The Faith of Abraham

[Darrell C]

That is because you are not believing the Bible.

On the contrary, it is because I believe all of the Bible and can properly distinguish between dispensations that I do not turn the fatherhood of Abraham towards those of faith into hyperbole.

It is a little humorous, seeing it is usually me on the other end of the guns of literalism.

Paul is never described as the father of all who believe; Abraham is.

Paul states he is the father of those begotten of the Gospel he preached. Do we now have three fathers in view? God. Abraham. Paul.

No, we still have one father.

This was true even under Law. The fatherhood of God is not a New Testament concept.

I could really stop there. Your error is already made manifest.

Great. You haven't even begun to address my doctrine and you claim victory.

When you can show that the Mystery of the Gospel was not a Mystery, that the disciples of Christ (much less Old Testament Saints of antiquity) believed Christ would rise from the dead, much less were trusting in Him, then perhaps such a statement might have some weight.

Until then, it is hollow, and if you do not agree with that, then I am truly very sorry for you, Martin.

If nothing else, please explain how you are right, and Christ and Paul is wrong in regards to the Mystery, and that the disciples were unbelievers...even after the Lord arose.

It simply does not seem that the "spiritual DNA" of Abraham correlates to trusting in the Risen Savior.

And another thing, I have in many threads discussed the fact that no-one...no-one...received the Promised Spirit, yet you equate the Spirit of God ministering to Old Testament Saints with the coming of the Comforter. That is another point which has to be addressed before you have the right to charge me with error.

So are you going to do the work necessary to thresh this out, brother? Or are you going to cherry-pick points you think you can proof-text...and ignore the arguments presented to you? Are you going to make excuses, and complain about the length of posts and threads? Just address the points. You do not have to address everything I say, but you do have the burden of addressing the points.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

However, to continue:

First of all may I raise my hand and say that I have Abraham's spiritual DNA.

As I said, if you want to place some mystical spiritual attribute to Abraham, and go above and beyond the model Abraham presents for all those who have faith, that doesn't mean it is correct.

Tell me how Abraham is the father of the faith of Abel, Enoch, and Noah.

You say he is the father of all those of faith, and this is just not the case. You are creating hyperbole, hyper-literalizing a text(s), and running with it. This is the same error that has fed numerous pulpit bred misconceptions.

So what do with those of faith prior to Abraham?

And just so you know, every time I continue the response I try to leave one point to address. The point here you are called to address deals with Abraham providing "spiritual DNA" to those of faith that preceded his existence on this earth. Do you ascribe an eternal quality to Abraham, that he can be the father of faith to these as well? If you do, would we not see this as the same error some Catholics ascribe in regards to Mary?

And this question goes to any member that affirms they have the "Spiritual DNA" of Abraham.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

No doubt about it

Well, once you address the points I raise we will see if there is "no doubt."

No doubt about it. Abraham is my spiritual father. How do I know that? The Bible tells me so.

No, Martin, the Bible makes it clear that God is your Spiritual Father, lol.

Abraham is a model for all those who are of faith, but Abraham does not have any literal spiritual impact on faith. Faith is always the result of the intervention of God...all the way through Scripture. This includes those who lived by faith prior to Abraham.

Before I start, let me say that my guiding hermeneutical principle is that all Scripture is about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Well gee, maybe I ought to try that sometime.



Martin, I too view Redemptive History as consistent throughout Scripture, but, that doesn't change the fact that revelation was progressive, and that understanding of the Gospel was not known to the Saints prior to the unveiling of the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ.

That is just one of the points you have to address.


Continue...

 

[Darrell C]

"These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me' (John 5:39; cf. v. 46). 'And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself' (Luke 24:27; cf. Luke 24:44-47). It's all about Jesus.

You are debating with yourself on this point, because I have never said that it isn't.

