-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dishonest Debate Tactic
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
Still waiting.
Your analogy fails tremendously.
Your understanding of Justification fails tremendously.
Your understanding of Perfection fails tremendously.
So ignore what I said in the post, I'm okay with that.
Your dishonesty is apparent. and you know it. You say I deny justification of the Old Testament Saint, yet I have pointed out numerous times that they were justified, and that these are the spirits who, though just, were made perfect. You then imply perfection refers to glorification, and here I am, willing to discuss it, and you refuse, just as you have refused to discuss the other issues brought to your attention, just as you refuse to substantiate your false arguments, just as you refuse to substantiate your false charges.
When someone does that, Biblicist...it is a dishonest debate tactic, which swings us right back to the hypocrisy of you starting this thread.
Here is another example of dishonest debate tactic which is in fact representative of your complaint in the OP:
The Biblicist said: ↑
God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.
Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...
...until the Cross.
And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed... – Post 157
You post part of what I say and in doing so seek to substantiate the false charge that I teach men were not saved in previous Ages.
Yet when we look at all that I said...
Darrell C said:
God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.
Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...
...until the Cross.
And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed...
...is like saying we are not saved because our flesh has not yet been redeemed.
LINK
...it is clear that I am not saying men were not saved, but pointing out that your view does not take into consideration that they were saved despite being born again, just like we are saved despite being glorified.
This is a dishonest debate tactic. You are being hypocritical. Those are not personal attacks, it is just the truth.
And good job, you and your back-biting friends managed to get the thread shut down in 7 pages. I have told you before, that kind of support is not friendship, and you are following that same path into hatred without cause, and this through kicking against goads you cannot overcome.
It is absurd to impose Eternal Remission of sins into a framework which has, as the only God ordained method of remission of sins for men in those days...animal sacrifice. It is the equation of the Work of Christ with Old Testament Provision which Christ makes clear...was not the True Provision.
They did not have the True Vine.
They did not have the True Bread.
Why? Because...
...they were not made perfect.
HERE is the Link to the post in which I tried to discuss this for you, which is something you really need to look at. This is just one of the reasons why you do not understand my position, and why you are forced to create false arguments.
God bless.
I agree, it only tends to show the weakness in the ability of the ones who need to use the ignore function. But I guess when one has their sights set on making friends, and cohorts which help them disrupt debates and discussions, and think that they can speak and assume that everyone should acknowledge their positions as correct, I can see how ignore helps soothe the conscience when people dismantle their doctrine.
So the best course of action for people like that is...not to debate.
Because when they do, they usually do more damage to the Cause of Christ than the average atheist.
God bless.
Another dishonest debate tactic we might discuss is the refusal to address what is actually being spoken about.
Not sure how anyone can equate the person in this analogy with my own demand of a dishonest debater to back up his false charge that I teach men were not justified in the Old Testament.
Is there even one member here who, despite having ruffled feathers over past debates...
...will be honest about this?
Even one?
Does everyone who applauded the OP really think it is not dishonest to flat out lie about another member?
Seriously?
lol
God bless.
When I 'agreed' the OP it was because I agreed the position that was set out there. I did it on the basis of 'if the cap fits, wear it.' I did not participate in the original thread because it got so vituperative, and in the end I stopped reading it altogether.
However, it did appear to me that you were denying that O.T. saints were saved in the same way Christians are. Here's one of your posts:
I note that the word 'Justification' does not appear there, but since the Christian's salvation is 'nothing like' that of the O.T. saint, perhaps it will be helpful and make for peace if you lay out clearly exactly how the two salvations differ. If you've already done this, then I suggest that you copy and paste it here so that everyone can seeDarrell C said:
Then perhaps you two can kiss and make up. Your squabbling is not very becoming to Christians, and that comment applies to both of you.
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/thread-limit.96297/#post-2175382
That thread was up to 138 post, over the 125 mark set by the admin for closing threads. Making multipost rants against someone you disagree with pushes it toward being closed.
If you are pushing doctrines not supported by scripture, then use of personal attacks, change of subject, make absurd and false claims, and so forth can be found in thread after thread.
