Featured The Faith of Abraham

Again, if you would simply stick to the doctrine, perhaps you would not be calling my doctrine Catholic, saying I am not saved, and perhaps even...

...learning something.

But because you determine truth according to your own measure, you will continue to be a teacher for those whose doctrine and practice resemble yours, rather than a teacher of the truths of the Word of God.

Both you, and many Catholics...confuse justification with salvation in Christ. The topic has been justification, Biblicist...not the Gospel. These are two very different issues that have to be addressed within their respective contexts.

Because your truth denies the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ, you must equate justification and salvation wholesale, thus your confusion with my doctrine and that of Catholicism. You have ignored many errors pointed out to you, and it may be you refuse to accept that you could possibly be in error. So I will point out one of the errors one more time:


Romans 3:20-26

King James Version (KJV)


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.


The primary point I will make, and you will likely refuse to hear, much less address, is that you equate justification with salvation in Christ. While we understand that God's salvation bestowed on the Old Testament Saint is in fact identical from the eternal perspective as that which we enjoy, because we have the same Savior, and the same Redemptive Plan, and the same eventual disposition in the Eternal State, we also have to be careful to heed Scripture's Doctrine concerning the dispensations that are very different from each other. For example, I have many times pointed out to you that remission of sins in the Old Testament, starting in the Garden, and all the way through to the Cross...was accomplished by animal sacrifice. And that this is contrasted by the New Testament Writers always...to the Cross.

Now let's look at the equivalence of justification, just as you bring an equivalence of remission of sins in both animal sacrifice and the Cross of Christ. You say...

The Biblicist said: ↑

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.


The truth is, its not the standard of the Law in view here...its the standard of Biblicist.

The simple truth is that men were in fact justified by God and still under the condemnation of the Law. This is taught repeatedly throughout both Old and New Testaments. But your carnal, pulpit bred mythology teaches the exact opposite...that men could not be justified by the standard of the Law, which is to say, the Standard of God, though they were yet still condemned. Does "While we were yet sinners" ring any bells, Biblicist?

And that is a foundational element of my teaching, that though the Old Testament Saint could be justified according to the righteous standard of God Himself (because God is righteous in all He does), we don't equate that to Eternal Redemption.

The point on this verse, and towards the Doctrine of Biblicist...is that men were justified apart from the Law. That declaration of righteousness was based on grace, not reward, not of debt, but simply by the Grace of God.


21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Do we see a difference in Paul's teaching concerning justification here? If Paul makes the statement that the Jew had the Law to show them their sin...but now the righteousness of God is manifested without the Law...

Don't you think he is making a contrast between the two?

Does this not show that...

...there is a distinction between the Law and the righteousness of God apart from the Law?

Secondly, we see that the Word of God, the Law and the Prophets is a witness to this? Which means Paul could show that which God foretold, rather than they were understanding of this righteousness, or received it?

Let's look at Paul specify that righteousness:


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:


Who is Paul speaking to? Men who had the Word of God. And he contrasts the righteousness of which is by faith with the righteousness of God according to the standard of the Law. Look at it again: "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested."

Let's put it in an understandable sequence: "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ."

Does Paul negate the righteous standard of God set forth in the Law?


Romans 3

King James Version (KJV)

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?


Now, does this mean the Law had no impact? Not at all. Some believed.

But...


23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


The point is...their justification was not based on the Law, its still a matter of grace.

The point is that despite the fact that the Law, both the Written Word and the Covenant, set forth the righteous standard of God, but now, Biblicist, but now, the righteousnes of God apart from the Law is...

...made manifest.

And this applies to everyone. That includes Abraham, that includes David, that includes Isaiah.

And that righteousness is specific to Faith in Jesus Christ.


24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:


We are justified freely by His Grace.

That justification is through the Redemption that is in Christ.

So the declaration of righteousness under Law, and before the Law (which is Paul's point in speaking about Abraham), is contrasted with the justification which is through Jesus Christ.


25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


Propitiation is through faith in His Blood, His Death, His Sacrifice.

That is the righteous standard of God to which men must come under obedience to in this Age, now that this righteous standard has been made manifest. And if it is made manifest now, then we don't have to guess if it was made manifest in the past. And when we are told repeatedly in the New Testament that it was not...then we should pay attention.

Whose righteousness is being declared here, Biblicist, Abraham's. or Christ's?

Do we declare Abraham's righteousness for the remission of sins? No...Abraham himself was in need of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

And do you see that His righteousness is declared for the remission of sins...

...that are past? That is precisely what the Writer of Hebrews states in Hebrews 9:15.