The fact that Christ and the Apostles taught Christ out of the Law, Prophets, and Psalms...doesn't mean that the Prophets themselves understood that which they prophesied, any more than John the Baptist understood that Jesus was the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world, or, Caiaphas knew that "one man should die for the nation," and how that death was a reality in regards to the sins of the nation, rather than redemption or salvation from Rome.

So hate to say it, but this is a false argument that is not relevant to what I have said. The fact that the Gospel and Christ are seen throughout Scripture does not mean that the Mystery was revealed in those Ages, and we see that it was not with specific statement:


Colossians 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)


25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


Can we see this applied only to Gentiles? No, because the same salvation effected upon Gentiles is the same salvation effected upon Jews.

The Mystery was made known to the Saints, and while Gentile Inclusion is prominent, the mystery was hid from ages and generations. It is now made manifest to His Saints. It is a distinct dispensation given to...Paul.

It is undeniable that the Hidden Wisdom of God was...hidden:


Ephesians 3

King James Version (KJV)


1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:


Do the work, Martin, and exegete this passage...you cannot deny that the Mystery is specific to this dispensation given to Paul, and that the Mystery was hid in God from the beginning of the world.

And then you can come talk to me about believeing Christ is throughout the Scriptures.




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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

And Enoch? Abel? Noah? Melchisadec?

Martin, again I would ask you to look at this passage (I think I presented this to you already, and if not, please do so now):


Hebrews 5:10-6:3

King James Version (KJV)


10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


Hebrews 6


1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.


Abraham falls under faith under First Principles, the ABCs of the Doctrine of Christ. He had faith in God, we have specific faith in Christ. He exemplifies the basic principles of faith, we expound upon the Mystery of the Gospel, upon that which is perfect contrasted with that which was fundamental and foundational.

Abraham was not trusting in Christ with specific revelation concerning Christ...as were not the disciples of Christ. It was not until this was revealed by the Promised Spirit sent on Pentecost that we see men begin their Ministry of the Gospel of Christ. Look at the last post and consider Ephesians 3:5 in this context.

And I already know proof-texts you will give me that you think makes the understanding of the Gospel equable in both Testaments, but, do me a favor...and first address the Scripture and points I have raised before bringing more proof-texts tot he table.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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

Again, this is not relevant to my position, nor dose it change the fact that Abraham stands as a model, not a begetter of faith.

Only God can create teh result of saving faith, whether Old or New Testament, and He always does this through the Operation of the Spirit. God has always ministered in the hearts of men, which many confuse with the Promise of the Eternal Indwelling which began at Pentecost.

That is what I mean by having Abraham's spiritual DNA.

I already knew what you meant, and additional commentary and proof-texts do not show you have "the spiritual DNA of Abraham," lol. You have the Spirit of God.

Abraham also has the Spirit of God on that eternal basis, now that he, a man of faith, a just man...has been made perfect.

But he didn't die in that state. That doesn't mean the Spirit of God did not minister unto him, He did. But He also ministered among many men, filling them with His Spirit, and empowering them for ministries such as Prophet, Priest, and King.

Today, He still does that, and it is a separate issue from being reconciled to God in Eternal union with God Himself. That Reconciliation is accomplished by and through Christ, not simply through being declared righteous based on faith and works. It is the faith and Work of Christ by which men are eternally redeemed, and have their sins redeemed on an eternal basis.

That is evident:


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.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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

So did God save Abraham based on Abraham's response to that which Abraham was called to believe in?

Be very careful how you answer this.

And if you do answer it, you should see one of the points I have been making...Abraham was not saved because of the response generated by the intervention of God.

And I open this question up to anyone that would care to answer it. Particularly to those who consider themselves Reformed or Calvinistic (because they should be able to answer this question properly).


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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

Where in this do we see Abraham believed something clearly made known as not revealed?

The good news for Abraham was not that Christ would die for his sin, just as it was not for those redeemed from Egypt. We, in retrospect and in full revelation of the Gospel Mystery can understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the promises given...

...but Abraham did not.