Lets see, Van teaches no one was washed with Christ's blood before Christ died, and therefore no one was justified by His blood pre-cross. Paul's justification by faith doctrine rests on justification by His blood, and not some other way the word is used.
Darrell C teaches people were "justified" in the Old Testament. Just how this "justification" was accomplished, and what this justification accomplished, I will leave for Darrell C to explain.
Biblicist teaches the OT saints were justified by the "promised" blood of Christ pre-cross.
Lets see, Van teaches no one was washed with Christ's blood before Christ died, and therefore no one was justified by His blood pre-cross. Paul's justification by faith doctrine rests on justification by His blood, and not some other way the word is used.
Darrell C teaches people were "justified" in the Old Testament. Just how this "justification" was accomplished, and what this justification accomplished, I will leave for Darrell C to explain.
Biblicist teaches the OT saints were justified by the "promised" blood of Christ pre-cross.
Two things:
1. The OP is in error on a number of issues. You can't seriously tell you think that it is a dishonest debate tactic to dismantle an argument by dismantling one of its elements...can you?
2. Who exactly is the one you think wears this cap, Martin? Who do you view as dishonest in their debate because they dismantle another's argument?
And that is your choice, however, please don't look down your nose at those who are not willing to let someone run threads with no intention of anything but a smear campaign.
Yes, it was very antagonistic, and while I don't like debates to get that way, sometimes there is a need for debates like that.
In the following you approach me with your concerns about what I have said, and, I will respond to it. The proper course of action for you to take at that point is respond to my address of your concerns.
Will you do that?
I can tell you...that was not done in the other thread.
If you are okay with someone laying false charges and presenting false arguments without recourse, good for you. I don't see it that way. And the topic of discussion is important to me, which makes it a twofold matter, and the doctrine is what is important.
If it were not, Martin, you would see me doing what some members do, which is pop in to a discussion to hurl an insult and nurse hurt feelings, lol.
Is that how you see my approach to my antagonists? Are my posts still trying to center on the doctrine itself, or no?
And what is the surrounding context of the discussion? People complain when my posts are long, yet if I make general statements that should be understood in the context of what has already been said (especially when it has been said over and over, lol)...this is what I get.
And I still have not seen anyone comment on the example I gave which is clearly wresting the context of my statement. Why is that? I guess there is no member on here willing to admit that it was dishonest.
Now, the statement above has as a foundational context a few very simple points which most who have debated with me...know.
Maybe you have missed the fact that "our salvation" has fulfillment of the Promises of God, we are made complete in Christ, we do have the Eternal Indwelling of God, and we have received the Spirit promised by God and Christ Who came on Pentecost.
And my concluding statement in the above makes it clear...I teach that the Old Testament Saints were saved. And Biblicist continuously reiterates that I do not, and that I teach that the Old Testament Saints were not justified. Those are false arguments.
And the example I gave of clearly dishonest debate tactics, which show the OP as hypocritcal...explains what I mean.
I will ask you a simple question, Martin...will we be more saved when we are glorified...or not?
I did that, but because you did not want to bother with the content of the discussion, nor is it likely you tracked it through the several threads where I addressed the same false arguments, let me simply say...
...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.
Imputed righteousness in the former is given very clear terms by both Paul and James.
That justification secured their eternal destiny, but it did not make them perfect/complete in regards to remission of sins, only the Blood of Christ can do that. Hebrews makes that point clear. Abraham was Justified, to be sure, but Abraham still had to offer up that ram God supplied. And we do not consider Abraham's obedience, motivated by belief and faith, to actually save him.
That is why we consider that righteousness imputed, brother.
I will give you one passage to consider in that regard:
Romans 3:24-26
King James Version (KJV)
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
So we see a difference between their salvation and ours. They died not having their sins remitted, our sin is remitted upon sapvation. They died not having received the Promised Spirit, we receive Him immediately upon salvation. They died...not being born again...we are immediately upon salvation.
And you can contest any of these, but, I will present the same arguments I have before in many threads, many of which I think you are probably aware of.
And the last is the position several here really take issue with. But I have not yet seen one person come close to dismantling even one element of the position. And now, we are told in the OP...that is a dishonest debate tactic.
Absolutely absurd.
I don't have anything to prove to anyone, Martin. And besides...every single person raising their complaints have already engaged in these discussions.