26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


What tense is "...at this time," Biblicist?

So, to sum up, your charge of being Catholic, not being saved, and denying Scripture...fall right in with everything you say. Concocted false charges because you will not deal with my doctrine. You are forced to make up a position and then charge me with holding to it, because quite frankly, the only one you can actually debate with is yourself. You do not have antagonists, but according to you...detractors. You are the center of your posts, the doctrine and points are waiting in the wings, hoping one day you will bring them out.

Let me make this simple: the reason my Doctrine is not Roman Catholic is due to the fact that I do not equate Abraham's Justification with Eternal Redemption. This is why you confuse a conversation about justification with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which God makes clear to us...it was a Mystery not revealed to Ages and Generations past. That is why Paul, and the Writer of Hebrews, makes it clear, that the Blood of Christ brings remission for the sins that are past. This is why the Writer of Hebrews makes the point that the Just were not made perfect, and they did not receive the Promises.


Continued...

 

On the contrary, I have said many times that Abraham was justified by faith alone. That I also maintain the Biblical Teaching that Abraham was justified by works as well doesn't change the fact that Abraham was justified by faith alone.

It is true that James' teaches from a temporal perspective...but that doesn't change the validity of James' teaching. He is still teaching about the same Abraham, and the same justification of God.

James deals with the error of shallow profession of faith, Paul is dealing with the issue of justification that deals with the foundation of the Justification through the Shed Blood of Christ. His overarching point is that Justification is not a reward or debt, but is the sole declaration of God based on Grace.

James calls attention to faith and belief, and points out that the faith and belief of Abraham was not a shallow profession, but was evidenced by the very works he performed.

And as I have said numerous times...you are mistaking the context and equating salvation to justification, hence your, and that of Catholics, error in thinking you are debating how one is saved, when in fact the focal point is how one is declared righteous.

And Paul makes it clear that it is the righteousness of Christ which is declared...not the righteousness of Abraham. We are not saved by simply being declared righteous, and no works we perform impact our salvation, we are saved solely on the basis of Grace, which is according to the righteous standard of God, because the only righteousness that is acceptable before God is the righteousness of Christ, Who alone did no sin.

Everyone else, Biblicist, including your father Abraham...was a sinner in need of the Remedy only Christ could bestow. That Remedy is through His Cross and faith in His Cross. James was not teaching that we should give clothes to the naked, food to the poor, or drink to the thirsty to be saved. What he was teaching is though Abraham was justified without merit, his faith and belief was evidenced in his works, and that among those who believe, even so it is to be true of us as well.

The focus is still justification, not salvation.

I agree, very seldom is what I claim to believe come into your posts.

And my definitions are speaking over your head.

That is why you have to come up with your own.

Actually, there are at least several that care about what I say I believe, lol.

They never fail to pop up to cast insult.

Even here, in the detailed post given to you, you still do not comprehend my position in regards to justification, hence you think my doctrine denies justification by faith alone. Maybe this will help:

Are we saved by grace alone, Biblicist? Can we divorce faith or belief from grace?

Paul's statement are not only adequate, I suggest you study them so you can understand the sufficiency, and understand that Paul is not saying that Abraham was saved by faith alone, because Paul also teaches that Abraham was saved by the Shed Blood of Christ. And when you can understand that the focal point of faith changes and that men being justified through Christ and faith in Christ in specificity, then you will understand how justification by God should not be made an equivalent to Eternal Redemption.

Do I think we can say that Sole Fide is in fact basically saying we are saved by faith alone? I do, from an eternal perspective, even as I believe that those who are and will be saved Have Eternal Security despite temporal conditions. But, does this justify the pulpit bred mythology that the Old Testament Saints were saved on credit?

Absolutely not. Scripture is too clear on this point for us to buy into such doctrine. We have to maintain the clear distinctions Scripture teaches or we create a weak and unstable Soteriology.

That is what you have, Biblicist. That is why you cannot address my doctrine on a Doctrinal Level,. but have to make it personal. Well, I hope one day you will be able to meet me on a doctrinal level, and address the points I raise to you. There is nothing in my doctrine that keeps me from direct and detailed response to any question you ask of me. You cannot say the same. You know it. I know it. And God knows it.

So here is the question I will make the only question I will discuss with you, because you need to come to grips with the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

Why are the disciples unbelieving in regards to the Resurrection of Christ?

Answer that question.

Sorry, but you simply do not have the power to close a discussion. Between your ego and your doctrine, you are powerless.

If you do not believe me, just try to stick to this bold assertion. And keep in mind, talking about me behind my back will have to be avoided. Think you can do that?

