The Faith of Abraham

[Darrell C]

That's OK. No need to apologize.

No, there really was. I was in a hurry, and while I know you understood the context of my original statement which I repeated, I can see now that this is a contributor to the confusion that goes on, so good call, and it has been addressed, and we can move on.

Unless we can agree about being the children of Abraham there is really nowhere else to go because we shall be talking to each other at cross purposes.

What you are saying, and this is no misrepresentation, is that unless I agree with your perspective I will remain in error.

And that is not the case. Youa re taking an example and making it a reality.

There is absolutely no participation of Abraham in the Spiritual Union I have with God. No-one has the "spiritual DNA os Abraham," they either have the Spirit of GOd, or they do not belong to God.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is simply the fact unless you want to re-write a whole load of Scripture.

It can be considered a fact, but it does not make your position true. It is popular hyperbole I reject.

I will come back on the rest of your posts as I have time- probably not until tomorrow evening. My minister is going away on holiday for a few weeks and I have five sermons to prepare, and that has to take priority, I'm afraid.

That is absolutely true. So don't be afraid, lol.

Good luck with those, and I am sure God will bless your efforts.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Van's theology is entirely mad and, like many other people, I have had, regretfully, to put him on 'ignore;' the only person I have ever done that to in 15 years or more of being on discussion boards. Darrel has not described his theology to me in the terms you state, so unless and until he does, I will reserve judgement.

You are correct that Romans 4, and Abraham's position as father of those who believe, are basic to Reformed theology, which I firmly believe to be the only correct theology. I cannot accept Dispensationalism as correct, but I do not believe that it is a damning error. I expect to see large numbers of Dispensationalists in heaven. They will be readily identifiable: they will be the ones with red faces.

Martin, I was quoting Darrell When I said "being justified based on actions and beliefs and faith"

 

[The Biblicist]

Abraham is the "father" of "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH".Therefore in some sense he is the "father" of "all who are of faith." If Darrel denies Abraham is his father than he is admitting he is not "of faith."

By the way, Paul did not say this in mere reference to "faith" but "of faith" with regard to "justification. Abraham is brought into this dissertation on justification by Paul with regard to this verse:

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Abraham is brought into this picture with regard to this very verse and the grounds of boasting. The very same Greek word translated "boasting" in Rom. 3:27 is the very same word translated "glory" in Rom. 4:2. Paul argues that justification "of works" or by works gives grounds for boasting or glorying but justification "of faith" does not and Abraham is brought in to illustration that justification is "OF FAITH" and not "of works" and so there is no basis for boasting "before God" (whereas, works provides boasting before men).

Rom. 4:1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

So when Paul says that Abraham is the "father" of "all who are OF FAITH" he is referring to the point of debated introduced in Romans 3:27. Therefore the ellipses actually when filled in by context would read "Abraham is the father of all who are JUSTIFIED OF FAITH" as that is the point he is arguing in context from the very start.

So to say that Abraham is simply the model for abstract "faith" is wrong and is not contextually supported but is in reality a perversion of this context and complete ignoring of the actual contextual point Paul is debating.

Here is the thing, if Darrell is not a "child of Abraham" in this contextual sense - those who are in HIS IMAGE of justification by faith he is not a child of promise.

Moreover, the children of promise are not restricted to ethnic Jews as Romans 4:11-12 and 4:16 destroy the argument he is merely the "father" in this sense to ethnic Jews, but he is the father in this sense to gentiles. The idea of "father" conveys IMAGE and the contextual image being provided by the context is JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH WITHOUT WORKS or justification that is not "of works" but "of faith."

So any person on this forum that denies "Abraham" is their "father" image in this sense is admitting they are not a child of God or they are not "of faith."

Moreover, this cannot be restricted to pre-cross saints or restricted to post-cross saints but is inclusive of all saints in all ages because it is inclusive "OF ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and Abraham must be included or there is no "image" at all. Indeed, the very fact that Paul chose and identified Abraham as "the father" of all who are of faith is oxymoronic if he does not characterize that very image. Indeed, if he does not characterize that very image he cannot possibly be called "the father" of that image.