That is why they pop up to hurl snide comments, because they do not want to engage in serious debate.
Any time you want to debate these issues, just let me know. But I will tell you now, it is not going to happen in short, chatty little exchanges, so be prepared for serious debate. There is much that has to be considered, and drawing conclusions with a face book approach will leave people in the same stagnant doctrinal positions that kind of discussion provides.
If you want to know something, or challenge something I have said, start a thread...and ask. Each antagonist gets his own presentation delivered based on their own contributions. There will be little we haven't already talked about, I would guess.
You have the wrong impression here, my friend: I am not concerned about making friends here. IF I wanted to do that, I could. My concern is the doctrine, and what is being taught. Why do you think I have so many admirers? lol
Because I usually only get involved when there is something I disagree about. And some people simply cannot stand being told they are wrong about something. And if nothing else, they can learn that sometimes you have to put a little more into it if you have strong enough convictions about a doctrinal position.
Sorry you feel that way, but, I'll remind you of some squabbling that took place about two thousands years ago. Was it unbecoming of Christ to correct error? Paul, who disputed daily in the synagogues?
You can have your approach, my friend, I will take mine, and we will see how it turns out. I would rather have someone mad at me and searching Scripture to prove me wrong, lol, than have someone patting me on the back for making negative comments about another member.
Just being honest here, brother.
God bless.
Not in every thread. Sometimes there are threads that, despite the fact people disagree, there is civil discussion.
That is how it should be.
You do not even comment on what I asked members to comment on, Van.
Do you seriously think that the analogy is apt? That is impossible, because you state...
Did you even read what I said? Look at the example I gave? Does not your own statement...show that your understanding of what I teach is different than the false charge laid against me?
And this is the distinction: there is a difference between being declared just and being justified by the Blood of Christ. The Old Testament Saint was Justified, not sure how you can deny that.
But this is not really the thread for that Van. I have said all I care to say to you about the matter, though I will finish out this post.
No, Van, it doesn't. Paul is distinct when he gives Abraham as an example, and distinct when he speaks of being justified through Christ. He makes it clear that prior to that God's forbearance was at work:
Romans 3:24-26
King James Version (KJV)
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
This speaks of justification through Christ, contrasted with...
Romans 4
King James Version (KJV)
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Paul's entire point is that Abraham's justification was not of works, if this were the case, then it would be reckoned of debt.
However, the underlying issue is determining why Abraham was justified, which is pretty obvious, it seems, which is...he believed God. James speaks of the evidence of Abraham's faith, and according to the flesh...Abraham was justified by the works which resulted from that faith.
And the simple point that usually gets left out of this discussion is...
...the very grace of God itself. In view is not whether Abraham was saved by believing God in regards to any of the revelation given him, but that he was justified for believing that revelation. And that, Van...
...is where God's grace began: He called Abraham, He gave Abraham the revelation that Abraham believed, and so we see grace precedes faith in every single interaction between God and man.
Yup.
Glad to see someone notices, lol.
Justification is always a result of the One Who can Justify. God could justify Abraham for being faithful to the revelation provided him, but that doesn't mean we equate that to justification that is on an eternal level.
When he died, in the spirit...he still had to be made perfect.
Doesn't change the fact that the Just have always lived by faith, my friend.
He's not the only one. Many equate the Old Testament Saint and the New Covenant believer. They unwittingly (and yes I chose that word on purpose, lol) equate remission of sins provided through vicarious animal death with Remission of Sins through the Offering of Christ. They equate the Filling of the Spirit with the Eternal Indwelling of the Promised Spirit. They equate the Spirit of Christ ministering in Old Testament Saints and Prophets with the Indwelling of Christ in the believer Baptized into Christ.
But you, my friend, denying that the Just existed among the Old Testament surely astound me, lol.
This is a new argument, isn't it?
Okay sorry for derailing the thread with long posts, and whatever offense I am sure I committed against the membership of this forum. I will leave you, Van, with one passage to consider:
Hebrews 12:20-24
King James Version (KJV)
20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
You should know what this means by now, so I have to say I am disappointed with this argument.
God bless.
