Apparently faith is not faith. In Genesis 22, we see God telling Abraham "now I know that you fear God." Apparently the God-fearing faith was not there and was not demonstrated before the sacrifice of Isaac.
Abraham was being tested. It wasn't a test of salvation but of faithfulness.
I know when I was saved. I can give you a date. Do you know when you were saved, or are you still thinking about it? Is it a process in your life that you will never be fully sure of, if you will ever attain it--possibly even lose it?
Again, this is why the "salvation" of Abraham is clearly shows as a process. Where did he become "saved?" I don't know. Likely at or slightly before Genesis 15.
Likely when he obeyed God, when he left his family and God called him out of the land of Ur of the Chaldees, even as your Calvinistic brethren: Jamieson, Faucett and Brown will attest to.
The passages in Romans and Hebrews do not--and cannot--explain the Genesis text in a way that goes against the text itself, which is what you are suggesting.
Scripture is in harmony with itself and does not contradict itself. That is what you are making it do.
The clear and simple fact is that the first mention of righteousness being counted to Abraham is in Genesis 15. There is no way around that.
Not according to the NT account. Furthermore God doesn't lead, guide, and audibly talk with unregenerate individuals.
The issue is not whether he is saved or not. The issue is who is the One calling. God chose Abraham. Period. We are not told why. Any faith that he demonstrated comes after the calling.
God chose Abraham.
God chose Noah.
God chose Enoch.
God chose many individuals. The reason: They believed on Him. Enoch walked with God and was not, for God took him. The message is clear. Enoch had a walk with God. He believed and obeyed. And therefore God took him out of that sinful world.
You, and your errant brand of pseudo-theology, want to tell us that God chose Abraham because he had faith. You will never find that outside of your own imagination. You are reading your theology into this passage to try to make a point you simply cannot make.
I believe what God says. "Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness." You have a hard time with that statement.
Christians absolutely sin. But that isn't the issue here, is it? The issue is that any faith that Abraham demonstrates is weak at best...until Genesis 22.
With that logic you would certainly conclude that the Corinthians were unsaved because Paul calls them "carnal" and "babes in Christ." They were weak Christians and therefore unsaved. This is the logic that I get from you. Yes, Abraham had just come out of an idolatrous land. It takes time to grow. He didn't become a spiritual giant overnight. Neither did Moses as is evident when he went out and killed a man when he lost his temper.
Actually, justification is a one-time act. Salvation can be (and usually is) a process.
You are entitled to your opinion.
The counting of righteousness to him, though, was not until Genesis 15.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe you are very wrong here with all the evidence given in Genesis 12, with God speaking to Abraham and leading him.
I'm completely aware of his sin in all the places between Genesis 12 and Genesis 22. I have never stated that Abraham was not saved. I'm saying that you would have us believe that Abraham was a bastion of faith before God called him in Genesis 12. The text won't allow for that. Abraham's faith is, at best, feeble--until the sacrifice of Isaac.
One doesn't have to be a "bastion of faith" to be saved. Is that what you believe? Abraham had just come out of an idolatrous land. You don't want to cut him any slack at all. Immediately you jump to the conclusion that he is not saved because of one sin in Egypt, when the record shows he committed the same sin eight chapters later! Amazing!
So then, you would have to argue that Paul was saved before the encounter on the Damascus road--something we know is not true.
How do you know that. I would not state your opinions as fact.
Paul called Christ Lord on the Damascus road. No Jew could ever call Christ Lord and submit to Him as Lord (which he did) and not be saved at the same time.
It is interesting that you won't admit to your error in accusing me of not knowing the scriptures
You know the Scriptures well enough. My point was: Act or post as if you know the Scriptures. He committed the same sin in two different places. How can the first time be evidence that he is not saved, when he commits the very same act eight chapters later? It is inconsistent.
and then stating that Isaac's sacrifice comes before the lie to Abimelech. How terribly small of you. I expected better. It seems I might know Genesis better than you.
The Archangel
The order of events was this:
He established his covenant with Abraham that it would be through Isaac in chapter 17.
He went down to Gerar in chapter 20
Isaac was born in chapter 21.
Isaac was "sacrificed" in chapter 22.