I will let you know, my friend, when I am done with you.


God bless.

 

Again, how is that relevant?

We are still faced with the fact that Abraham was born out of relationship with God, and it was not until God called Abraham that Abraham could express faith and belief in the revealed will of God.

The discussion has centered on justification, Percho, and the "Faith of Abraham" really points to the result of the intervention of God.

While we can, from the Eternal Perspective, say that Abraham was a "sheep" prior to his birth, and indeed before the world began, that does not change the fact that Abraham was born out of relationship with God and was a heathen before having the will of God revealed to him.

He was not born a man of faith in God, nor was his sin covered by the Shed Blood of Christ upon birth. His sin was not covered by the Blood of Christ when he offered up sacrifice, which was the God-ordained method of remission of sins that Abraham had provided to him in his lifetime.

Abraham was not Eternally Forgiven until Christ died in his stead.

You are correct, he would be imputed with the righteousness of God...but not until God died in his stead. Prior to that, the imputation of righteousness is incontrovertibly based on his faith, belief, and works. His faith, for example, is credited as righteousness, but that is not to be confused with the Righteousness of Christ.

No, Percho, the Faith of Christ is specific to this Age.

While faith in God in Old Testament Economies can be said to be identical, what is different is the revelation provided to men. Abraham believed, not that Christ died for him, but simply believed the Promises of God. God said "Get up and go," and Abraham got up and went.

Abraham was not privy to the singularity of the Seed of Promise, and had a temporal understanding of the promises of God. So did the disciples. But this is understandable, because God did in fact promise that He would restore the Kingdom of Israel. No surprise that is what they were waiting for Messiah to accomplish.

But not one of the disciples believed in Christ as their Savior according to the Mystery of the Gospel. Not one. Peter can be seen to be in opposition to the very Gospel, though the Gospel is delivered unto Him by Christ Himself.

So, if the disciples, who were sent out to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, and heal, and cast out demons, did not understand they were to place their faith in the Risen Savior, and in fact did not believe the Lord had risen after three days...

...why would you think Abraham had faith in the Risen Savior?

We have to create an extra-biblical mythology that is in many passages flatly denied. The sins of the Old Testament Saints were not "forgiven on credit," that is not what Justification is about. Abraham was justified based on his response to the revealed will of God, and that is how God has always judged men, and that is true through all generations and Ages.

"Would," Percho, "would."

You have to qualify your statements with an acknowledgement of specific relevance of the Cross of Christ to Redemptive History.

Adam and Eve were not covered by the Blood of Christ...they were covered by the skins of animals. Christ did not die in Abel's place in his lifetime, Abel offered up animal sacrifice. And that pattern threads its way through the entirety of Redemptive History, and is not abrogated until...

...the Cross.

When Christ laid down His life in our stead, and in the stead of the Justified Old Testament Saint, at that point in History...it was finished.

So all you have to do is show why Paul's teaching does not make it clear that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery, a previously unrevealed truth.

You can also show why it is that men who did not want Christ to die, and did not believe Christ died after He had arisen, despite witnesses...had the Faith of Jesus Christ.

Again, distinguish the temporal aspects of the Incarnation from that which is Eternal: The Son of God took upon HIm the flesh of man for the express purpose of going to the Cross.

Before the world came into being that was the Eternal Purpose of God. There was never any possibility that He would not finish that which He came to do.

He makes this clear to Peter when Peter takes up a sword and tries to keep Christ from being taken in the Garden of Gethsemane.


Continued...

 

Again, we see specificity in the Completion that Christ brought, and that this is tied to the Incarnation:


Hebrews 5:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


Look at the links, Percho, and understand that He became the Author of Eternal Salvation...through His Work.

This sets in time, without controversy, that Eternal Salvation became available through Him that is the Author. That is the same thing the Writer will reiterate here...



Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Yes, Abraham was known to God, and chosen, and a "sheep."

But, Abraham was called, and justified, but...his sins were not forgiven through animal sacrifice, but, through the Shed Blood of Christ.

Here is a statement that will sound blasphemous to the sons of Abraham, but not to the sons of God: Abraham's faith was incomplete.

Let me say that again: Abraham's faith was incomplete.

The reason is because Abraham was not privy to the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as you and I are.

That is why the Writer tells his Hebrew audience...


Hebrews 12

King James Version (KJV)

1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.


Faith has always had One Author, Percho, and that is God.

God is also the Finisher, the Completer of our faith, even as He is the Finisher of our salvation.

But let's not confuse the two and maintain a Biblical sequence of events in Redemptive History.