We disagree Darrell C, and I have laid out why. My view that no one was ever justified such that they could enter heaven, before Christ died, stands. Your view seems to equate gaining approval through faith with being "justified" in some sense, but that view uses the same word to mean two very different things. If you want to present confusion, fine, I do not.
The spirits in Hebrews 12:24 got into heaven somehow. Oh yes, they were redeemed, made righteous, justified, holy, blameless and perfect.
Basically, when someone in the OT acted in accord with the will of God, they could be said to be righteous, but not justified by the blood of cross. I think a valid way to express this, rather than use the same word meaning justified by His blood, would be to say "acted righteously." Thus Abraham (James 2:21) was credited with righteousness, by works when He offered up Isaac his son on the alter. But the fact remains, Abraham was not righteous, he was still a sinner, but his action was righteous.
The spirits in Hebrews 12:24 got into heaven somehow. Oh yes, they were redeemed, made righteous, justified, holy, blameless and perfect.
Basically, when someone in the OT acted in accord with the will of God, they could be said to be righteous, but not justified by the blood of cross. I think a valid way to express this, rather than use the same word meaning justified by His blood, would be to say "acted righteously." Thus Abraham (James 2:21) was credited with righteousness, by works when He offered up Isaac his son on the alter. But the fact remains, Abraham was not righteous, he was still a sinner, but his action was righteous.
I don't. You asked why people had 'agreed' the O.P. I have told you why I did. That's all.
I don't consider the subject that has bent you and Biblicist so out of shape to be of the first, or even second, importance. Abraham is saved on both accounts. It's too late to do anything about him or any other O.T. saint. I'm therefore happy to go with Romans 14:5. 'Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.' You haven't convinced one another, so believe what you believe to the glory of God and let it go.
There are some issues on which I will go to war. I have fought strongly, and would do so again, for Penal Substitution and against 'easy believism' and Hyper-preterism, because I think wrong understandings on these issues can affect salvation, but most eschatological issues do not excite me too much; God knows exactly how Abraham was saved/justified and I shall find out all about it when I get to heaven.
And I cannot see how you could even think the OP makes sense. It's dishonest to dismantle a rock solid argument by dismantling an element of the argument?
The appeal is not to a credible/incredible manner of debate, it is to emotion. It doesn't matter how an argument is dismantled, if it is dismantled...it is not a strong argument.
Sorry you think I am bent out of shape, but, that is not really important. What is important is the subject matter itself. I was about to leave the forum when the issue arose. It primarily began with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost and how we define it, and to me, that issue far outweighs the three you have mentioned as critical for you.
Think about it, Martin: the Lord makes it clear that one cannot see nor enter the Kingdom of God lest he be born again...don't you think this is a topic of great and primary importance? I have as much a problem with teaching the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is "the public accreditation of the earthly administration of the Church" as I do with it being taught as a "second blessing, empowering," and being "zapped so one can be Super Christian loaded with spiritual gifts."
This ties in with whether men were born again before Pentecost, a familiar theme I discuss on this forum on a regular basis. Most reject it outright, because it threatens their own understanding of Scripture, and it is just my opinion, but this is an especially difficult subject for those who have been in the faith longer, particularly for those in leadership.
And I have been charged with teaching that Abraham was not saved. This is the conclusion drawn by one who does not understand what I teach, so he levies a false charge. He did that by saying I teach men were not justified either.
You're okay with that? You consider that an honest debate tactic?
There are other issues that arose as well, equally important. He said men were not yet being made perfect. Another theme of my own teaching. I tried to engage in discussion of that, to no avail.
And I have no clue as to what "two accounts" you refer to. Not even sure that is relevant to my own view. Abraham was saved by grace through faith, simple as that. He was justified, but we cannot, based on the revelation of the New Testament...equate that justification to being Justified by the Blood of Christ. The reason being...Abraham continued to offer up sacrifice until he died. We, you and I, have never offered up the first sacrifice.
Big difference.
Who is trying "to do something about Abraham?" lol
I wouldn't be so very sure of that, my friend. I have seen Biblicist change his doctrine. For example, the discussion about how an infant is saved forced him to stop in his tracks. The OP of that thread was basically a rant about how ridiculous it is to think that one can be saved and not be in union with God. The question therefore arises concerning the infant in the womb. He made the statement they "have no personal ability to discern between right and wrong."
