Featured The Faith of Abraham

No contradiction in the least except in your mind!! You are confusing me with Martin. Quote me where I ever said the metaphor "father" is the same for both God and Abraham? However, I did say if you don't have Abraham as your "father" in this contextual sense neither do you have God as your "father"! And I am still saying that.

Yes, that is what you have been saying and that is what you continue to say, but Paul is repudiating what you have been saying and what you continue saying by presenting the FATHERHOOD IMAGE of Abrahams justification for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH." Instead you are attempting to CHANGE the FATHERHOOD IMAGE of Abraham's justification to fit your theory rather than Paul's criteria of that image.

1. YOU SAY Abrahams justifiication image is incomplete and stays incomplete during his lifetime but Paul's Abrahamic fatherhood image of justification is a COMPLETED ACTION within his own lifetime.

2. YOU SAY Abraham's justificaiton image is "based on his actions" whereas Paul's Abrahamic image of justification is WITHOUT WORKS (Rom. 4:1-6) but based solely on God's promise and actions (Rom. 3:21).

3. YOU SAY Abraham's justification image is based upon "beliefs" PLURAL in addition to "faith" (...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). but Paul restricts the Abrahamic image of justification to "by faith" alone which is further defined in Romans 4:16-21 as simply RESTING in God's promises and ability to perform his promises and then directly applies that to the gospel promise (Rom. 4:22-25) of which the gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8; Acts 10:43) by which he saw Christ by faith and was "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) by faith.

So in reality you are REJECTING that the fatherhood image of Abraham's justification by faith set forth by Paul is for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH."

Your rejection is wholly based upon circular reasoning. You cannot defend your interpretation by asserting your theory as proof of your interpretation.

Arguments by circular reasoning! You use your theories as defense for your interpretative conclusions of Romans 4. However, it is your theories that are being questioned and debated. Hence, you cannot use your theories as your defense - that is oxymoronic!

Yes, and Paul says that Abraham's justification is a "I have" not an "I will":

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: - Rom. 4:11

Do you know the difference between "HAD"and "WILL obtain"???? Apparently not! Paul repudiates your theory!

Circular reasoning again. You cannot defend your interpretation by asserting your theory as proof of your interpretation.

No, that is not what you have been saying at all.You have been saying the complete opposite and here are your own words found in what you call a simple summary of the whole issue: "Abraham BEING justified for his faith based on his actions, beliefs, and faith, "

Your words contradict your claim! You have not been saying he was justified but claim he never was justified in his lifetime but was only "being" justified. You have not been saying he was justified without works but that he was being justified "BASED ON HIS ACTIONS." Your claim is repudiated by your own words.

 

No, his justifcation as a completed action by faith in the person and promises of God are without works is the fatherhood example presented by Paul and not your revised edited version.




↑

You said "beliefs" PLURAL and you ADDED that to "faith" when in fact all the scriptures you quote are proofs of justifcation "BY FAITH" which has for its object the Person and promises of God for justification. There are not PLURAL "beleifs" in addition to justification "by faith."

Yes, we are told and it was the gospel of Christ he embraced just LIKE US:

Gal. 3:6 ¶ 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.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

He demonstrated his faith in Christ of the gospel by the animal sacrifice designed by God to be a "witness" of the righteousness already obtained "by faith" in the gospel just as in the case of Abel:

Heb. 11:4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Take note, that Paul says "to Abraham and his seed" He saith not, "and to seeds, as of man, but as of one, And to THY SEED, WHICH IS CHRIST." God told him that his "seed" would be Christ and therefore, the gospel preached as noted in verse 8 concerning the "seed" was identified by God unto Abraham as "Christ" and thus Abraham saw Christ by faith in the gospel (Jn. 8:56-58) as God plainly told him the gospel "seed" was Christ and so Abraham was justified by faith "IN CHRIST" as verse 17 goes on to plainly say.

 

Who is speaking about salvation? Not I, not Paul, not James. We are all speaking about one and the same subject - justification. Paul denies justification includes works "before God." James is not speaking "before God" but before men and the evidences that justify the profession of justification by faith before men. So justification "before God" is without works, without plural "beliefs" but is the belief that God is able to perform his promise of justification through his declared gospel "Christ" provision - period! There are no other "beliefs" in addition to justifying faith which is the belief that Christ is the sufficient provision to justify them before God and Abraham is directly told by God that this promise is "in Christ" or in his promised seed which is Christ (Gal. 3:8, 16-17). Therefore, as Jesus said, Abraham saw him, not with the physical eye, but with the eye of faith in the gospel as preached to him by God.

More insults and ridicule? Readers know when a person has to stoop to this level it is because they have no other alternatives to win an argument.