 

[Darrell C]

If Darrel denies Abraham is his father than he is admitting he is not "of faith."

lol


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Here is the thing, if Darrell is not a "child of Abraham" in this contextual sense - those who are in HIS IMAGE of justification by faith he is not a child of promise.

Oh, so your fascination with me has graduated to questioning my salvation.

Its okay, Biblicist, if you want to have Abraham as your father, you are welcome to.

Me, I will name the Only One Who can bring sons of God into being.

God is my Father, and if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with Him.

And while I am at it, do you affirm that you have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham?"


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

So any person on this forum that denies "Abraham" is their "father" image in this sense is admitting they are not a child of God or they are not "of faith."

Would all of the sons of Abraham please step up and renounce God as your Father?

Thanks in advance.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Some do not care for Biblical context and so they use the Bible and figures of speech any way they please rather than how the Biblical context defines them.

For example, God is not our "father" IN THE SAME SENSE as Abraham is our "father." The metaphor of "father" conveys the idea either of a begetter or an "image" (likeness).

It is not a contradiction to have both God and Abraham as our metaphorical fathers IF they are defined by their context. Indeed, a person is not a child of God if they do not have God as their "father" and Abraham as their "father" in the sense each is contextually defined.

Now, Darrell simply wants to ridicule and that is what people do when they don't understand something as that is their only defense, a poor one, but their only option.

Now, Darrell and I would both agree what the contextual defined "Father" is when it comes to God. We are "born of God" and we have the nature of God (moral likeness).

However, the context for Abraham as the "father" of all true children of God is not about a begetting source or the likeness of a moral nature.

Abraham is set forth as the "father" of all true children of God in the sense of LIKENESS when it comes to the doctrine of justification by faith and not "of works." In other words, if you are really justified before God you were justified IN THE SAME LIKENESS or the SAME WAY as Abraham.

Paul is intentionally setting forth Abraham as THE MODEL after which all children of God are justified as a completed action, excluding works, excluding beliefs, thus excluding anything and everything that originates within and through (I changed "without" for "through" because by the word "without" I was referring to EXTERNAL words and actions by your person) YOUR OWN PERSON (see Romans 4:18-21). Justification has no basis in you or what you are or what you do but in Christ and who He is and what He does.

 

[The Biblicist]

If Romans 3-5 and the Pauline doctrine of justification was interpreted by the Reformers according to how either Darrel or Van interprets justification in these chapters there would have been no Reformation as the very essence Darrell's interpetation of Romans 4 is precisely IN PRINCIPLE the Roman Catholic interpretation of Romans 4 and sacramentalism. Rome defines justification in these chapters not as a completed action but as an incompleted action. Romes defines justification in these chapters not excluding works but based upon works, beliefs and faith.

In essence, Rome would gladly embrace Darrel's view that Abraham was "being justified based upon actions, beliefs and faith." That definition is the very foundational error upon which Roman Catholicism stands and its whole structure of soteriolog rests.

Ask Darrel if the Reformation could have occurred if the Reformers embraced his interpretative view of Abraham and the doctrine of Justification in Romans 3-6. Ask him!

 

[The Biblicist]

Darrel has not described his theology to me in the terms you state, so unless and until he does, I will reserve judgement.

Martin, Darrel has described his theology to you in those exact terms and it is found in post #68 addressed to you and here are his exact words to you:

"...there is a difference between Abraham being justified for his faith based on his actions, beliefs, and faith, and one being justified by the Blood of Christ.

Its that simple." - Darrel in a post to Martin marprelate in the thread entitled "Dishonest Debate Tactic" (Emphasis Mine not Darrel's).

This is how Darrell interprets Romans 4 with regard to the justification of Abraham. So I ask you again, if the Reformers had embraced this conclusion by Darrel of Abraham's justification in Romans 4 could the Reformation have occurred?