He was made perfect, or, complete...through the Cross. And based on His Work He became the Author of Eternal Salvation.

The Old Testament Saints received that inheritance promised of God through Christ...

...Alone.

No, Percho, there are two entirely different issues involved that have to be distinguished. In Philippians 2 the point is that God veiled His glory in human flesh. In Hebrews 5:7-8 in view is the Cross in specificity.

Both speak of the Incarnation and the Cross, but there is a specific context to follow. In Hebrews the Writer's main thrust is to contrast that which was provided men prior to the Cross, and that which follows. It is his earnest desire to exhort his Hebrew brethren to embrace Christ and the New Covenant.

And that swings us back to the fact that we are repeatedly told that salvation is in Christ, and this by means of His death in our stead. When we create a mythological "saved on credit" soteriology that does not properly distinguish the condition of those saved in the Old Testament...we will deny the magnitude of the Cross of Christ.

When we understand how glorious the Cross is for us, then we can better understand the very Gospel of Christ. Then we can convey the Gospel of Christ to others. But if we, like most do, give an equable quality throughout Scripture, and fail to make the distinctions Scripture makes, then we should not wonder when we have Christians walking around asking if we have to "keep the Law" to "make it to Heaven. We should not be confused when Catholics and Protestants bicker about justification and free will.


God bless.

 

Darrell still refuses to say with Paul the words that we are "justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS." Instead, he says we are "justified by faith alone" which is meaningless IF you define "faith" inseparable from "works" as he plainly does. I dare him to demonstrate I am wrong and simply say we are "justified WITHOUT WORKS." Let him say these words without qualification because Paul said them without qualifications. However, his view of justification, thus his view of salvation is inconsistent.

Second, he charges me with confusing justification with salvation. Salvation is the most general term in scripture which includes the eternal purpose of God in eternity past unto completed glorification in eternity future with every other aspect of salvation included between the two, one of which is justification. I have never equated "salvation" with "justification" but I have included justification in salvation. So he is accusing me falsely.

Third, justification IS the LEGAL appropriation of the Person and redemptive work of Christ to the ."ungodly" without which there is no aspect of salvation possible or present. Justification can be simply understood by its contrast "condemnation." Ask why are all men under condemnation? Answer - "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Ask what is the basis for such condemnation - Answer - sin is the violation of God's law, and the lack of the righteousness demanded by the Law is "to come short of the glory of God." Thus condemnation is due to violating two basic demands of God's Law. The positive command is "do this and live" as living up to its standard of righteousness meets the approval of the Law for eternal life. Failure to live up to its standard of righteousness meets the disapproval of the law or its penalty for "coming short." Justification satisfies both demands without which there is no justification existent or possible.

Fourth, unless one properly understands what is the precise standard of righteousness demanded by the Law, they cannot possibly understand what is justification. Darrel's definitions of justifcation demonstrate he does not understand the standard of that righteousness or he would never suggest the blood of animals or the works of men could ever possibly or even remotely justify anyone at anytime to any degree whatsoever. The standard is God's OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS found in his OWN PERSON manifested by HIS OWN MORAL CHARACTER. Proof? Romans 3:21-22 explicitly states that the Law and the prophets manifest "the righteousness OF GOD" which has only one other manifestation and that is "in Christ" (Rom. 3:21).

If Abraham was not justified by the righteousness found in God alone as provided in Christ alone there was no justification existent or possible in Abraham's day. If Abraham's sins were not remitted by faith in the Christ provision alone there is no justification existent or possible. Both are inherent in justification without which justification does not exist and cannot exist at anytime anywhere.

Fifth, God justifies based on his ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE of the cross not on the TEMPORAL perspective of the cross and thus we read that Christ was "slain FROM THE FOUNDATION of the world" with regard to actual application. We read of the "blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" with regard to actual application rather than restricted by TEMPORAL covenants ("old" or "new"). Darrel denies this and that is why he has a messed up self-contradictory view of justification.

Sixth, From the very start God declares that animals sacrifices do not remove human sin at all in any way except figuratively. This made clear by Hebrews 10:1-4 and especially the first account of a scarifice accepted by God in Hebrews 11:4. The sacrifice by Abel did not obtain remission of sin in any kind of LITERAL way whether TEMPORAL or ETERNAL but he was already justified by faith already righteous, already without sin and the only thing the sacrifice obtained is the WITNESS he already was justified by faith in Christ, justified by Christ's righteousness, sins remitted by Christ's sacrifice as PICTURED in the animal sacrifice. That is why he offered up the animal sacrifice to VISIBLY show IN TYPE whom he literally trusted in for remission of sins and righteousenss imputed to him based on the sinless life of Christ.