If that is the case, and they are saved, which he affirmed, then we have someone saved who is not in relationship with the Lord. When pressed, he wanted to make a distinction between after death and at death, as though this changed the underlying issue. It didn't.
So perhaps if you read the thread/s you might not be so quick to see who is being convinced and who isn't.
I say this with all due respect...you don't choose what is important to Christian Doctrinal Debate.
In my view, every debate is important because we usually have someone with a right view, and someone with a wrong view. And when both have wrong views, there is third party interaction. And all of it is lending itself to...growth. I can say with assertion that even debate that is erroneous on both sides can be profitable for both, if it is forcing them to the Scriptures to validate their views. I have been corrected on issues numerous times over the years, and to be honest, I enjoy learning something I haven't given thought to before, or an element in an issue I had not previously given consideration to. The issue of infant death, for example, and how that ties to whether men were born again before Pentecost, I see as an element well worth discussing. That is the purpose of the thread, to see how other members might contribute to that discussion. The Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and how that ties to salvation itself, and how that is distinguished from the ministries of God in prior Ages, also important.
Can't say we have discussed penal substitution, but, it might be interesting. My only question to you would be, is there a difference between Christ's death being applied to the account of the sinner, and that of animals?
This is kind of a two-edged sword for me, because what usually happens is both sides, in an attempt to justify "their side," usually go to extremes, nullifying truths on either aisle. It is the ancient legalism/antinomianism debate, and we have to be careful.
A good example is Frodo's threads. I look at it as yes, the Gospel is that simple. All one has to do is believe. But that is from the conversion viewpoint, as is Paul's concerning justification. But, there is the post-conversion element of salvation, where we have James' teaching. I think both sides can be sincere, and I have never personally ever witnessed someone advocating license to sin. I have witnessed Lordship Salvation teaching that borders on legalistic works-based mentality.
But don't we expect the babe in Christ to need growth, and to be ignorant of doctrine, and novice in practice?
Not sure if you are familiar with Hank Hannagraff (Sp?). He is a "partial Preterist" who is primarily Reformed in his theology. He makes it a habit of saying he is willing to debate the issues, but that is not the case. He regularly bad-mouths the Pre-Trib Rapture, and will not allow anyone to present any arguments on his show. I recently called in and asked him how he defined the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and he said it was the empowering of the believer. So I asked him, "So we are to ask God to continually Baptize us with the Holy Ghost?" And he said "Yes," and went on for five minutes how he asks God to empower him before every show, lol.
Eschatology is important to Soteriology. There is a significant difference to a number of issues concerning salvation which can be radically different depending on one's Eschatology. I am not a big fan of the Preterist view.
A agree entirely.
Well, can I suggest that it is not much different than the appetite? If one goes without eating, they will get to the point where they are no longer hungry. A concentrated focus on Eschatological matters will, usually, stoke your appetite, so to speak.
Many people shy away from end times matters because it seems daunting, just too difficult to understand, but, it is really no different than any other field of study.
And I think I can say, without controversy, exactly how Abraham was saved: by grace...through faith.
As opposed to "by faith through grace," which honestly, is how I see most teaching and understanding it.
Abraham was justified, declared righteous, and from an eternal perspective saved, and assured of eternal salvation. But, that should not mean we nullify that Abraham's salvation was incomplete in regards to various issues, the primary issues being his spiritual condition and remission of sins. He was in relationship with God, but then...so was Israel. This has a temporal focus, not an eternal focus. A good example we see of this is found in Romans 2:11-16, where we see that both those who received the Law and those who did not were both still going to be judged according to the revelation provided to each. Paul makes the simple point that where there is no Law there is no transgression, and only those who were doers of the Law, whether having a knowledge by the established relationship or responding to that which was written in their hearts...would be justified. He then shifts to the current Age and justification through Christ. There is a difference.
God bless.
We don't disagree with that Van, lol. I think you have been so used to always being on the defensive you have lost the ability to see when someone agrees with your view.
Where we are disagreeing at this time is whether men were justified in the Old Testament Economies, and simple truth is that they were, no question.
However, you are assuming that I equate that with Justification through Christ. I do not.
Its just a Basic Principle, Van...they were justified.