This is the issue I have been debating Darrel over as our whole debate ultimately rests on Abraham's justification and how it relates to post-cross saints. You rebuked me for making this very point an issue as you considered it a non-issue. Do you think the Reformation was a non-issue, as it is this very same issue that was the center of debate between the Reformers and the Catholic Church. The Catholic church, in principle, interpreted Abraham's justification precisely the very same way as Darrel.

If Darrel's view is correct than Rome was right and the Reformers were wrong as the whole reformation was based upon justification by faith and Romans 4 was the very center of that debate.

So again I ask you, is Darrel's interpretative conclusion of Abraham's justification a non-issue? This issue determines Darrel's whole position about pre-cross saints. If he is wrong here he is wrong altogether and he knows it. If Abraham was justified as (1) a completed action; (2) without works (3) based upon his faith in the promise of God "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) and this is the model for "all who are of faith", thus all before, as much as after the cross, then Darrel's view collapses.

 

[Darrell C]

For example, God is not our "father" IN THE SAME SENSE as Abraham is our "father."

Bingo.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Ask Darrel if the Reformation could have occurred if the Reformers embraced his interpretative view of Abraham and the doctrine of Justification in Romans 3-6. Ask him!

Why don't you ask him, lol.

But first, why don't you state what it is Darrell believes.

Until you can actually understand your antagonist, Biblicist, you will never be able to dismantle his doctrine. And you have shown repeatedly you have no desire to understand your antagonist, but will simply create false arguments so you can have something to premise your carnal lectures.

I will just say this in regards to the Reformation: reformation is not revival. Reformation is not rebellion. Luther had no intention of addressing all of Rome's error, just that which did not sit well with him.

But since you know what it is I believe, please state that, and if you are correct, we will discuss it. But if you are not, I will require quotes to see what it is I said that has led to your conclusion. It is entirely possible I have said something that was not stated well, but, I will also say that most who I debate with are fairly clear on where I stand in regards to most issues.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

"...there is a difference between Abraham being justified for his faith based on his actions, beliefs, and faith, and one being justified by the Blood of Christ.

Its that simple." - Darrel

These are your own words are they not? Is it just "that simple" from your perspective or is it not or are you lying? You are saying Abraham was not justified as a completed action but is "being" justified are you not? Yet Paul in Romans 4 repudiates your view as he not only uses a completed action verb when he speaks directly of Abraham's justification (v. 11 aorist tense verb) but he restricts that completed action within the time frame of his uncircumcised life (vv. 9-10) thus wholly repudiating your very words.

You are saying that Abraham's justification is "based on his actions" are you not, when Paul says repeatedly and explicity Abraham was justified "WITHOUT WORKS."

You are defining Abrahams justification "for his faith" as inclusive of actions when Paul explicitly denies that definition of justifcation "by faith" in Romans 4:16-21 where justifying faith is isolated from any kind of action by Abraham or Sarah but wholly based upon God's actions and promises:

And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. - Rom. 4:21

Here is Paul's definition of faith, persuasion that what God promised, God was able to perform it. In contrast, Paul denies any inclusion of Abraham's actions inherent in this kind of "faith" as he describes Abrahams ability to act as "dead" with regard to this promise or ability to perform it.

19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:

Abraham had NO ABILITY TO ACT with regard to this promise of obtaining a child through natural birth. So faith as defined here was completely passive with regard to taking any action or producing any action but completely reliant upon God's action or ability to perform this promise WITHOUT THE AIDE of Abraham. Thus again proving the faith in justification is WITHOUT WORKS.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

[[QUOTE-"The Biblicist"]
For example, God is not our "father" IN THE SAME SENSE as Abraham is our "father."

Bingo.[/QUOTE]
Well Duh! Do you really believe that I or any other sane Christian thinks that Abraham is our 'father' in the same way God is?
Why don't you do us all a big favour and tell us in what sense, if any at all, Abraham is your father and stop playing Twenty Questions with us?