Seventh, James does say "as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." Let us take a look at this. When God created man what did he make FIRST? The body or the spirit of man? He formed the body first WITHOUT THE SPIRIT. Once after it was formed then, and only then did he give it the "spirit" and man became a living soul. The giving of the spirit animated the body and the evidence was movement - works.

Now, lets take this and apply it to becoming a Christian. God creates faith first without works in producing a Christian. That is Paul's point - justification by faith WITHOUT WORKS. However, not just any kind of faith but faith that embraces the Christ provision proclaimed in the gospel (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:23-25). It is faith embracing Christ as salvation from sin as preached by the gospel at whatever stage of progressive revelation since Genesis 3:15 and that basic truth has existed and been understood as proven by Job - "I KNOW my redeemer liveth" and he therefore knew he had victory over sin - resurrection in the last day. Just as God formed the body from the clay, God forms this faith in the elect by a creative revelation directly to the heart (2 Cor. 4:6), just as God commanded light into existence within a dark world, so God commands "the light of THE KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God IN THE FACE OF Jesus Christ" within the darkness of the human heart - that knowledge IS eternal life (See John 17:3) and IS the substance and hope of faith (Rom. 11:17) and therefore IS the essence of justifying faith. That is what justifies the "ungodly and that alone. It is the revelatory knowledge that Peter had in Matthew 16:17. All who are "of faith"are those in whom God has directly REVEALED Christ as savior in their heart - that revelatory knowledge IS eternal life and Job had that knowledge "I KNOW my redeemer liveth" as did Abraham, as did all who are "of faith."

Now, James is not talking about the formation of the body which occurs first, but Paul is with regard to justification. We are justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS and thus the body was made WITHOUT the spirit. James is talking about the second step in God's process after the body has been formed by God which is due entirely to God breathing the spirit into the body and its evidenced by MOVEMENT. God breathed the spirit of life into man. James makes the "spirit" in man the analogy of works. It was God's breath that originated the spirit in man and that breath came from God's own being. What is "born of Spirit is spirit" John says and it is evidenced by "good works" or as Paul says, "we are God's workmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works." James is simply saying there can be no justification by faith where there is no regeneration evidenced by works as that is the demonstrative proof that what one says is what one possess. That is what "good works" are it is "God that WORKETH IN YOU both to do and to will of His good pleasure." We are kept by the POWER of God through faith because it is God doing the work and that precisely why such works can be called "good" works. Now the combination of body and spirit brings forth a "living soul" and the combination of justification by faith without works with regeneration of the spirit is what brings a true christian into this world.

Darrel, does not have a clue about this Biblical process or he could plainly say "we are justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS and that justification does not occur without regeneration which is evidenced by works." It is a matter of cause and consequences. Paul says with regard to cause, we are justified WITHOUT WORKS and James says with regard to consequences we are justified by faith evidenced by works. Paul by analogy refers to the formation of the body WITHOUT the spirit, whereas James speaks of the spirit that results in a "living soul". Thus in the production of a Christian, justification occurs with regeneration but they are not to be confused with each other. Works provide the only visible evidence that both exist, that justifcation by faith exists, that regeneration exists, but works are the consequences not the cause.

 

Blood sacrifices by animals NEVER literally removed or covered or dealt with human sin either temporally or eternally except as a TYPE of Christ and the cross. They were a TEMPORAL type with regard to their actual administration. They are an ETERNAL type with regard to the truth of the cross.

Sacrifices were never designed to deal with human sin in any other sense but FIGURATIVELY. They were never a requirement to obtain actual remission in any sense whatseover but designed solely to "obtain a witness" a visible profession that the offerer was already justified by faith, had imputed righteousness by faith, had remission of sins by faith BEFORE offering up the animal and Hebrews 10:1-4 and 11:4 prove this.

Both the "old" and "new" covenants are TEMPORAL visible and declarative administrations of the "blood of the everlasting covenant" and that is why Biblical writers could say that Christ was "slain from the foundation of the world" thousands of years prior to either covenant administration. That is why the writer of hebrews could speak of "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant." Both the "old" and "New" were confined to time. Both began in time. Both are conclude in time. Both manifest the "everlasting covenant" or "eternal purpose" of God. The "new" covenant is better than the 'old" because it is based on what the "old" anticipated. However, individual salvation remained the same before the "old" came into existence (Abel, Job, Abraham) while it was existiing (David, etc.) and after it ceased. Individual salvation remained the same before the "new" came into existence as a public administration on earth and while it exists on earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is his eternal covenant of salvation.

