The Faith of Abraham

[The Biblicist]

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


God bless.

You never said abraham was "being" justified? You never denied actual justification of Abraham IN HIS LIFE TIME, particular in the "uncircumcision" of his life time? You never asserted he was never justified "completely"? Give us a break and try to be honest for a change because your posts are packed full of these statments.

 

[Darrell C]

Give us a break! Do you expect anyone to believe this????

Not really. Doesn't change the fact that it is true.

Would this...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...suffice?

And you made you "god" of the forum?

No, just the voice of clarity and reason.

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

I wish I had a worthy antagonist that would actually debate the points I raise.

Got any suggestions?

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.

Right, except you cannot find a quote to justify your charge that I deny Old Testament were saved, justified, or that I have been saying that we are discussing justification which your mind equates to salvation in Christ, thus nullifying the distinctions Scripture makes between the giving of promise and the receiving of the promises.

Okay, Biblicist, you're right, you have every right to make these charges and to deny my very salvation.

Just kind of hard to debate against the wit you bring to the table.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Darrel's choice issue of debate has already been thoroughly refuted several times. His "mystery" of the gospel had nothing to do with the completed justification of Abraham or any other pre-cross beleivers in the gospel including the apostles. In EVERY context where the "mystery" is found it is specifically identified as God's redemptive purpose of the gentiles to be on equal status with Jews especially in the church - equal membership. He quoted the passages and in each quotation the contextual application to the genitles is made perfectly clear.

Their complete justification was obtained by faith in God's Person and promised Christ gospel provision and ability to perform that promise. The details of progressive revelation were never required to be understood until they were fulfilled. An example is the second coming of Christ. It is an essential of the faith to believe in His physical bodily return from heaven. However, it is not essential for us to understand all of the yet unfulfilled details in order to believe in His physical bodily return. These details may include the timing of his coming in reference to other future events, all all the details concerning the millennium or the tribulation period or precisely how all these events relate to one another or His coming.

The same could be said about the first coming. Very few understood the details of his first coming and all the related events and how they worked together or even recognizing the distinction between coming as redeemer distinct from coming to rule over this present world. However, they did believe in his coming and that was the critical aspect of faith.

The same is true with regard to the gospel of Christ. The critical aspect was faith in him as the redemptive provision for their sins (Acts 10:43) all other yet unfulfilled details were not essential to justification until they were fulfilled. At whatever stage of progressive revelation (God revealing that specific detail IN THE HEART) the gospel was always sufficient as is to completely justify the believer.

 

[Darrell C]

You never said abraham was "being" justified?

A simple quote will clarify whether you are being honest or not.

I did use the word "being" but it is a past tense use of the word, but your mind, scrabbling for something, anything, to continue your smear campaign cannot understand that. But its okay, Biblicist, I forgive you.

You never denied actual justification of Abraham IN HIS LIFE TIME, particular in the "uncircumcision" of his life time?

A simple quote will clarify whether you are being honest or not.

You never asserted he was never justified "completely"?

A simple quote will clarify whether you are being honest or not.

Give us a break and try to be honest for a change because your posts are packed full of these statments.

Who is us? lol

Can you not stand on your own two feet? Do you really have to have someone backing you up to engage in discussion?

Just because someone agrees with us doesn't make something valid or invalid, Biblicist.

Okay, out of time, amuse yourself.

And if you ever get the courage to address the challenge, let me know. Again, comment on the point I raise about the disciples being unbelievers after the Resurrection, and the Scripture that so clearly shows that.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

An example is the second coming of Christ.

You defeat your own statement by using another Mystery of the New Testament to deny one of the points I have raised, lol.

Good job.


God bless.

 

[percho]

Biblicist

You may have me on ignore but would like to ask your opinion on this thought.

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

For the sake of debate or argument, which ever, let's say Abram said, not me. What would God have done, gone to the next on his list? I don't think so. In other words, I believe from the moment God called Abram he was justified. Abram was going to become Abraham. I actually believe it was in his genealogy back to Adam and forward to Christ.

What are your thoughts?

 

[The Biblicist]

Not really. Doesn't change the fact that it is true.

Would this...

No, they would not and for obvious reasons.

