• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

GOD'S OPERATIONS OF GRACE BUT NO OFFERS OF HIS GRACE pt2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You never did explain what you think I do not understand.
This thread is about The teaching offered by Joseph Hussey.
It is designed to go over and eventually critique it.
We are still going over it.
Do you want me to start a thread on what JonC does not understand?
I thought board rules do not allow that.
I tell you what, on a thread a couple of days back you posted something about the word elect only is used about people already saved, what thread was that?
I will comment there as to not derail this thread.Some want to work through this thread and not get distracted by you,George, and y1.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
This thread is about The teaching offered by Joseph Hussey.
It is designed to go over and eventually critique it.
We are still going over it.
Do you want me to start a thread on what JonC does not understand?
I thought board rules do not allow that.
I tell you what, on a thread a couple of days back you posted something about the word elect only is used about people already saved, what thread was that?
I will comment there as to not derail this thread.Some want to work through this thread and not get distracted by you,George, and y1.
I was talking about the article.
You said I did not understand.

What didn't I understand?
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I was talking about the article.
You said I did not understand.

What didn't I understand?
You only posted 2-3 posts on this article.the other posts are off topic.
Where did you make the comment on election?i will comment there.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You only posted 2-3 posts on this article.the other posts are off topic.
Where did you make the comment on election?i will comment there.
Most of my posts were about the article.

My point was that the author puts justification prior to faith and "proves" this by quoting a verse (or partial verse). You said I am looking at it as conditional because of the "might" in the passage. I explained it is one word in the Greek translated as "might become" (not conditional but NOT past tense....the Greek is aorist).

You are skipping through the article, looking for what you agree with, without pausing to consider what the man wrote or truly engaging the material.

You said I do not understand and it is sad.

Don't hijack your own thread. What do I misunderstand?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You only posted 2-3 posts on this article.the other posts are off topic.

I posted about 32 times on this thread. Of these, 23 we're directly related to the article and 9 we're responding to other members. (I may have missed a post or two).

We need to examine men being justified prior to their faith. The author of the article has a couple of errors in interpreting that passage.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Eternal justification in this...

"Now offers of Christ suit not with this doctrine of Eternal Union, but agree best with that doctrine of proud nature, which denies all sorts of Union before Faith."

Is that right? In my book on Puritan theology they go into the doctrine of "union with Christ" but point out that most of the Puritans did not believe in eternal justification. Have you found where Hussey believed in it. The article is so long I'm having trouble keeping track of what he says.

We need to examine men being justified prior to their faith. The author of the article has a couple of errors in interpreting that passage.

As long as that is what Hussey was saying. Union with Christ is not widely discussed but was a part of Puritan theology. And the Puritans did believe that there was a union with Christ that occurred prior to faith. But most of them did not believe that justification occurred prior to faith. They did not teach that union = justification.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Is that right? In my book on Puritan theology they go into the doctrine of "union with Christ" but point out that most of the Puritans did not believe in eternal justification. Have you found where Hussey believed in it. The article is so long I'm having trouble keeping track of what he says.

It’s right there in that quote my friend. :)

"Now offers of Christ suit not with this doctrine of Eternal Union, but agree best with that doctrine of proud nature, which denies all sorts of Union before Faith."
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
It’s right there in that quote my friend. :)

"Now offers of Christ suit not with this doctrine of Eternal Union, but agree best with that doctrine of proud nature, which denies all sorts of Union before Faith."

Yes, but what I not sure about is whether Hussey is saying that "Eternal Union" is equivalent to eternal justification. Theologically the reformers seemed all over the place on this. I know that the classic definition of a hyper-Calvinist would include a belief in either eternal justification or at least justification from the time of the crucifixion but have you seen explicit eternal justification in Hussey's writing? I'm not meaning this as a challenge it's just that there is such a volume of writing I'm having trouble keeping it straight and I don't remember having found it in this article. It is interesting though.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We are justified by faith, per Romans 5:1, so not before but at that very moment.

A mere 7 verses on down:

8 But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5

Blows my mind how so many are unable to see beyond their programming. You 'Reformed' are the worst.
 
Last edited:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Good point. The wrath was never really on them as they've been elect since eternity past.

By the way: few Calvinists ever face up to the fact that they were elect OUTSIDE OF CHRIST for they were chosen FIRST to be placed into Christ LATER.
We were under condemnation and the judgement of Adam until were saved, as were not born in a justified state
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing. I was asking JesusFan.

I learn from seeing how others express their understanding.

But since you volunteered....:Wink

What does it matter if our sin debt was paid before we were born and we were already justified?
None are born in a justified state, as all born into likeness of Adam, having sin natures and are all spiritually dead and lost
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I think the bottom line is the author of the article, Joseph Hussey, held an understanding that is outside of mainstream Calvinism (it is an extreme version of Calvinism). Most would consider it hyper-Calvinism. I have friends who are not Calvinists but instead hold a primitive Baptist doctrine that is in line with Hussey's thinking.

In terms of hyper-Calvinism, Hussey's view is very close (if not identical) to the early 19th century "anti-missions" movement.

I once was a Calvinist, but I never have been a hyper-Calvinist or a Primitive Baptist (although @tyndale1946 calls me primitive all the time :Tongue ). So obviously I disagree with the article.

That said, to be fair Hussey's view is the logical path for Calvinism (most just don't go down that road).
he seems to have held to eternal justification, which is not biblical, as all are born in a lost state until saved by the grace of God
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Yes, but what I not sure about is whether Hussey is saying that "Eternal Union" is equivalent to eternal justification. Theologically the reformers seemed all over the place on this. I know that the classic definition of a hyper-Calvinist would include a belief in either eternal justification or at least justification from the time of the crucifixion but have you seen explicit eternal justification in Hussey's writing? I'm not meaning this as a challenge it's just that there is such a volume of writing I'm having trouble keeping it straight and I don't remember having found it in this article. It is interesting though.
His views seems to be what PB and Hyper cals hold regarding salvation
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Is that right? In my book on Puritan theology they go into the doctrine of "union with Christ" but point out that most of the Puritans did not believe in eternal justification. Have you found where Hussey believed in it. The article is so long I'm having trouble keeping track of what he says.



As long as that is what Hussey was saying. Union with Christ is not widely discussed but was a part of Puritan theology. And the Puritans did believe that there was a union with Christ that occurred prior to faith. But most of them did not believe that justification occurred prior to faith. They did not teach that union = justification.
Hey Brother,

I am also working through his ideas.

From the article:

The term “in Christ” is used in scripture, under a diversity of comprehensive phrases, as in II Tim.2:1, “thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” Eph.1:3, “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” {Justification of the Elect is in Christ before believing.} We have, therefore, all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, conferred upon us in Christ our Covenant Head already. So II Cor.5:29, “to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.”

My "complaint" against his understanding is that it takes only a part of the passage in 2 Corinthians 5 and leaves out the continuation pointing to the reconciliation of men as a future reality.

Am I incorrect in understanding this to mean that the Elect are justified before believing?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
We were elected by the father unto salvation in Christ, but that was not achieved until saved by his grace
Then what happened at the cross? Do you not believe Christ paid your sin debt? If you are legally "debt free" in regards to sin (it was paid over 2000 years ago) then from what do you need saving? You were, legally, born without sin accounted to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top