If the answer is 'in no sense at all,' then perhaps you will tell us how you interpret Romans 4:1, 11-12; Galatians 3:7, 28-29; 4:2. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

 

[Darrell C]

Now, Darrell and I would both agree what the contextual defined "Father" is when it comes to God. We are "born of God" and we have the nature of God (moral likeness).

Stop.

We do not agree...at all.

Having the "nature of God" is not a carnal doctrine of moral likeness, all men have that to some extent:


James 3:8-9

King James Version (KJV)


8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.


"Having the nature of God" as born again new creatures refers to our very union with God.

And it is the very promise of God:


Ezekiel 36:27

King James Version (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Why that is different, Biblicist, is due to the fact that your understanding places man's moral likeness in the realm of man's attributes, whereas my own view keeps it squarely attributed to God...alone.

If there be good works we do, it is not because we do them in ourselves, it is because of the fact that Christ is in us. We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works.
So do me a favor, do not imply our understandings are similar, because they are not.

Lord forbid someone think that I view Regeneration as you do. We are regenerated by the very Eternal Indwelling of God, and we hsare of His nature and are His children on an Eternal and Spiritual level...not a moral level.

However, the context for Abraham as the "father" of all true children of God is not about a begetting source or the likeness of a moral nature

Not only do you contradict yourself, you are now starting to teach my view.

Good job!

Abraham is set forth as the "father" of all true children of God in the sense of LIKENESS when it comes to the doctrine of justification by faith and not "of works." In other words, if you are really justified before God you were justified IN THE SAME LIKENESS or the SAME WAY as Abraham.

And that is true. That is why Abraham is given as a model.

But, as I have tried to make you understand before, there is a difference between Abraham being justified for faith under the First Principles of the Oracles of God, and ourselves being justified by the Blood of Christ.

A few distinctions would be in regards to the Promises we have received which Abraham did not. Abraham did not receive the Promised Spirit. Abraham did not receive the Promised Eternal Remission. Abraham did not receive understanding of the Mystery of the Gospel.

There is a difference between "I will" and "I have."

Paul is intentionally setting forth Abraham as THE MODEL after which all children of God are justified as a completed action,

And that is where your understanding fails: you do not yet understand that Abraham was not made complete.

Justified, yes, but he was not made complete in Christ. Not until Christ died for him.

One can be justified in Old Testament Economies but it is not until they are made complete that Eternal Redemption is obtained. Abraham is one of the Just spirits made perfect." And despite being justified, Abraham still needed the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ.

Paul is intentionally setting forth Abraham as THE MODEL after which all children of God are justified as a completed action, excluding works

And that is precisely what I have been saying, lol.

He is the example of justification based on faith.

Christ is the source.

excluding beliefs,

Not at all:

Romans 4:3

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations



Galatians 3:6

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations



James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Abraham's justification was based on the fact that he believed...God. And we are told what he believed. And it was not on the shed blood of Christ. I have presented the indisputable fact that not even the disciples of Christ were trusting in the Risen Savior after He arose, so it makes little sense to try to say they were believing on Him prior to the Cross, and even less sense to contradict the Word of God and impose understanding of that which was not revealed to Ages and Generations, but is now revealed to the Saints.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

thus excluding anything and everything that originates within and through

And that is precisely what I have been saying.

The fact that James states (clearly) that Abraham was not justified by faith alone has nothing to do with Abraham's salvation, it has to do with his...

...justification. That model is set forth for a reason, Biblicist.

James' is not trying to tell his audience how to be saved, he is trying to tell them that genuine faith is evidenced by works which are the result of faith and belief.

The point is this: James is saying, "If you want to be justified before men, as Abraham is/was, then your faith will be like unto his, which was evidenced by the fact that his belief resulted in the action which showed it was real. It was not empty words, it was genuine faith and belief."

thus excluding anything and everything that originates within and through (I changed "without" for "through" because by the word "without" I was referring to EXTERNAL words and actions by your person) YOUR OWN PERSON (see Romans 4:18-21).