God is not restricted to redemptive events IN TIME to apply His salvation promises. Paul in the very context of justification by faith says of God is He who "quickeneth the dead and calleth those things which be not AS THOUGH THEY WERE" (Rom. 4:17). That is precisely the manner which God justified pre-cross saints. It was wholly sufficient for Job's full and complete and eternal justification simply to believe God's promise that His Christ provision would occur in time. Thus the application of full cross benefits was not based upon the TIME of the cross but the PROMISE of the cross and that is precisely why the TIME of the cross justified God for applying its full benefits before the cross as the promise of God through the gospel occurred as God said it would (Rom. 3:25-26). God set forth Christ as the provision for sin since Genesis 3:15 and designed sacrifices as public professions that the offerers (those who professed God and his gospel) were full recipients of those benefits based solely upon God's promise that such a provision would occur someday. Hence, they were justified, meaning they were imputed the righteousness of Christ and were remitted of their sins and thus could be properly called and recognized as "the blessed man" rather than a POTENTIALLY blessed man.

 

I want to separate this aspect from my previous post for individual consideration:

"Seventh, James does say "as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." Let us take a look at this. When God created man what did he make FIRST? The body or the spirit of man? He formed the body first WITHOUT THE SPIRIT. Once after it was formed then, and only then did he give it the "spirit" and man became a living soul. The giving of the spirit animated the body and the evidence was movement - works.

Now, lets take this and apply it to becoming a Christian. God creates faith first without works in producing a Christian. That is Paul's point - justification by faith WITHOUT WORKS. However, not just any kind of faith but faith that embraces the Christ provision proclaimed in the gospel (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:23-25). It is faith embracing Christ as salvation from sin as preached by the gospel at whatever stage of progressive revelation since Genesis 3:15 and that basic truth has existed and been understood as proven by Job - "I KNOW my redeemer liveth" and he therefore knew he had victory over sin - resurrection in the last day. Just as God formed the body from the clay, God forms this faith in the elect by a creative revelation directly to the heart (2 Cor. 4:6), just as God commanded light into existence within a dark world, so God commands "the light of THE KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God IN THE FACE OF Jesus Christ" within the darkness of the human heart - that knowledge IS eternal life (See John 17:3) and IS the substance and hope of faith (Rom. 11:17) and therefore IS the essence of justifying faith. That is what justifies the "ungodly and that alone. It is the revelatory knowledge that Peter had in Matthew 16:17. All who are "of faith"are those in whom God has directly REVEALED Christ as savior in their heart - that revelatory knowledge IS eternal life and Job had that knowledge "I KNOW my redeemer liveth" as did Abraham, as did all who are "of faith."

Now, James is not talking about the formation of the body which occurs first, but Paul is with regard to justification. We are justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS and thus the body was made WITHOUT the spirit. James is talking about the second step in God's process after the body has been formed by God which is due entirely to God breathing the spirit into the body and its evidenced by MOVEMENT. God breathed the spirit of life into man. James makes the "spirit" in man the analogy of works. It was God's breath that originated the spirit in man and that breath came from God's own being. What is "born of Spirit is spirit" John says and it is evidenced by "good works" or as Paul says, "we are God's workmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works." James is simply saying there can be no justification by faith where there is no regeneration evidenced by works as that is the demonstrative proof that what one says is what one possess. That is what "good works" are it is "God that WORKETH IN YOU both to do and to will of His good pleasure." We are kept by the POWER of God through faith because it is God doing the work and that precisely why such works can be called "good" works. Now the combination of body and spirit brings forth a "living soul" and the combination of justification by faith without works with regeneration of the spirit is what brings a true christian into this world."

 

Just because I said that IN PRINCIPLE Darrel's view is Roman Catholic doctrine does not mean that I am saying Darrel is lost, or all Roman Catholics are lost. I think God has true believers in most denominations. At worst, all I am saying is that his view is inconsistent with scripture.

 

The biblical boundaries of justification do not and cannot extend outside of Christ as there is no possible basis for justification outside of Christ The very reason that justification must be "without works" is that all works that have any possible potential for justifying anyone are all restricted to the works that characterize the life of Christ. There are no works by fallen man that can be regarded as worthy for even potential satisfaction of God's standard of righteousness. There is no sacrifice of animal or man that has any potential to remit sins in any form or manner except type.

Biblical justification has no existence at any time in any place with regard to fallen man whether before or after the cross if it is not inclusive of Christ's own personal satisfaction of God's Law.

 

Did I not say you were powerless to end a discussion?

Darrell has said many times we are justified by faith without works.