And it is not two different meanings in view, but two different results, best described as the temporal versus the eternal.
Yes, Van, that is my goal...
Yes...but not before they were made perfect, which took place after they had died. The way into the Holiest, Heaven, was opened up by Christ through His death. Before that, all Old Testament Saints came into God's presence in an earthly (the Tabernacle/Temple) and vicarious manner (The High Priest), they did not go into the presence of God until our Great High Priest opened the way.
So the above statement is true, but, not while they were alive, and not even after they were dead, until Christ brought about completion through the Cross. That is what Hebrews 9:12-15 states precisely.
They were blamed, because they kept not God's Covenant. They could not be made perfect through the blood of bulls and goats. They were not eternally redeemed through the Law, or through the sacrifices offered before the Law.
But that does not nullify the fact that, because of faith, God imputed righteousness to their account. And that is temporal, and deals directly with the individual, which is different than the Righteousness of Christ being imputed to their account. God could declare men righteous based on their faith, belief, and works, but, in regards to Eternal Redemption only the imputed righteousness of Christ has eternal value. That is the only way they can be said to no longer be under the penalty of sin, and this is the only means of restoration of the relationship lost in Adam.
And I agree with that.
I didn't say they were.
And that is best seen in James. It holds the temporal perspective, and speaks of justification before men. Men like Noah, Lot, and Abraham were justified before men and among men because of their actions/works. That is not the equivalent of being justified through Christ. But James is not, when he tells his audience that Abraham was justified by his works, saying Abraham was saved by his works. Nor is Paul saying Abraham was saved by his works, though he points out...Abraham's works. He asks, "Was the declaration of righteousness before or after circumcision?" The answer is before. Now I ask you, was it before or after God called him and revealed His will to him? After. Grace always precedes faith. If it were not for God's intervention, Abraham would have remained in his own country.
Let's not forget that he also had faith to obey God's call.
Now think about that...why was righteousness credited to his account?
Was it because of what he did, or what Christ did? What he did. Thus does James point out that Abraham's faith was made perfect by his works. The in-completion would have been evidenced in Abraham refusing to do those things he did. He was declared righteous, justified, based on his obedience which revealed...his faith in God. I personally look at it as demanding he offer up sacrifice was not to prove his faith to God, God knew, it was to prove it to...Abraham.
He was righteous, Van, but, that righteousness was temporal, even as we see other men declared to be righteous. That righteousness fit within a temporal framework, and Abraham is compared to other men...not God. Not Christ. When we consider the declaration of righteousness in an eternal context, Abraham was still in the same boat the rest of us were: there is none that do good. There are none righteous. There is none that seeks after God. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
So if we do not distinguish between the temporal and the eternal, we fail to properly contextualize the issue in view. Israel was redeemed...in the temporal perspective, not the eternal. Israel received the bread of life, in the temporal perspective. Israel was in relationship to God, in the temporal perspective. All of those things are true but there is a difference between being temporally redeemed (i.e., animal sacrifice, which did bring remission of sins in the temporal) and being Eternally Redeemed through Christ. There is a difference between being justified in the temporal and being declared righteous solely on the righteous actions of Christ.
Here are two temporally justified Old Testament Saints:
Luke 1
King James Version (KJV)
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
The righteousness was not eternal righteousness, it was temporal. The Lord didn't have to say, "Well, now we have two people who are righteous and obey the Law, so no need to go ahead with the New Covenant."
The reason is because they were righteous from a temporal perspective, and their keeping of the Law is in relation to the perspective of man opposed to man, not man judged according to the righteous standard of God. I believe when Paul said he was blameless in in regards to the Law...he meant it, as a born again believer who understood the distinction between the temporal and eternal. Men could be righteous under the Law, but, that righteous level they attained to is an entirely different perspective from the righteousness that is required in order for spiritual relationship to take place.
But All three of these people were not made perfect, and had not yet had the righteousness of Christ imputed to their account. All of them, until made perfect from the eternal perspective would continue to obey the ordained relationship in place, which would include offering up sacrifice for sin.
So slow down, Van, and understand where we do agree, and where we don't.
God bless.