And I have never said anything in regards to salvation is generated from within ourselves, it is simply a consistent teaching of mine that Salvation is wholly the work of Holy God. I consistently teach that no man is saved apart from the Divine Intervention of God, that no man has ever come into relationship with God by getting up and going out to find God. I consistently teach that God has always first enlightened the natural mind to spiritual things through that intervention, and distinguish the very revelation provided to men through that process as, in regards to Redemptive Knowledge...progressive.

Maybe if you would knock that chip off your shoulder and start behaving like a rational adult...you might actually come to know what it is I teach.

Until then, you will continue to, as I have said before...argue with yourself. And you will, I assure you, get encouragement from people you think are your friends, but as I have said...they are, right now, your worst enemies. Because they are encouraging you in this course of action which is limiting you from engaging in profitable discussion and debate.

Justification has no basis in you or what you are or what you do but in Christ and who He is and what He does.

And the problem with this is it does not take into account that Abraham's justification is related to his belief and action. You are not going to be able to deny that, it is simply too clear.

Your problem is that you equate Abraham being justified by his faith with salvation. Abraham was not saved by his faith, he was saved by the Grace of God.

Your doctrine teaches that Abraham was saved by faith through grace, and that is error. If James, an inspired writer of Scripture, states that Abraham was not justified by faith alone...


James 2:20-24

King James Version (KJV)


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


...who are you to deny that?

But here is what you are doing...you are confusing justification by faith with Redemption itself.

Why does James say Abraham's faith was made perfect by works? It's very simple...the application has a temporal perspective. God did not ask Abraham to offer up his son so He could be sure Abraham was a man of faith, He asked him to offer up Isaac so Abraham could understand he was a man of faith.

We have to distinguish the temporal and physical nature of the Old Testament with the Eternal and spiritual nature of the New.

If we equate justification with salvation without distinction, then we must conclude, as do Catholics and numerous groups...that Abraham was saved by works.

And that is error.

So when you can understand that Abraham was saved by Grace through faith, you will understand that Abraham was not saved by faith through Grace.

That is what you are teaching, and you completely destroy the Gospel of Jesus Christ when you do.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Bingo.

Obviously you do not know how to play "bingo." It takes complete domination of the whole row on a bingo card to be able to say "bingo." You lost the game because if Abraham is not your "father" in this contextual sense then God is not your "father" either! Bingo! Before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it again, read what the contextual meaning of "father" means. It means that "ALL who are OF FAITH" are justified precisely after the "image" Paul sets forth concerning Abraham's justification in Romans 4. Abraham's likeness of justification by faith repudiates your interpretation of his justification. Your interpretation says it is an ongoing process ("being justified") but the image Paul presents is a completed action within a completed timeframe WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME OF ABRAHAMS LIFE TIME - "in uncircumcision." Your interpretation says his justification was "based on his actions" while the image Paul presents is "without works." Your intepretation says his justification was "for his faith" while the image Paul presents is "by his faith" which has God's promise and power as its sole object (v. 21) or a faith that embraces God's power to perform God's promise. The kind of Abraham "faith" image that Paul presents always RESTS upon an OBJECT and is never an action with regard to the abrahamic doctrine of justification (v. 21).

So, no "bingo" for you my friend!

 

[The Biblicist]

Stop.

We do not agree...at all.

Having the "nature of God" is not a carnal doctrine of moral likeness, all men have that to some extent:

Since when are you the authority on what I mean by "moral likeness"??? Quote me saying the moral nature in the likeness of God at new birth is the same as what man obtains by natural birth or the natural similitude of God by natural birth is the same as the moral nature received at new birth! Paul says precisely what I mean - "there is none righteous no, not one" and he is speaking of the righteousnes demanded by the Law to be justified by the Law (Rom. 3:9-20) or the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:21) found only manifest in one man Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22) and obtained only by new birth:

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

The new birth imparts that moral nature or likeness by a creative act not by natural birth as you are suggesting is my position:

2 Pet. 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Eph. 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Co. 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

The new birth is the creative act of God that produces a new inward man created in "righteousnes and true holiness" that did not exist by natural birth or by natural "similitude" nor is it RELATIVE righteousness.