His understanding was carnal, temporal:


Genesis 15

King James Version (KJV)


1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.


Did Abraham understand this in a New Testament understanding? No.


5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8 And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?


And how does the Lord respond?

In the understanding provided to Abraham in that day:


13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.


Is God revealing the singular Seed? Does Abraham understand that the "children he begets" will be those of faith?

Well...were the Hebrew People a people of great faith in God? If anyone thinks so, they would do well to reread the account again, and to read the commentary of the Writer of Hebrews on the Provocation.


And just so no-one thinks I am leaving out something quote relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Promises of God to Abraham...


9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.


...we see God Covenant with Abraham, while Abraham is asleep. Abraham did not contribute anything to the Promise of God.

He was a man of faith simply by believing that which was revealed to him, and to make this equable to understanding the Mystery of the Gospel is perhaps the worst error one can make in regards to ministering the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.

And I am quite sure you are familiar enough with Galatians 3:16 that a ref-tagger should be sufficient, but, if you would like to discuss that in this context I'll be happy to.


Continued...

 

[percho]

So did God save Abraham based on Abraham's response to that which Abraham was called to believe in?

Be very careful how you answer this.

And if you do answer it, you should see one of the points I have been making...Abraham was not saved because of the response generated by the intervention of God.

And I open this question up to anyone that would care to answer it. Particularly to those who consider themselves Reformed or Calvinistic (because they should be able to answer this question properly).


Continued...

I believe Abraham was predestined before the foundation of the world to be conformed to the image of his seed Christ, resurrected from the dead, predicated upon that seed's obedience unto death. That seed being also the Son of God born of woman.

The obedience of one. The preeminence.

 

[Darrell C]

So Abraham knew the Gospel.

I can agree with that, as long as we distinguish the good news as he understood it, which was sufficient for Abraham to be saved.

What he did not know was that his Seed would be God manifest in the flesh, and that the offspring in view were those of faith.

Who else is a blessing to all nations but the Lord Jesus Christ?

According to you...Abraham. He is a begetter of spiritual DNA.

A little later, Abraham met Melchizedek. This man is described as being king of righteousness and king of peace.

And was just a man.

Melchisadec did not bestow eternal life to Abraham. Melchisedec did not remit Abraham's sin by dying in his stead.

He too is a type, Martin.

Most significantly IMO, he brings no animal sacrifice, but bread and wine, the emblems of our Lord's passion.

Once again you overstep your bounds: you are making an argument out of silence.

Not really possible, in my view, to view Melchisedec as a type of Christ if he did not offer up sacrifice for sin.

There is no type apart from that, Martin.

Whom else do you know who is 'beyond all contradiction' (Hebrews 7:7) greater than Abraham.

The point the Writer makes, Martin, is that Melchisedec was greater than the Levitical Priesthood, tithes being given to Melchisedec through the loins of Abraham.

As to your question, that is simple enough:


Matthew 11:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


John is greater than Abraham according to the very Word of Christ, and...so is the least in the Kingdom, which is a topic that got derailed and has never fully been threshed out.

The statement is specific to Priesthood, and you are creating doctrine that does not take the Whole Counsel into consideration.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I believe Abraham was predestined before the foundation of the world to be conformed to the image of his seed Christ, resurrected from the dead, predicated upon that seed's obedience unto death. That seed being also the Son of God born of woman.

The obedience of one. The preeminence.

So do I, but how is that relevant to the discussion at hand?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Either Melchizedek is a theophany or a type of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nothing in Scripture by which one can make a dogmatic statement, and quite a bit to make such a claim questionable.

The Priesthood of Christ was not being ministered to the World prior to the Cross of Christ, Martin.

If you look at some of the conclusions you draw, you will be forced to see that you are creating doctrinal positions which have no Scriptural basis, because they neglect incorporating everything we have been told.

You are trying to make Abraham more than he is, imputing him with a spiritual status he does not have, and then...