The problem is that you are still confusing yourself on justification prior to the Cross, and justification through Christ.

You continue to teach the pulpit bred mythology of salvation on credit, and ignoring the very temporal aspects that cannot be divorced from Redemption.

On the contrary, I have been very clear as to what I said. But once again, you engage in dishonest debate tactics so you can maintain your ego.

I will make it clear once more: faith has nothing to do with Redemption in Christ from the Eternal Perspective, because we are not saved by faith.

We are saved by the Grace of God...alone.

Your salvation, Biblicist, was secure ,long before you heard the Gospel and expressed faith in Christ.

Your doctrine is "We are saved by faith through grace."

I have distinguished quite clearly that salvation is based on the grace of God...nothing else. He did not choose you, Biblicist...because of anything you did or would do. He chose you because of His mercy.

That predates your birth, that predates the day you heard the Gospel and you responded in faith to the Comforter, and that predates the moment you were reconciled to God on an eternal basis in eternal union with the Eternal God. That predates your regeneration.

I don't have to charge you with it...you keep illustrating that fact with every post, lol.

Again, Biblicist...why was Abraham justified?

What does Scripture teach?

Was Abraham saced by faith through grace?

That is what you are teaching.

No, Biblicist, justification is simply the declaration of God.

Abraham did not appropriate the Person and redemptive work of God by his belief, by his faith, or by his works. He was justified by God based on a gracious declaration towards an un-meritorious recipient of that grace.

And Scripture is clear, as you have been shown repeatedly, that Abraham's sins were not taken away in his lifetime, not in the lifetime of any descendant, whether spiritual or physical...until Christ took away that sin.

But Abraham was not justified because he kept the Law.

He was justified for faith, for belief, and for works.

And that despite the fact that he was a sinner still in need of his sins being redeemed through the Shed Blood of Christ.

No, God saves based upon the Eternal Perspective, meaning Abraham was just as secure in his salvation through Christ as we are, but was not reconciled to God through Eternal Union, and had not yet had his sins forgiven on an eternal basis. You deny the temporal aspect of the Ages that precede this one, which is why you remain locked in doctrine that is not that dissimilar to that of your Catholic counterpart.

The fact is that there is a point in the temporal scheme when Christ was crucified, and that did not take place before from, or before the foundation of the world.

Another basic element of my doctrine which I have repeatedly stressed to you, yet here you are contradicting yourself trying to show remission of sins apart from Christ's Sacrifice.

And you base this on pulpit bred mythology which tickles ears and relieves men from study of Scripture.

Great, another concoction, lol.

Jame simply point out that faith has no life, it is dead...if there are no works. It has nothing to do with how one is justified, this is by the grace of God. It has everything to do with Abraham, and how his justification is itself justified, rather than just stated. He was a doer, not a hearer only.

James speaks of faith, belief, and works, and at no time suggests that men are saved, but rather justified, and those elements cannot be divorced from justification.

And here you change it, and reveal the real reason you continue in these rants: you are trying to garner support for your position that men cannot be justified if they are not regenerated.

This is another pulpit bred mythology that is refuted in Scripture, and, if you could muster the courage to answer the question posed to you, you would see the futility of trying to maintain this false teaching.

You need to get out of Systematic Theology, my friend, and actually study Scripture. Don't conform the Word of God to your standard, be conformed in your mind by the Word of God.

So here it is again:


Why are the disciples unbelieving in regards to the Resurrection of Christ?


And this goes out to any member that would like to answer the question.

You have been defeated in your campaign for quite a while, Biblicist, because you cannot address the fact that infants have to be regenerated in order for your doctrine to stand. But you cannot say why it is that infants can be regenerated to God after death, or at the time of death (there is no difference as you tried to say)...

...but Old Testament Saints cannot be.

So just answer the question.


God bless.

 

Conscience bothering you?

You have on several occasions questioned my salvation.

I can't be saved if I am not a son of Abraham, remember?

Well, I am not a son of Abraham, I am a child of God. God is my Father, Abraham my brother.

I do not have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham."

Clear enough?

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how in the world Abraham is the father of Abel, Enoch, and Noah.

Anyone?


God bless.

 

Spoilsport.




God bless.

 

Well, I am not a son of Abraham, I am a child of God. God is my Father, Abraham my brother.

I do not have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham."

Clear enough? - Darrel

Anyone who does not have Abraham as his "father" in the contextual sense defined by Paul in Romans 4 does not have God as his "father" because Abraham is the father, as contextually defined for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH. And the term "father" has nothing to do with "spiritual DNA" but with LIKENESS or the specific PATTERN of Abrahamic justification by faith without works, full remission of sin (vv. 6-8) and full imputed Christ rightouesness (vv. 5-6; 23-25).