 

[Darrell C]

Well Duh!

lol

Do you really believe that I or any other sane Christian thinks that Abraham is our 'father' in the same way God is?

Not really, no, lol. That is why I make the distinction, because while you know that Abraham is not a contributor to salvation, but a recipient, and that his faith is set forth as a model, your statements can confuse people.

Martin, you need to retract your statement that we have "the spiritual DNA of Abraham." This is a horrible concept to place in the minds of those young in Christ and new to Bible Study.

We have the Spirit of God in salvation, and that is the very heart of Salvation in Christ. Abraham was a sinner in need of the same Remedy you and I were, and when we consider his faith we can take from his life the realities of believing God, how man comes to that point, and the results that follow.

I think you very sane, brother, just a little too invested in trying to justify certain teachings which can confuse some things.

Why don't you do us all a big favour and tell us in what sense, if any at all, Abraham is your father and stop playing Twenty Questions with us?

Well, now, that would be refreshing, wouldn't it...allowing me to be the one to state what it is I believe.



And I have already told you...Abraham is not my father. In the spiritual sense of this model my father would be a man named Joe. He is the one that set a pattern of faith and belief in God, and the one that "begot me" as Paul begot children.

Paul stands more as a "father" to me, because Paul is a born again believer who comes from a shaded past. And there is a big difference between Paul's example and Abraham, because we are dealing with two entirely different dispensations. Abraham's faith falls under the First Principles of the Oracles of God, Paul's faith falls under divine enlightenment only seen in this current Age. That is just a fact. The Mystery of the Gospel was not just withheld from Gentiles, it was withheld from everyone. No eye saw, no ear heard, and it entered into no man's heart the things which God prepared for those who love Him.

If the answer is 'in no sense at all,' then perhaps you will tell us how you interpret Romans 4:1, 11-12;

I would say...


Romans 4

King James Version (KJV)


1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


...be very careful not to miss "as pertaining to the flesh," or you might make the mistake that Paul is saying that Abraham's justification is equated to his salvation. The distinction is the positional righteousness of Abraham which was imputed, not based on works, but simply because he believed God. Abraham has no cause to boast for his actions, because prior to Abraham even being in relationship to God...God called him. God chose him. God enlightened Abraham to His will and Abraham was obedient. That obedience is tied to his faith, Martin, just as the disobedience of the Children of Israel is tied to their unbelief.

Just as we must in James, even so here we have to clarify the temporal nature as it pertains to the declaration of righteousness in regards to Abraham (which does have an eternal perspective).

Question 22: what does verse 3 say is the reason Abraham was justified?

Question 23: Is this identical to trusting Christ and in His specific Work revealed through the Spirit to the natural man?

I can't justify my own views, Martin, if you do not answer the questions I pose to you.


11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:


12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.


14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:


We have to maintain the framework in which Paul's teaching is given, which contrasts the Covenant of Law with the economy Abraham dwelt in. Even Pre-Law circumcision was commanded and given as a sign of the Covenant, but Paul's focus is on the Law itself, in relation to the Promises of God.

And Martin, this is one of the elements completely ignored by most who reject some of the positions I hold: the significance of the Promises of God and how they relate to Eternal Redemption.

Now think about this: why did God make promise unto Abraham? Because he believed God? No...God intended to redeem mankind the same Way all along. Was Abraham justified because he trusted Christ as Savior? No, he was justified because He trusted God as Savior. Similar, but not the same thing. This is why the Writer of Hebrews rebukes those among his brethren (Hebrews) who were not only ignorant of Christ, but ignorant of what the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ meant. That is why he exhorts that they progress to Perfection, or, completion which was brought through the very Work of Christ:


Hebrews 5:10-6:3

King James Version (KJV)


10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

6 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.