1. Redemption has no value apart from justification and justification has no value apart from redemption. One cannot exist apart from the other. To be redeemed FROM THE LAW is to be justified or removed from under the condemnation of the law due to sin and lack of righteousness. Where one does not exist neither does the other and where one exists so does the other. The "blood" is the legal basis, but before the cross God counted faith in the promised redemptive provision as redemption because God does not view time as we do, his is an eternal presence and so God sees no time problem between pre versus post cross saints and the cross.


2. Justification IS one aspect of salvation. It is that aspect of salvation that actually saves from the condemnation of the law. Where there is no justification there is no aspect of salvation present or possible. Justification IS what legally obtains entrance to heaven and salvation from hell.

3. Your quotes simply confirm what I said. You do not believe justificaiton of pre-cross saints was "completed." We know their FULL salvation was not completed (glorification) but their justification was completed at the point of faith, their regeneration was completed at the point of faith, their progressive sanctification was being completed throughout their life only to find full completion in the resurrection. - Hence, they are waiting for that "promise" along with us (Heb. 11:39-40).

4. Jesus claimed for three and half years before the cross that all believers in him ALREADY POSSESSED eternal life and NEVER used the future tense in respect to "eternal life" in its connection with faith in the gospel.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist

You may have me on ignore but would like to ask your opinion on this thought.

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

For the sake of debate or argument, which ever, let's say Abram said, not me. What would God have done, gone to the next on his list? I don't think so. In other words, I believe from the moment God called Abram he was justified. Abram was going to become Abraham. I actually believe it was in his genealogy back to Adam and forward to Christ.

What are your thoughts?

1. Note the Hebrew perfect tense translated "had said" referring to the point in time in his home city when God preached the gospel to him (Gal. 3:8) when and where God explained the "seed" singular was the promised Christ, and Christ confirmed he saw him by faith in this gospel promise (Gal. 3:16-17; Jn. 8:56-58).

2. This was an effectual call - new birth - that is progressively manifested by obedience over a period of time. This progressive manifestation of obedience is not justification "before God" but progressive sanctification by the Spirit of God which justified his profession of faith before men.

 

[The Biblicist]

The "blood" is the legal basis, but before the cross God counted faith in the promised redemptive provision as redemption because God does not view time as we do, his is an eternal presence and so God sees no time problem between pre versus post cross saints and the cross.

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem with the disciples was not their faith in the promised Christ gospel provision as repentance from sin and faith in Christ was demanded by all the prophets, and especially by John the Baptist (Acts 19:4; Mt. 3:6-8; John 1:29). Their problem was confusion between the difference between coming as king over the world and coming as redeemer. However, the only essential for full justification was the regenerative revelation of Christ in their heart by God - period. Fuller understanding of this promise was not required to be justified, only the internal revelation that Jesus is the Christ provision of the Gospel was required at this point in progressive revelation. Jesus confirmed that this regenerative knowledge which is the substance and hope of justifying faith had occurred in Peter (Mt. 16:17) and all the other apostles manifested the same regenerative experience by the very same profession of Jesus as the Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Regeneration is IN PART the internal revelation within the heart of Christ as their only hope - it is this direct imparted knowledge by the Holy Spirit in the heart that is eternal life (2 Cor. 4:6 with John 17:3). It is this immediate and direct revelatory knowledge that is both the substance and hope of justifying faith (Heb. 11:1).

This is the internal revelation that all pre-cross saints experienced in their initial calling through the gospel. Faith cometh by hear and hearting by the "rhema" or God's "word of command" (Rom. 11:6) just as God "commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." - 2 Cor. 4:6 and "This is life eternal that they may KNOW the only true God AND Jesus Christ..." - Jn. 17:3

This is the only kind of salvation God has for fallen man whether before or after the cross and the cross posed absolutley no problem as God view time from an eternal present and therefore there is no pre versus post cross saints with regard to actual redemption.

 

[The Biblicist]

You defeat your own statement by using another Mystery of the New Testament to deny one of the points I have raised, lol.

Good job.


God bless.

