wholly conditioned on the works performed in Christ's own body not in His body plus ours.

The "accursed" classification is based upon the doctrine of justification which includes works performed in our bodies as determinate of forfeiture or obtaining a right standing before God.

 

Well, I am open to someone trying to substantiate that charge. So far, they make that charge not based upon my view of justification but my view of regeneration or sanctification. Just because I believe good works performed in my own body are the inseparable consequences of regeneration does not mean I believe good works done in my body is inclusive in justification by faith. However, if I define "faith" to be "faithfulness" then their charge would be just. Just because I believe sanctification is inseparable from "good works" performed in my own body does not mean I believe good works are included in Justification. However, if they could prove that my definitions of "imputed" or "faith" or "without works" or "works" or "justified" included what the Bible defines as works performed in the body of the believer then their charge would be just. If they could prove that my view of justification is not a completed action at the point of faith but is an ongoing progressive incompleted action then their charge would be just.

Let's be clear, the essence of the doctrine of justification by faith is that all works of obedience that obtain a clean bill of justification before God were restricted to and fully completed by Christ in his own body and not in the body of the believer. Any doctrine of justification that crosses that line from works in Christ's own body to works in our bodies falls under "another gospel" and "accursed" classification of the persons teaching it.

Are you saying that Weslely defined all the terms relative to the doctrine of justification to exclude all works (as scripture defines works) to be performed in and through the body of the believer? He did not include imparted righteousness into his definition of imputed righteousness? He did not include "faithfulness" in his definition of faith? He did not exclude Spirit caused good works from his definition of "without works"? He did not extend justification beyond the point of faith as a completed action?

 

I just read Wesleys sermon on Justification by faith and he repudiates the very essence of the Biblical doctrine as he bases it completely upon remission of sins while repudiating imputed righteousness. He clearly states that the person being justified "worketh not' and is "ungodly" only up to the point of forgiveness or initial salvation. He explicitly states that God does not look at him any differently than what he actually is by his own condition in the act of justification. Imparted righteousness is the only righteousness obtained by the believer at the point of conversion. Wesely repudiates imputed righteousness and thus repudiates the life of Christ as a substitutionary element in his doctrine of justification. He is preaching "another gospel" clear and simple.

 

4. Least of all does justification imply, that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply, that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth. Neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom, to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. He can no more, in this manner, confound me with Christ, than with David or Abraham. Let any man to whom God hath given understanding, weigh this without prejudice; and he cannot but perceive, that such a notion of justification is neither reconcilable to reason nor Scripture.


He saves from the guilt of sin, (and, at the same time, from the power,) sinners of every kind, of every degree: men who, till then, were altogether ungodly;...

It is true that Wesley claims sanctification and justification are two different works of God but what he does is remove from justification the doctrine of imputed righteousness and simply gives the sinner a clean bill of forgiveness in justification without any satisfaction of the righteousness required by by the same law of God that Weslely pardons him from the penalty of, whereas all righteousness is imparted in regeneration and manifested in sanctification and that determines ultimate rejection or acceptance into heaven.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/t...1872-edition/sermon-5-justification-by-faith/

 

I have been searching the web for D.L.Moody's view on eternal security and I cannot find anything where he repudiated eternal security. What I can find is where he repudiated the idea that unrepentant sinners can be saved and it seems that he is talking about professions void of any evidence of salvation rather than repudiating the doctrine of eternal security.

 

You are making a very basic mistake and misinterpretation of my position. Those capitals are used only to modify the doctrine of justification. I do believe that "good works" are inevitable fruits of the doctrine of regeneration (not justification) just as Ephesians 2:10 explicitly states. I do believe that "good works" are inevitable evidence of the doctrine of sanctification (not justification) as sanctification has no existence apart from works.

Either your own theology does not distinguish between justification and sanctification or between justification and regeneration or you are misinterpreting my position. Justification and only the doctrine of justification is WITHOUT WORKS. Justification is not regeneration and it is not sanctification. Justification is restricted to the works of Jesus Christ performed in his own physical body during his own incarnate ministry on earth and it is completely sufficient and finished WITHOUT WORKS of any kind, by any definition, that can be performed in and/or through our own physical bodies.

This has always been my position and by God's grace it will always be my position.