Don't have to deny this scripture, just have to recognize what it really says and it does not say what you are forcing upon it. James is speaking about justification by faith as a profession before men which has no impact without evidential works of its reality. Whereas, Paul is talking about the occurence of justification before God which is wholly and totally WITHOUT WORKS or plural BELIEFS or any other kind of participating efforts by Abraham.

Your view is IN PRINCIPLE the Roman Catholic view as you explicitly said that Abraham's justification was "based upon actions, and beliefs and faith" and you have reinforced it by your interpretation of James above. Paul's model is simple - justification by grace alone (Rom. 2:24) through faith alone in Christ alone (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-25) without works (Rom. 3:27-4:15) by a faith that is defined as simply resting in God, and His ability to perform what he ha promised in the provision declared in the gospel - Christ.

 

lol

And the fact you will eventually realize, hopefully, is I have lined the row with points you cannot refute.

You err in regards to perfection, you err in regards to Eternal Redemption, you err in regards to Eternal Remission, you err in regards to the giving of promise and the realization of it, you err in regards to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, you err in regards to Regeneration, you err in identifying what it is I actually teach, and you err in the simple process of Christian Doctrinal Debate.

So, I'm okay to forego the use of Bingo!

Grand Slam works for me.

By the way, did you even stop to consider the point I said that too? Of course not, because your mind right now is eat up with the fear of the authority you feel you have being threatened.

Me, I am going to keep pushing you to a doctrinal discourse.

Here is the point again:

That has been my point all along, lol.

One is a model, one is in regards to Eternal Redemption which Christ came to bestow.

I still haven't seen anyone step up and say "Well yes...I have the spiritual DNA of Abraham."

Do you? Want to make that public announcement right now, Biblicist?

You do not dictate the context.

I have not been unclear in regards to Abraham being a father, nor have I waffled as you have and had to incorporate what my antagonist has stated which I previously tried to disprove.

You have no interest in being honest in this discussion, it is simply a matter of anger directed at me, and I can tell you who it should be directed at...yourself.

It's not my fault you have been a Christian all these years and have missed some very simple truths of Scripture. So don't vent your injured pride on me, if you don't mind.

The context that is important, I would think, would be the context in which my statement falls into. You think you can define what others believe and then debate with that, but as I have said before, you are debating yourself when you create false arguments and then proceed to give carnal lectures about your presumed understanding of your antagonist.

You should follow the model Martin has set for you,.

It wasn't a likeness, he was justified, lol.

It's a fairly simple teaching, Biblicist.

This is a false argument I have already called you on.

I have at no time stated that Abraham's being justified was an ongoing process.

What I have made distinct is that it is justification in view, not Eternal Redemption through Christ.

And it will do little good to ask you to quote me, because you have already shown that the only way you can carry on a conversation is to give your understanding of what your antagonist believes then run with it.

You have said I deny the Old Testament Saints were justified, or saved, and now you contradict yourself by saying I said they were justified as an ongoing process.

Quote me, that's all you have to do.

It's not an interpretation, Biblicist, its just a simple truth taught by James:


James 2:21-24

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?

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.


And your problem is that your mind replaces justification with eternal redemption, because you simply do not understand what James is teaching.

How exactly can we interpret this any other way. Abraham's justification was not just a matter of faith alone, and again, I would point out that...

...Abraham was not saved by faith.

He was saved by Grace.

And there is no conflict. Because neither are saying Abraham was saved by faith alone, or saved by faith and works, but that he was justified, that is, declared righteous because he believed God, he had faith, he evidence genuine faith in his works.

Nothing at all about Christ dying for his sin and the righteousness of Christ being imputed to him.

I can't make you understand that, only God can.

False argument. I am consistent in affirming that Abraham was justified by Faith Alone.

Okay, this is promising, you are now starting to incorporate the Promises of God into your speech.


But again you err tremendously, we are not saved by trusting in God's promises, we are saved by acknowledging the reality of the realization of those promises.

Abraham believed God, his faith was in God, and that faith and belief was evidenced when he acknowledged that God was faithful to keep His promise and displayed his faith by offering up his son. He knew that God would have to raise him from the dead to keep His promise, and so we see that his faith was in God Himself.

His faith was in the Person of God, not in the Promise itself. The Promise, which Abraham would never receive in his lifetime, was not the object of faith.

Well...which is it?

And that is a carnal understanding of faith.

The faith of the Just always has One source...God.

You make Abraham's faith out to be a looking for the receiving of things, when faith rests solely in the Person of God.

We do not turn to Christ in faith because we get something out of it, we turn to Christ in faith with simple acknowledgement that we are sinners, we need a Savior, and Christ is that Savior.

We do not look at not going to Hell as receiving something, but Christ taking something away.