I have asked a very simple question numerous times in these debates, and while I think I have asked you, whether or not I have, I will ask you now...

...is the Jew today, who understands the First Principles of Christ and trusts that Messiah will redeem Israel...

...saved?

Is faith in God through His Word enough for a man to be reconciled to God on an Eternal Basis?

Please answer that question for me.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

; Galatians 3:7, 28-29; 4:2

Great verse to consider in the context of this discussion:


Galatians 3

King James Version (KJV)

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.


Your proof-text.

But you are not distinguishing the differences between Abraham's justification and the justification we have through Christ.

Let's back up to how Paul defines their salvation, of which justification is an element, not salvation itself:


Galatians 3

King James Version (KJV)


1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?


Paul is preaching Christ crucified, and the passage is not centered on justification by faith, but, receiving the Spirit of God by the hearing of faith. That is specific to this Age, Martin. Abraham did not receive this Promise, that is...the Promised Spirit. He did not come until Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5).


4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.


Again, what is Paul's central focus? Paul contrasts the idea that one is made perfect (and this use of perfection deals with progressive sanctification, not positional) through works as opposed to being made perfect through the Ministry of the Holy Ghost. In view is the Minister of the New Covenant leading men to salvation in Christ, and this is accomplished through the preaching of Christ, as it always is. The result is not simply justification, but the reception of the promised Spirit.

Which again leads back to God as the source for salvation.

The parallel is not that Abraham was saved in identical fashion, but that Abraham's faith is identical to that through which these people received the Spirit.


7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.


In other words...the children of promise, made clear in many passages that heritage is not why one receives the Promise, nor is it how they are made perfect.

Now, let's see how this is different from what James is teaching (Paul speaks of Eternal Redemption, James speaks about justification):


Galatians 3

King James Version (KJV)


2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?


His point is this: receiving the Promised Spirit (not being justified) is the focus, and one's salvation is not made perfect through works.

Now contrast that with James' statement:


James 2:21-22

King James Version (KJV)


21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


His point is...Abraham's faith (not his salvation) was made perfect by his works.

See the contradiction that arises if we do not distinguish between faith and salvation itself?

Salvation is, Martin...made perfect by and through Christ Alone.

Abraham's faith was made perfect through his works.

Equating the two leads to serious confusion concerning Abraham's role as an example, because it fails to distinguish salvation being made perfect and faith being made perfect.

And none of that, brother...changes the fact that Abraham was saved by Grace through faith, not faith through Grace. Before Abraham could believe God, God had to reveal something that Abraham could believe in. Before Abraham could exhibit faith in God, God had to call Him.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

You are quite welcome.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Since when are you the authority on what I mean by "moral likeness"??? Quote me saying the moral nature in the likeness of God at new birth is the same as what man obtains by natural birth or the natural similitude of God by natural birth is the same as the moral nature received at new birth!

Since you invited me to dissect your carnal lectures.



Here is the quote:

Now, Darrell and I would both agree what the contextual defined "Father" is when it comes to God. We are "born of God" and we have the nature of God (moral likeness).

And you might want to reread what I said, because the point was not "saying the moral nature in the likeness of God at new birth is the same as what man obtains by natural birth or the natural similitude of God by natural birth is the same as the moral nature received at new birth," but that we have a "moral likeness to God in regeneration."

This ascribes to man the attribute of having that moral likeness, when the fact is that it is not a likeness, it is in fact the nature of God Himself due to Eternal Indwelling.

Not man's.

God does not impute this quality into us, that quality is attributed to God's indwelling.

Here is man's condition Pre and Post Fall:


Genesis 1:26-27

King James Version (KJV)


26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Genesis 5

King James Version (KJV)


1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

Now let's see what happens in new birth:


Ephesians 4:20-24

King James Version (KJV)


20 But ye have not so learned Christ;

21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.



Colossians 3:9-10

King James Version (KJV)


9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:


The simple point is that regeneration is not just a matter of reformation, it is a change of nature which is the result of the believer being placed in Christ, and Christ in us.


God bless.