Have no idea what you are talking about. The Old Testament saints believed in the coming of Christ and that was sufficient. They did not understand TWO different comings. However that failure to understand had no impact upon their justification by faith. They simply believed in Christ as Savior regardless of "how" it would eventually be worked out in time.

Today, true justified believers are just as divided over the second coming but it does not affect their justification or eternal salvation in the least bit.

 

[The Biblicist]

A simple quote will clarify whether you are being honest or not.

I have quoted you repeatedly using the very same quote and all readers know it! "BEING justified for his faith based upon his actions..."

I did use the word "being" but it is a past tense use of the word, but your mind, scrabbling for something, anything, to continue your smear campaign cannot understand that. But its okay, Biblicist, I forgive you.

Who can debate with a man who claims "being" is "but a past tense use of the word"? Why not claim white is black and black is white while you are at it. You talk about mental gynastics! That takes the prize! Darrel is a great debater but just not interested in truth, just winning at any cost.

Justification is inclusive of imputed righteousness and remission of sin or one is not justified "before God." That is why you have to divorce justified with remission of sins MEANING no actual remission of sins or "eternal" remission of sins or "completed" remission of sins and on and on goes your twisted logic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"At last I have an opportunity to post something substantial. I apologize in advance if I don't answer everything you've posted. I stand in awe of the amount of time you and Biblicist put into writing on this forum. You must either type very quickly or have a lot of time on your hands.

No, Abraham is not my father.

Well I think you'll find he is.

Paul stands more as a "father" to me

That is because you are not believing the Bible. Paul is never described as the father of all who believe; Abraham is. I could really stop there. Your error is already made manifest.

However, to continue:

First of all may I raise my hand and say that I have Abraham's spiritual DNA. No doubt about it. Abraham is my spiritual father. How do I know that? The Bible tells me so.

Before I start, let me say that my guiding hermeneutical principle is that all Scripture is about the Lord Jesus Christ. "These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me' (John 5:39; cf. v. 46). 'And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself' (Luke 24:27; cf. Luke 24:44-47). It's all about Jesus.

So what do we mean when we say that Abraham is the father of believers. 'Know then that those who are of faith, it is they who are sons of Abraham' (Galatians 3:7). To be 'of faith' means to have trust in God as one's guiding principle. When this can be truly affirmed of people, then they are sons of Abraham; and if sons then also heirs and partakers of the spiritual promises made to Abraham. In Gal. 3:7, there is an emphasis that believers alone, but all believers, are sons of Abraham.

Not physical descent but spiritual likeness makes one a son of Abraham. Our Lord told the Jews, "If you were sons of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham' (John 8:39; cf. also Matthew 8:11-12 & Luke 19:9). What were Abraham's works? 'He believed in the LORD and He accounted it to him for righteousness' (Genesis 15:6, NKJV. Compare this with John 6:28-29). Just as it is the case that to be a child of God one must be like God (Ephesians 5:1; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:1, 8-9), so it is also the case that to be a son of Abraham one must be like Abraham and do his works, thus partaking of his blessedness. That is what I mean by having Abraham's spiritual DNA.

What did Abraham believe? Well he believed the Lord, both His commands (Hebrews 11:8) and His promises (Hebrews 11:13). True faith always results in action. If someone says to me here in England, "It's going to rain tomorrow," what will be the evidence that I believe him or not? Surely it whether I take a raincoat or an umbrella with me when I go out. If I say to myself, "Nah! I don't think it's going to rain," I shall display my lack of faith in that forecast by going out without either. My works will be the evidence of my faith.

What promises did Abraham believe? He believed the Gospel. 'And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith [faith in what? Faith in Christ!] preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"' (Galatians 3:8). So Abraham knew the Gospel. Who else is a blessing to all nations but the Lord Jesus Christ?

A little later, Abraham met Melchizedek. This man is described as being king of righteousness and king of peace. Most significantly IMO, he brings no animal sacrifice, but bread and wine, the emblems of our Lord's passion. Whom else do you know who is 'beyond all contradiction' (Hebrews 7:7) greater than Abraham. Either Melchizedek is a theophany or a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. He blesses Abraham as 'possessor of heaven and earth' (Genesis 14:18-19; cf. Romans 4:13). Whom else do we know who is going to possess heaven and earth? Why those who are the sons of Abraham; those who are of faith. 'Blessed are the poor on spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven........ Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth' (Matthew 5:3-5).