 

Fallen man has the same problem before and after the cross and pentecost .It is an INTERNAL problem and if regeneration did not occur before the cross than what changed Abraham from a idolatrist to a God worshipper. What occurred INSIDE of him to change him from a God hater to a God lover?

If pre-cross believers were not "in Christ" did not have the righteousness of Christ imparted as well as imputed to them then from whence did righteousness come from within them? How could God fellowship with any fallen man OUTSIDE of Christ?

The Bible clearly and repeatedly tells us that eternal life was a present possession of pre-cross believers (Jn. 3;16; 36; 5:24; 10:26-28; etc.).

The Bible clearly and repeatedly tells us the gospel of Christ was preached and understood with regard to personal redemption from sin (Job "I know my redeemer" - Isaiah 53.

In the very context of old Testament justification by faith God acted upon things not yet happened in time as though they had happened (Rom. 4:17). In the very context of Old Testament justification by faith God set forth Christ as the provision to satisfy the Law's demands (which no man can do but one - Christ).

The Scripture clearly states that God's covenant of redemption with Abraham was "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17).

God applied redemption "in Christ" before the cross as that is the only possible way to explain the internal change within fallen man, the reconciling of fallen man to God so as to be "friends" and "fellowship" and to be called his people (Rom. 8:9).

Soteriological dispensationalism is a grievious error that demands the ridiculous conclusion that fallen human beings can be justified, walk by faith, produce the fruit of the Spirit OUTSIDE of Christ.

The solution is simple - God APPLIES redemption from the perspective of an eternal present without any necessity to TIME nor is his redemptive applications restricted to time or any event in time. The cross provided the legal basis but was no obstacle for application at anytime God chose to apply it. His promise was equivilent to the cross as God is the one who made sure it would occur.

 

Salvation in all ages consists fully in the revelation of God within the heart (Mt. 16:17) in connection with the progressive state of the gospel being preached and used by the Spirit of God as revelation in the heart.

Peter and the other apostles had been given the revelation by the Father in the heart that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God" thus the person of the gospel preached to them by John. That was sufficient for their salvation. The means of the cross and consequences was teaching after their salvation that was yet unfulfilled at the time and not part of the internal revelation by the Spirit of God in their hearts but only to their ears. It is the revelation in the heart by the Spirit of God that provides the substance and hope of justifying faith.

 

Abraham would be justified by the blood of Christ.
We have been justified by the blood of Christ.

The blood of Christ, is the faith, which required learned obedience, even being Son, through which the justified are justified.

That blood was time specific.

Before the faith came.
After the faith did come. Gal 3:23,25

Whose faith?

Now would be a good time to close the thread.

 

I was in a hurry and had to leave for a while and did not quite convey clearly what I intended to convey. Actual salvation in all periods of history whether before or after the cross at minimum consisted in the INTERNAL REVELATION of God with regard to Christ as sufficient for man's sin problem. That is the essence of the gospel revealed by the Spirit to his elect. No other aspect of yet unfulfilled aspects of gospel revelation was essential to their regeneration or justification other than the revelation of this essence of the gospel

It is true that Old Testament saints did not understand all the details of UNFULFILLED progressive gospel revelation but they did not have to understand all that to be saved. They only had to understand the bare essence of the gospel that was actually revealed in them by the Spirit - which is always they are sinners and Christ is their redeemer from sin. Job understood that essence, "I Know my redeemer liveth" and he believed this redemption gave him victory over sin and its consequences - death. That is all that is necessary for God to quicken them and justify them.

Peter and the eleven were objects of the same divine essential revelation that accompanied the preaching of the gospel since Genesis 3:15 by John the Baptist. Hence, they were already born again, justified saints prior to Christ declaring other details of progressive revelation. That additional teaching did not undo their initial salvation. Incapable of understanding yet UNFULFILLED details was not problematic to their salvation, only to their own progressive sanctification.

Today, the same bare essentials of the gospel are used to regenerate the elect and the full gospel details are still matters of study and understanding. However, with regard to fulfilled gospel details a person cannot be saved if they are in a mind state of rejection of what they know to be written revelation of fulfilled gospel prophecy. That indicates they are still in a state of unbelief.

Peter was reacting to yet UNFULFILLED gospel aspects AFTER having been saved and justified simply because in his own mind it contradicted his prophetic understanding of the coming of Christ as King not because he was rejecting Christ as his redeemer. His initial salvation consisted in what the Spirit revealed of the gospel at the point of his conversion.