...pointing out that Melchisedec is greater than he.

Even if Melchisedec were a Christophany, it still undergirds my own position...

...not yours.

He blesses Abraham as 'possessor of heaven and earth' (Genesis 14:18-19; cf. Romans 4:13).

And is this temporal or eternal?


Psalm 89:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.


Again, we have to properly contextualize statements in regards to the temporal and eternal perspectives that the Word of God offers.

But before you do that, consider:


Genesis 14:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:


...try to properly contextualize your proof-text.

The Most High God, not Abraham...is the Possessor of heaven and earth.




Continued...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Darrell,
You can carry on snowing me with posts until the cows come home, but I very much doubt I'm going to answer them.

If you cannot accept that Abraham is the father of those who believe, there is no point in discussing it further. There it is in the Bible, as large as life in several places, and you deny it. What can I do about that? Where can we go from there? You deny the Bible. I can only argue from the Bible. No meeting place. End of story.

If we carry on we shall just end up shouting at each other like you and Biblicist are doing. I don't care for that. I have one or two further points to make about the faith of Abraham and then I shall finish.

Reference your last post, Abraham is possessor of heaven and earth (Romans 4:13; Hebrews 11:16). We, if we have the faith of Abraham, shall also be possessors of heaven and earth because we are sons and heirs of Abraham (Galatians 3:14).

 

[Darrell C]

Whom else do we know who is going to possess heaven and earth?

Depends on what context we are dealing with. Temporally speaking, you are correct, the earth will be the inheritance of children of faith.

Eternally speaking...God will always be God, my friend, and we do not confuse temporal existence with that. Not even in the Eternal State.

Why those who are the sons of Abraham; those who are of faith. 'Blessed are the poor on spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven........ Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth' (Matthew 5:3-5).

They will receive of the promises Abraham did not in his lifetime, and which even we have not in it ultimate fulfillment.

How is this relevant to the faith of Abraham? The man.

I have asked a very simple question numerous times in these debates, and while I think I have asked you, whether or not I have, I will ask you now...
...is the Jew today, who understands the First Principles of Christ and trusts that Messiah will redeem Israel...
...saved?

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

The disciples had the faith of Abraham...but they did not believe Christ should rise, would rise, or did rise from the grave after three days as He told them He would.

That is the same faith we can attribute to the Jew who ha faith in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Abraham did not see in the Old Testament Scriptures that Christ was crucified, risen, and ascended. You have no Scriptural basis for that, Martin...none.

And you have multiple passages explicit and implicit that make that very clear. Yet you will not address that point directly.

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

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

Abraham did not "see" the revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel, Martin, we are told that this was hid from the beginning of the world. Abraham rejoiced because his faith was in God and he did not need to understand it fully in order to be declared righteous.

He saw the day of salvation through God the Savior, but that doesn't mean he had revealed to him the Gospel Mystery.

[concerning Galatians 3:1-3]

Paul is preaching Christ crucified, and the passage is not centred on justification by faith, but, receiving the Spirit of God by the hearing of faith. That is specific to this Age, Martin. Abraham did not receive this Promise, that is...the Promised Spirit. He did not come until Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5).

I know this is going to open a huge can of worms and it will need a separate thread, but Abraham and all other OT saints received the Holy Spirit (eg. Psalm 51:10-12; Isaiah 61:1; Matthew 16:17; Luke 2:25-27).

No, Martin, they did not receive the Promise of the Father:


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)


38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


This is not a can of worms, lol, it is...just basic.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell,
You can carry on snowing me with posts until the cows come home, but I very much doubt I'm going to answer them.

If you cannot accept that Abraham is the father of those who believe, there is no point in discussing it further. There it is in the Bible, as large as life in several places, and you deny it. What can I do about that? Where can we go from there? You deny the Bible. I can only argue from the Bible. No meeting place. End of story.