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?

Only if he has the faith of Abraham and sees in the OT Scriptures Christ crucified, risen and ascended (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). It's all there for him.

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

Only if that faith in God includes faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (see above). Abraham saw Christ with the eye of faith. 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw [it] and was glad' (John 8:56).

[concerning Galatians 3:1-3] Paul is preaching Christ crucified, and the passage is not centred 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).

I know this is going to open a huge can of worms and it will need a separate thread, but Abraham and all other OT saints received the Holy Spirit (eg. Psalm 51:10-12; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 16:17; Luke 2:25-27). At Pentecost, the Spirit was sent forth more widely and in greater power, but He was not sent forth for the first time. Abraham's faith is the same faith that we have- wrought by the Spirit. The prophecy of Amos concerns the Spirit being poured out on 'all flesh'- Jew and Gentile alike.
'Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His' (Romans 8:8). That applies all through the O.T as well as the NT.

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

Exactly so, but of course, there is no need at all for that to happen.

Now think about this: why did God make promise unto Abraham? Because he believed God?

Abraham could not believe God until God had spoken to him.

No...God intended to redeem mankind the same Way all along. Was Abraham justified because he trusted Christ as Saviour?

Yes absolutely! He looked forward with the eye of faith and saw Christ's day. He knew the Gospel.

'So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham' (Galatians 3:9). You are either blessed with Abraham or you are not 'of faith.' QED.

I'm sure I haven't answered all your questions, but the thread has grown so monstrously long that it's taking me too long to find them. Now it's back to my sermons.

 

[The Biblicist]

Martin, I basically agree with everything you stated in your last post. However, I don't think you have quite grasped, or maybe have grasped but have properly explained and applied the descriptive noun "father" in the case of Abraham. The idea behind the term "father" is either source and/or likeness. In the sense of birth, the father is the source and because he is the source there will be a resemblance or likeness conveyed. Of course God is the source of our new birth, and he alone is our "father" by new birth. However, there are none who have God as their "father" who do not also have Abraham as their "father" in the contextual sense of LIKENESS or RESEMBLANCE or PATTERN found in Romans 4:1-22.

In Romans 4:11,16 the term "father" has a specific contextual application. Paul is intentionally presenting the pattern of Abraham's justification in detailed fashion. Abraham is "the father of all who are of faith." The prepositonal phrase "of faith" was first introduced in the context of justification in Romans 3:27 and in direct contrast to "of works" as pertaining to grounds for glorying or boasting. Abraham is brought forth with regard to his justification "of faith" in contrast to "of works" to prove there is no basis for glorying "before God" and it is this LIKENESS "of faith" with regard to justification by faith without works that the term "father' is designed to convey in the sense of a PATTERN or LIKENESS.

It is the PATTERN set forth by Paul in great detail in Romans 4:1-22 that characterizes Abraham being justifed by faith without works and thus is "of faith" and that is precisely how he is the "father" of "all who are OF FAITH."

 

[percho]

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.

Did Abraham understand that as the gospel until the following took place?

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid itupon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? Gen 22:2,6,7

Genesis 2:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Was Abraham's understanding --> By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Hebrews 11:17-19

Was the, My Day, of Christ that Abraham saw and rejoiced in, the day of resurrection? The nations being blessed through the death and resurrection of the Christ?

Is that the gospel, preached unto Abraham?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, I basically agree with everything you stated in your last post.

However, I don't think you have quite grasped, or maybe have grasped but have [not?] properly explained and applied the descriptive noun "father" in the case of Abraham. The idea behind the term "father" is either source and/or likeness. In the sense of birth, the father is the source and because he is the source there will be a resemblance or likeness conveyed. Of course God is the source of our new birth, and he alone is our "father" by new birth. However, there are none who have God as their "father" who do not also have Abraham as their "father" in the contextual sense of LIKENESS or RESEMBLANCE or PATTERN found in Romans 4:1-22.

I agree. I had hoped to put this across, but perhaps I have not quite succeeded.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Did Abraham understand that as the gospel until the following took place?