Think that we all have the inherit problem that we all bring to every discussion our religious gridlock and mindset, as it is very hard for at times the Holy Spirit to be able to persuade us to see what the scriptures are really intended to say to us!
See the various pro and con calvinism threads here for example!
I would agree, and I don't think that is a bad thing, really. Meaning we all have our own understandings we bring to the table. That is not a bad thing because Scripture presents the example of men of God teaching. Rather than men of God presenting something they don't really understand. Teachers should be the same way, if they are going to be teachers at all. They should know what they teach, know if there are weaknesses in their doctrine, and seek to weed those weaknesses out so that what they teach cannot be said to differ from what God has taught us.
God bless.
And two things a teacher of God required to do before all others, and those aew ro practice/mirror it out, and to make sure to keep a teachable spirit, and do assume have "arrived", and now my theology is the only correct version!
The first thing a teacher must do is be in right relationship with God, and while it is true that they must remain teachable, it is equally true that the teacher does not turn his back on the unteachable.
Secondly, who is teaching the teachable is significant, and the first Teacher a teacher must have is God.
Third, whether one is teachable or not is not affirmed by disagreement with other teachers, it is affirmed by reception and conveyance of truth, not amiable chat with others which often overlooks the doctrine and practice of friends, which annuls a valid correlation to Biblical Teaching.
Is that how you see my posting, Yeshua?
God bless.
...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. - Darrell
I too believe "its that simple". Darrel makes it clear that Abraham was "BEING justified by his faith BASED ON his actions, beliefs, and faith" while Paul says he was justified by faith "WITHOUT WORKS" and it is just that simple.
Darrell says, we (post-cross saints) are "justified by the Blood of Christ". He places this in contrast to how he says Abraham was justified, and thus we are not "BEING justified by...faith based on...actions, beliefs and faith."
I agree with Darrel that these are two completely different kinds of salvation, two different kinds of justification entirely. Yet Paul sets the justification by faith without works scenario of Abraham as the model for "all who are of faith" implying no difference but the example that fits all cases with regard to basic justification by faith without works.
What should be of great concern to all of us is that Darrells definition of Abraham's justification is absolutely contradictive to Paul's clear and explicit assertion that Abraham was justified by faith "WITHOUT WORKS" and he was not "being" justified but had been justified as a completed action prior to his life of circumcision, whereas Darrel says he was "being" justified "BASED ON HIS ACTIONS" plus beliefs, plus faith. Darrel's challenge is to demonstrate how this definition of Justification is any different than the Church of Christ (Campbellite) or Roman Catholic basics or any other denomination which denies the eternal security of actual true born again Christians?
Yet, the fallen condition of man prior to the cross is the same as after the cross. That condition is an INTERNAL problem of enmity toward God and a nature that is incapable of doing or being righteous or doing good. Darrel's challenge is to define how that nature changed from enmity against God to submissiveness to God apart from new birth and how God could fellowship with anyone whose sins are not remitted and whose righteousness cannot satisfy the Law's demand for SINLESS righteousness as that is what the Law manifests "the righteousness OF GOD" - Rom. 3:21-22.
Let the readers note, there is no tone of ridicule, no disparaging personal remarks, no personal attacks that characterize this post.
Its that simple. - Darrell
I too believe "its that simple". Darrel makes it clear that Abraham was "BEING justified by his faith BASED ON his actions, beliefs, and faith" while Paul says he was justified by faith "WITHOUT WORKS" and it is just that simple.
Darrell says, we (post-cross saints) are "justified by the Blood of Christ". He places this in contrast to how he says Abraham was justified, and thus we are not "BEING justified by...faith based on...actions, beliefs and faith."
I agree with Darrel that these are two completely different kinds of salvation, two different kinds of justification entirely. Yet Paul sets the justification by faith without works scenario of Abraham as the model for "all who are of faith" implying no difference but the example that fits all cases with regard to basic justification by faith without works.
What should be of great concern to all of us is that Darrells definition of Abraham's justification is absolutely contradictive to Paul's clear and explicit assertion that Abraham was justified by faith "WITHOUT WORKS" and he was not "being" justified but had been justified as a completed action prior to his life of circumcision, whereas Darrel says he was "being" justified "BASED ON HIS ACTIONS" plus beliefs, plus faith. Darrel's challenge is to demonstrate how this definition of Justification is any different than the Church of Christ (Campbellite) or Roman Catholic basics or any other denomination which denies the eternal security of actual true born again Christians?