Abraham, Biblicist, didn't have a "Doctrine of Justification," he was a recipient of justification.

That is, after all, why we call it imputed righteousness.

Okay, field goal, slam dunk, or even, lol, Strike works for me.

You choose.




God bless.

 

'But I tell you the truth; it is better for you that I go away, for if I may not go away, the Comforter will not come unto you, and if I go on, I will send Him unto you; John 16:7 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:39

Before the Holy Spirit, the Comforter could be received Jesus must go away in death and be made alive again, glorified with life. >>> Acts 2:31-33 having foreseen, he did speak concerning the rising again of the Christ, that his soul was not left to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 'This Jesus did God raise up, of which we are all witnesses; at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father --was he shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear;

Eph 2:8 for by grace (of life 1 Pet 3:7 which the heir of God the Son inherited by resurrection Heb 1:2-4 Acts 13:33) ye are having been saved, through (the, in TR) faith, (learned obedience unto death on the cross Heb 5:7,8 Phil 2:8 Obedience of Faith) and this not of you -- of God the gift,

You see this same grace of life by promise to the singular seed Christ in Gal 3:16,19.21 and 2:21 through the faith 3:14 through which the Spirit is received called the heading of faith in verse 2.

Titus 3:5,6 say the very same thing concerning the Christ. Mercy in V 5 is the faith, obedience unto shed blood see Rom 3:25 propitiation (mercy seat) through the faith in his blood, regeneration and renewing of Holy Spirit, (the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father) V5 he then shed abundantly through Jesus Christ our savior.

What does that do for us relative to good works? We now through faith have received the Holy Spirit. What about us? Eph. 2:10 for of Him we are workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God did before prepare, that in them we may walk.

But say may some one, Thou hast faith, and I have works, shew me thy faith out of thy works, and I will shew thee out of my works my faith: James 2:18

 

What does my statement have to do with an ongoing process?

And how is quoting James a revised edited version, lol.

You yourself acknowledge that Abraham was a model, did you not?

And that is what I have been saying all along, and you know this, so instead of just acknowledging your dander is up without cause, and that your argument was and still is foolish, you now have to create an argument where you think you are going to grammatically point out something I said that was in error.

I'll say it again...Abraham is not my father...God is.

Now you are just beginning to understand the context of my statement and need to do a little fancy footwork so you can continue to dodge the doctrine and continue in your smear campaign.

How's that going, by the way? Getting PMs of encouragement from others that hate me, Biblicist? I'll tell you again, you need to learn to recognize who your friends are. And I will say it again...I am the best friend you have right now on this forum, because I am being honest with you. One other member has done this as well.


Continued...

 

And a plurality of beliefs is in fact what is in view.

Abraham believed God on several occasions in regards to certain promises. His beliefs include inheritance of a land, that all families of the earth would be blessed through him, that he would be a father of many nations, that he would have an heir which was not the son of another.

Secondly we see a plurality of beliefs in regards to the differing dispensations, which has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Here is an example again:



Hebrews 6:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


1 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.


Back up to Chapter Five and learn what the Writer means when he says they have need that one teach them again that which be of the First Principles of the Oracles of God.

And remember this one...


Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)


1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


Is there a plurality of beliefs between Abraham, Moses, and those brought into relationship with God through Christ and the New Covenant, from which the reality of the realization of the Promises of God come into being?

Of course there are.

That is why you do not offer up the sacrifice of the blood of animals. Such a simple point yet you reject it as though your life depends on it, when the truth is...

...its just your System of Theology that depends on it.


Continued...

 

Can't you read or understand what you read? I explicitly state that the nature of God (moral likeness} we have is due to being "born of God" not due to any "similitude" we may have by natural birth! The new birth is the creative act of God whereby his righteous moral image is renewed in fallen man. Can't say it much clearer. Do you deny the new birth conveys the righteousness and holiness of God or what is the "new man"??? Anyone reading my statement would never imagined I was speaking of a natural "similitude" conveyed by natural birth? No one would imagine that I am speaking of relative righteousness, conscience, or volitional determination all of which are in the "similitude" of God conveyed by natural birth.

You are simply repeating my words and then placing YOUR OWN interpretation on my words when I supply my interpretation with in the very statement. Anyone can see I am speaking of the NEW nature conveyed by new birth which is the moral likeness of God or "righteousness and true holiness" that is not conveyed by natural birth.

And as far as Genesis 1:26 that "righteous" state was lost in the fall.

 

There is nothing in this that negates the simple fact that the Gospel of Christ was a Mystery.

You are not going to remove that great spiritual truth from New Testament Revelation.

And the only reason you try to do it is because Scripture is just getting in the way of your carnal doctrines.

Yes, this was the Gospel, and we know this...because God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.