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? Gen 22:2,6,7

Genesis 2:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Was Abraham's understanding --> By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Hebrews 11:17-19

Was the, My Day, of Christ that Abraham saw and rejoiced in, the day of resurrection? The nations being blessed through the death and resurrection of the Christ?

Is that the gospel, preached unto Abraham?

I am sure that Abraham's faith and understanding developed and increased throughout his life, but his faith was credited as righteousness way back in Gen. 15. In Gen. 22, his faith is tested ('tried'- Proverbs 17:3), so it must have been mature at that time.

 

[The Biblicist]

A simple quote will clarify whether you are being honest or not.

I did use the word "being" but it is a past tense use of the word,

Ok, so you are saying you really meant Abraham was justified as a completed action within the time frame of his uncircumcised period of life just as Paul says? Right? You really did not mean by the present tense participle "being justified" that justification was an ongoing process throughout his life uncircumcised and circumcised life and all the series of life events recorded in Genesis 17-25? Right? Therefore, you are just saying "being justified" has reference only to completed action within the restricted time frame demanded by Paul in Romans 4:9-11, or Genesis 12-16 right? Therefore, Abraham's justification was not a process throughout his life but a completed action within his uncircumcised life period? Right?

Ok, lets look at the rest of that summary quote that you say "it is just that simple." You chose the words "based upon" to describe the relationship between "his actions" and "being justified."

When a person uses the words "based upon" that refers to the underlying foundation for something. For example, if you had said that "salvation is based upon his actions" or that "entrance into heaven is based upon his actions" or that "eternal life is based upon his actions" then that would be normally understood to mean that justification, salvation, eternal life and entrance into heaven" has its basis in his works. However, you did not stop with "his actions" but added his beliefs and faith together as the basis of his justification "before God" in Roman 4.

However, Paul very explicitly says that the completed action of justification "before God" is "without works." Moreover, he repeats the same thing in a variety of expressions. For example, "he that worketh not BUT believeth" and "justifieth the ungodly" and "to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt" etc.

More importantly to claim that his justification was "based upon" all of these things denies your first claim that it was a completed action within the restricted time frame that Paul assigns to it - "in uncircumcision" as all of these things did not occur within that restricted time frame but were progressive. Hence, "being justified" as an incompleted action or a progressive action is the only possible meaning that can fit what you claim his justification was "based upon." Did you not defend the plural "beliefs" as part of this basis by pointing to events beyond his uncircumcised life?? That could only be possible if he were actually "being" justified over a long period of time inclusive of all the "belief" events you referred to as proof. So again, how can you claim "being justified" fits as a completed action within the time frame Paul restricts it (his uncircumcised life) while yet claiming actions and beliefs beyond that time frame are the basis for his justification. Please restrict your answer to Romans 4 and "before God" as this is the context of this completed action and restriction rather than James 2 which has reference to progressive evidences of justification rather than to the completed point of action for justification. We all agree that evidences of justification cover the whole range of the whole life of a person. Our disagreement is whether justification is a completed point of action or is an incompleted action that is concurrent with the whole life of a person.

In addition to these hurdles, that are in direct contradiction to the Pauline stipulations in Romans 4 you actually claim his justification was incomplete as you say his sins were not wholly forgiven and remission of sins is inherent in justification according to Paul in Romans 4:7-8 and according to plain common sense as God cannot view anyone justified by the standard of the Law that is still under the condemnation of the Law for sin.

In fact, is it not your view that the blood of Christ had to be chronologically shed first, before any of its benefits could be applied to anyone? Are you then claiming that justification (imputed righteousness and remission of sins) are not benefits of the shed blood of Christ? You certainly claim such are "redemption" benefits for post-cross Christians do you not? If you are claiming that to be true, isn't the reality of that claim, proof that you do not believe Abraham was justified as a completed action within his uncircumcised state, but in fact, was "being justified" as a progressive action that never is completed until the cross and that is precisely why you have them waiting in a compartment in hades until the resurrection?