If we carry on we shall just end up shouting at each other like you and Biblicist are doing. I don't care for that. I have one or two further points to make about the faith of Abraham and then I shall finish.

And that is how you and @Biblicist have to do it, Martin...you present only your side and do not address the points your antagonist raises. Then, after enough posts have been made, you speak generalities which leave the specific points raised forgotten.

If you cannot debate this without giving yourself over to emotion as Biblicist does, then it is best for you to withdraw. You are not going to dismantle the points made, that is just a fact.

So here you are saying "I doubt I will respond but...I am going to continue to present my side."

You think that is debate? Its not debate, its not discussion, and if you want to claim victory, and question my faith, my faith in the Word of God, go right ahead, but, I see no honor in that.

If you intend only to talk at people, okay. That is typical of many here. If you ever get the desire to challenge that which you preach, let me know.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

At Pentecost, the Spirit was sent forth more widely and in greater power, but He was not sent forth for the first time.

A rather Charismatic understanding of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Just saying.

There are numerous passages that distinguish the Person of the Spirit being sent in a distinct ministry. Many of those have been given repeatedly.

Abraham's faith is the same faith that we have- wrought by the Spirit.

The same in general principle, but not the same in regards to the revelation he had, as opposed to that which we have.

Martin, do you not see the basic theme of "This is what you have believed, and this is what you must believe now" throughout the New Testament?

The prophecy of Amos concerns the Spirit being poured out on 'all flesh'- Jew and Gentile alike.

And why do you call it Prophecy, Martin?

Do you acknowledge that it spoke of a future event?

'Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His' (Romans 8:8). That applies all through the O.T as well as the NT.

Sorry, no.


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Just address that, will you?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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

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

I agree fully.

What could be taking place is a mutual address of each others' basis for our views.

You cannot say I am in error if you cannot show I am in error, Martin.

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

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

And that is the consistent theme of all my doctrine.

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

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

Sorry, but Abraham died in faith...not receiving the promises. He was not made perfect, and would have offered up animal sacrifice until the day he died.

You are teaching that the blood of bulls and goats does take away sins if you say Abraham had been made perfect in regards to remission of sins in his lifetime. The Writer of Hebrews, hence the Holy Ghost...makes it clear that Abraham died still in need of the Work of Christ.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still waiting for an answer!

 

[The Biblicist]

If we carry on we shall just end up shouting at each other like you and Biblicist are doing.

Thanks for trashing me too! If you are not going to answer him, does my responses amount to mere shouting? When I use upper cases it is for emphasis only and I have told the readers that several times. I am not shouting, I am emphasizing because I want that particular aspect dealt with and not overlooked.

 

[Darrell C]

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

I am blessed with Abraham...now:


Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


So what is the "better thing" in your view, Martin?

I'm sure I haven't answered all your questions,

You haven't really answered anything, Martin.

You have simply given me a lecture.

Let me know when you are ready to challenge that which you teach, my friend. I can't force you to answer simple questions like "How is Abraham the father of faith to Abel, Enoch, and Noah," lol.

Or, "How can Abraham have the Spirit promised and prophesied and said by Christ to be coming not many days hence...just prior to Pentecost?"

Or, "How is it that Hebrews teaches that Abraham, or Melchisedec are the possessor of heaven and earth?"

Or, "How do you say men were trusting in the Risen Savior when we can see that not even the disciples did that, because they knew not the Scriptures that He must rise from the dead?"

Lot of inconsistencies in your doctrine, brother, and I am just trying to at least give you the opportunity to show me why my assessment is wrong. I am not just claiming victory, but giving you a fair chance to support your doctrine.

but the thread has grown so monstrously long that it's taking me too long to find them

Just go to Alerts and click on the ones relevant to this thread.

Then, address them as points. You don't have to be detailed and thorough as ye see me doing.

Now it's back to my sermons.

If that helps you, okay.

But I will be here for you, my friend, should you ever decide to take up the challenge and consider that some of your points are simply inadequate.


God bless.