He did not reveal the Mystery of the Gospel to Abraham.

He did not even reveal it to the disciples, because if He had...they would not be found in unbelief after His resurrection.

This is another point you have denied.

Now, if you could put your personal feelings to the side for a little bit, and address this point...it would be helpful.

Here are some Scriptures that verify the Disciples were unbelievers in regards to Christ's Resurrection after the Resurrection:


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

No emphasis added, just read this and comment on my point: Christ clarifies they were in unbelief in regards to His Resurrection.

Here is another to consider:


John 20

King James Version (KJV)

1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.


No emphasis added, just read it and comment on my point: they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead, and secondly...

...that Scripture was the Gospel found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

And the Lord told them specifically that He must die and rise again, yet they are found in unbelief after it happens.

Just address the Doctrine, Biblicist. That is what we are here for.


Continued...

 

Do you not understand the grammatical difference between the present tense "BEING" and the past tense "had"? Apparently not!

!

Here are my words, show the readers where I ever said you quoting James is a revised edited version?

He is the example of justification based on faith.

No, his justifcation as a completed action by faith in the person and promises of God are without works is the fatherhood example presented by Paul and not your revised edited version.

What I said, and it is clear in my overall context, that what Paul set forth as THE PATTERN or the FATHER IMAGE of Abraham's justification by faith you have revised, edited and thus rejected and I explicitly gave point for point. You know what I said and meant and yet dishonestly jerked my words out of the overall context which made it clear what I meant. This is another example of what I pointed out in the thread about dishonest debate tactics.

What I said was that Paul sets forth Abraham's justification by faith as the pattern for "all who are of faith" and provides detailed characteristics of that pattern thus the "father" or "image" of justification for "all who are of faith." That "image" as characterized in clear details you repudiate and reject as the "image" or "pattern" for "all who are of faith." I have pointed out the precise characteristics of that pattern you repudiate and reject so don't respond until you deal with each one.

You just admitted you are not a child of God, because you cannot have God as your "father" if you do not have "Abraham" as your "father" as each is contextually defined. They go together, one not being the same as the other but INSEPARABLE from each other.

 

I am glad you have adopted the point I have been making.

And readers can also tell when someone has a chip on their shoulder.

Not an insult, not ridicule, just a statement of a fact.

You have done nothing but present false arguments, questioned my faith, questioned my salvation, and it is quite apparent to the honest reader. I have continually tried to return this discussion to the Doctrine itself, and you have refused to do so.

I will pick one issue we can discuss and until you return to Doctrinal Discussion I will no longer seek to engage in Doctrinal Discussion.

Here is the issue: just comment on the point concerning the disciples being unbelievers in Christ's Resurrection after He arose.


God bless.

 

Again, what does this have to do with anything I said? I have never said Abraham's justification was an ongoing process.


God bless.

 

False and you know it! In EACH occasion listed by Paul in Romans 4 it is the same "faith" that is being defined the same way. A "faith" without works regardless of the promise. It is the nature of Justifying faith that is the SINGLE THEME of this chapter - faith without works. The cases are simply designed to illustrate that single point.

 

I am really starting to worry about you Biblicist.


God bless.

 

We are discussing beliefs, Biblicist, not faith.


God bless.

 

I believe Abraham did the works of righteousness because he was called by God. Called out of unbelief unto belief.Called of faith. Turned (repented), by God, from darkness unto light. His sins were not imputed to him.

For the purpose of God. The Word made flesh. the Son of God manifest in the flesh. Even that for Purpose. Destroy the works of the devil and thus redeem that which had been sold. Redeemed for adoption, as sons.

and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive; and because ye are sons, God did send forth the spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, 'Abba, Father!'

 

I will just make two comments, Percho:

1. Christ is the Promise, rather than Christ received the Promise;

2. Yoda like makes the YLT of statements of Scripture, hmmm? A clearer version for discussion use should you.





God bless.

 

I would agree with you.


God bless.

 

Give us a break! Do you expect anyone to believe this???? Are there any idiots in the reading audience today?

Oh yes, anyone who dares to expose your errors has a "chip on their shoulder." You summarized your own position and I have been quoting it verbatim while you have been reacting by redefining, backpeddling and using diversion tactics and the readers are well aware of.

And you made you "god" of the forum?

Of course, restrict it so that all other Biblical evidences cannot be used to expose your interpretative error of their response.

 

Okay, I will open up the question posed to Biblicist to any who might like to comment on my view that the disciples were unbelievers after the Resurrection of Christ. What this point does is show that the Mystery of the Gospel as taught in the New Testament is a critical point in understanding a distinction between justification, faith, and salvation.

I have presented two passages I use to present this simple truth in Post #49.

Anyone care to discuss it?


God bless.