According to your position is justification inclusive of any aspect of salvation based upon Christ as redeemer from sin as for example Job who said "I know MY REDEEMER liveth"? Could Old Testament saints believe their justification and redemption was "in Christ" or did they believe it was in something other than Christ? For example, Job did not say, "I know my temporal redeemer are the blood of animal sacrifices" but he referred to a Person as "My redeemer." Could belief in the same person as "redeemer" be their basis for justification as well? If one is the basis, why not the other as certainly Job's statement demands his basis for redemption was "in Christ" just Galatians 3:17 demands that Abraham's justification was "in Christ." Isn't this precisely what is meant in Acts 10:43 by the words "to Him" and "believeth in his name"???

Why should the "I AM" be confined to the Chronological time of the cross to apply redemptive benefits when He exists outside of time in an eternal present, thus views no pre- versus post cross saints?

 

[Darrell C]

"At last I have an opportunity to post something substantial. I apologize in advance if I don't answer everything you've posted. I stand in awe of the amount of time you and Biblicist put into writing on this forum. You must either type very quickly or have a lot of time on your hands.

Its a little of both, really. Most of the posts I do center on issues dealt with before and I am familiar with what Scripture undergirds the issues, so not a lot of time is spent in researching issues.

I have spent more time on here than I really should be, but, the issues have been important enough for me to extend my stay here. And I will do that until I feel comfortable leaving, so I can devote my time to other things that need to be tended to.

Darrell C said: ↑

No, Abraham is not my father.

Well I think you'll find he is.

Martin, you can quote Abraham being the father of all those who are of faith over and over, and you are still never going to change the fact that Abraham stands as a model of faith.

I am not denying that, I am denying Abraham's role in Salvation, and for the born again believer, Abraham is not integral. It is not until after men are saved and become familiar with Abraham that they come to understand Abraham as an Old Testament model of faith for all who believe.

Abraham does not contribute to the spiritual aspects of salvation...at all.

And you make quite a lot of having no time, and not answering all my questions. Well, okay, you have addressed your position that Abraham provides "spiritual DNA" to all believers, so I would ask you to, before you even think about addressing this post, go back and deal with what you did not address in the previous posts. You say this thread has become monstrous and hard to follow, and that is not a very good excuse. You only have to keep up with those posts addressed to you, so, please do me the courtesy of addressing those issues you somehow missed. I can understand you are busy, but I will wait, brother. You have made your case that Abraham knew the Gospel, and had sufficient knowledge of Christ to be born again, so now it is your turn to address those points I have made, and the Scripture I have presented, which I feel makes it very clear...

...no man had revealed to him the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ.

Can you do that for me? Don't you think that there is really no debate until you address the points I have raised? Is it not a matter of you simply presenting your side...and that's it?

Okay, on your statement, that you think I will find he is (I guess because you have posted proof-texts which point to Abraham as a model of faith), I will just say, God is the Creator of the spirit of men, and Abraham was given a spirit like as you and me. When men are reconciled to God, they receive the Spirit of God. Only those having the Spirit are sons of God, and those sons have One Father.

That is God.

Abraham may be a father in the sense of the model, example, and even type, but, Abraham in no way contributes to Salvation. Only God works in the spiritual, and it is the Spirit of God by which natural men are brought to the point where they can have faith. Faith is always preceded by the Grace of GOd, and it is always generated by the Father, though there be many fathers...


1 Corinthians 4:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.


That you do not understand the difference between faith in God as an Old Testament First Principle which yields to the New Testament Perfection is evident in your attempt to create out of Abraham a spiritual superhero who somehow stands in a place outside of time and space, having impact on all those who will have faith. Let me ask you, how does Abraham beget sons of God among those Gentiles under Law who never even heard about them? How does he lead them to being justified when they perform the works of the Law written on their hearts?

We could discuss this issue...if you did not avoid the points I raise to address these issues.

And again I am a little disappointed, because you have also called my faith and salvation into question. Hardly a reasonable course when you have not provided an address of the points I have made.
But, I know you don't intend for it to come across like that, as some do, at least I hope that is the case.

So, I will address your post, and just ask that you go back and address the points you skipped. I am confident that you are skilled enough to identify them. This is why we have thread after thread on the same issues, because there is no true address of the major points. So do me a favor, and address them.


Continued...