Yet, the fallen condition of man prior to the cross is the same as after the cross. That condition is an INTERNAL problem of enmity toward God and a nature that is incapable of doing or being righteous or doing good. Darrel's challenge is to define how that nature changed from enmity against God to submissiveness to God apart from new birth and how God could fellowship with anyone whose sins are not remitted and whose righteousness cannot satisfy the Law's demand for SINLESS righteousness as that is what the Law manifests "the righteousness OF GOD" - Rom. 3:21-22.
Let the readers note, there is no tone of ridicule, no disparaging personal remarks, no personal attacks that characterize this post.
Last edited:
Now, I don't think anyone on this forum had a problem with the analogy I provided. A person claims to believe a certain issue, and says it in the clearest terms. However, when they come to defining precisely what they mean by that claim, it turns out their definitions actually deny it.
We are all acquainted with the use of Biblical language but emptied of Biblical content or definition. Darrell says clearly he believes that Abraham was justified by faith but then defines it as "based on" works when Paul says "without works." That is a huge definitional difference. Darrel said that Abraham was "being" justified on the basis of works, plus beliefs, plus faith whereas Paul denies his justification was a incompleted action ("being") but an Aorist tense completed action confined within the limits of his uncircumcised life. Another huge difference.
Abraham presents the scenario basics of Abraham justified by faith without works as a completed action as the MODEL for "all who are of faith" but Darrel asserts that Abraham's justification is nothing like post-cross justification as he says we were "justified by the blood of Christ" and they were being justified by works, plus beliefs, plus faith whereas Paul claims they are the same model. By the way, Darrel does not define what it means or what he means by "justified by the blood" of Christ.
Again, note there is no tone of ridicule, no personal attacks, no snide remarks that characterize this post.
Darrel is not accurately portraying the OP in his statement above. Here is what I actually said:
I have noticed the repeated use of a very dishonest debate tactic. The tactic is taking a statement from an opponent and isolating it from the context in which it is found and then proceeding to dismantle it without regard to the actual context it is placed in by their opponent.
So, yes we can consider it a dishonest tactic to jerk a statement out of context in your opponents argument! That is called misrepresentation or lying or transforming your opponents words to say what he never said or meant.
On the other hand, I fully admitted you claimed Old Testament saints were justified. However, it was your definitions that I stated and debated. You did define Abrahams justification to be "based on actions (works)" but Paul said "without works." You did define Abraham's justification as an unfinished ongoing incompleted process ("being" justified) whereas Paul said it was a completed action by using completed action verbs to describe it and by denying it occurred during his life of circumcision but restricting its occurrence as a completed action within his life of uncircumcision. You did define his justification as completely different than ours whereas Paul carefully defined what it was and what it included and then insisted it was the model "for all who are of faith" with regard to justification by faith without works.
Furthermore, both you and van have misrepresented Paul and James. Paul qualifies the context of his doctrine of justification to be "before God" (Rom. 4:1) whereas James qualifies his view of justification to be before men ("shew me....I will shew you....though a man say"). He uses examples where others were present obseving as in the case of Abraham offering up his son and Rahab before the spies and her scarlot cord before all Israel. James is clearly referring to the human verification aspect of justification by works. Works being the evidence not the basis as Darrel insists "faith BASED ON actions....").
So, I have not misrepresented you at all.
Finally, Martin! If you think this is not a vital doctrine then you are rejecting the whole basis for the Reformation as Darrel's interpretation of Romans 4 and definition of Abraham's justification is precisely what the Reformers denied and Rome affirmed. Remember, it is Abraham's justification "without works" that is part of the pillars of the Reformers defense and doctrine of justification. Darrel and Van are attacking the very essence of the Biblical doctrine. If you accept their interpretation of Romans 4 and Abraham's justification as the model, then you are rejecting the Reformers entire basis for justification and condemning them for opposing Rome's definition as Rome defined Abraham's justification in the very same manner and that is justification is a INCOMPLETE ONGOING PROCESS based on works, beliefs and faith.
Last edited: