A comment on this mornings post that I thought needed to blogged.
This is very interesting! I am glad that Beeke and Jones brought this out. That being said I continue to maintain (in agreement with you, I am sure), that “justification in time” has no reference to the perspective of God. God is the one who justifies, and a forensic justification only has His satisfied pronouncement as a referent. Being chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), with our names written in the Lamb’s book of life “from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 17:8), crucified in union with Him (Gal. 2:20) who was slain “from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8), to enter into the rest of God’s works finished “from the foundation of the world” (Heb. 4:3), leaves no room for a justification that waits for a temporal pronouncement by the justifying God who transcends the temporal.
Case in point: Abraham’s justification must not be seen as suspended until the Cross lest the argument of its timing relative to his circumcision fall to the ground, nor was this necessary from the perspective of the Holy One who inhabits Eternity. One of the problems I see with the theological “slicing and dicing” from Goodwin is the attempt to see justification as both forensic and experiential. Another is that the completion of the work of redemption appears to be left to our response of faith. Sometimes what appears to be solutions have the potential to create worse problems. In the case of Abraham and other Old Testament believers the “applicatory” (3) is seen as occurring prior to that which is referred to as the “transient” (2). This is not a problem with a God whose justifying decree is eternal and transcendant, but certainly should be to theologians who are not considering it from His perspective. – John T. Jeffery