The Faith of Abraham

[Darrell C]

Still waiting for an answer!

So you expect me to answer you, despite the fact that you do not answer me? Simply claim to? lol

Okay, Biblicist, I have been a little tied up with Martin, but if I have time I will get to your post.

And just for the record, I do recognize that this one is much better than your normal fare.

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.

Biblicist, it doesn't matter if you feel it is a proper way to emphasize, it is still going to look like shouting to most people. You have bold, italics, underlining, and even color to emphasize your points, but because you feel everyone in the world must conform to how you think things should be done, you ignore the fact that not everyone conforms to Biblicist, and they employ basic generalities of forum etiquette.

You don't really understand how it comes across. And that is just going to happen when we read, rather than listen to someone's statements, we have a tendency to impose the emphasis we see, rather than what the author intended.

So again, just a little advice, if you don't want people to view your posts as rants generated by emotion, then conform to what everyone else views as proper emphasis, and you won't be surprised when someone you perhaps thought was an ally makes a statement like this.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you cannot debate this without giving yourself over to emotion as Biblicist does, then it is best for you to withdraw.

It is not Biblicist's emotion that I'm concerned about; it's yours. You were at least as guilty as he, probably more so. I think I owe him an apology.

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.

I don't believe it is right to debate someone who denies the word of God so clearly and egregiously as you have. We might discuss exactly how Abraham is father of believers, but when you simply deny it in the face of multiple texts baldly stating the fact, to debate with you gives the suggestion that denial of Scripture is a reasonable position.

Finally, You have snowed my one post with about a dozen of your own. That in itself is an unfair debate tactic and even if I wanted to, there is no way I would have time to answer them all.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.-

No, you are not! The preceding context defines this promise precisely as a reference to the future resurrected life in the new world to come - read:

Heb. 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

As the writer of Hebrews pens this letter he says "NOW" they are desiring a better "country" that is "heavenly"! They were not looking for "heaven" but they were looking for the promised city on earth (v. 10) but did not find it, and so they confessed they "were strangers and pilgrims ON EARTH."

Furthermore, the very text you quote demands that the writer of hebrews had not yet attained this promise and would not until it was attained WITH Old Testament saints. Here "perfect" means final perfection on a new earth in a new Jerusalem on earth (Rev. 22).

The fact that the writer uses the present tense "NOW" as he writes disproves he is speaking of simply going to heaven as a departed spirit as he is writing over 30 years after the cross.

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.

You have misrepresented Martin (even if he doesn't defend himself). He tells you precisely how Abraham is the "father" of "ALL" who are of faith and as far as I am aware all whom you list are found in Hebrews as those of faith? Where did Martin say this? He implied it in his post to you (post #74) and he confirmed it by agreeing with my detailed definition (post #75) in his post #77

 

[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 a clear and straightforward answer.

 

[Darrell C]

Still waiting for an answer!

And sorry, Biblicist, just saw some responses from another poster in another thread that takes precedence, so I will make your post the next project after that, which will probably eat up the rest of the time I have this morning.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

My friend, as I said above, I think I do owe you an apology. You were correct in what you told me about Darrell's theology and in those parts of the other thread that I read, you certainly won the debate.

The problem was that the debate disappeared amid a mountain of posts about who had misquoted whom and who had lied about the other. When these things happen, I think it's time to bow out of the discussion.

 

[The Biblicist]

My friend, as I said above, I think I do owe you an apology. You were correct in what you told me about Darrell's theology and in those parts of the other thread that I read, you certainly won the debate.

The problem was that the debate disappeared amid a mountain of posts about who had misquoted whom and who had lied about the other. When these things happen, I think it's time to bow out of the discussion.

Apology accepted. I think you might be wiser than me in refusing to continue debating this type of debater who simply refuses to admit the obvious but just loves debating instead loving truth and uses ridicule as his primary defense.

 

[The Biblicist]

And sorry, Biblicist, just saw some responses from another poster in another thread that takes precedence, so I will make your post the next project after that, which will probably eat up the rest of the time I have this morning.


God bless.

apology accepted.

 

[blessedwife318]

My friend, as I said above, I think I do owe you an apology. You were correct in what you told me about Darrell's theology and in those parts of the other thread that I read, you certainly won the debate.

The problem was that the debate disappeared amid a mountain of posts about who had misquoted whom and who had lied about the other. When these things happen, I think it's time to bow out of the discussion.

I think everyone who has debated DC comes to a point where they realize it is futile to debate with him as he make it his goal to spam the thread until it is shut down and than he starts a new one with his own spin to the topic and taking a victory lap over the pervious thread being shut down. I'm pretty sure he has me on ignore since I at one point took the time to go line by line of his posts and answer him which made him very upset and overly emotional. He reveals himself for what he is in his ranting post.

Martian you have done a good job keeping to what the Bible says and not allowing yourself to get side tract. There can be no debate if there is no common ground and when someone refuses to accept the Bible than that is where the true issue lies.

Both of you keep up the good work contending for thr faith.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Darrell C]

It is not Biblicist's emotion that I'm concerned about; it's yours. You were at least as guilty as he, probably more so. I think I owe him an apology.

Because yo perceive that I have responded with emotion that means I did?

Here's a little emotion for you brother...lol.

I am not sure if you are simply unwilling to admit some basic truths about these discussions, or simply do not actually get the points raised, but, it is quite evident that no-one has addressed my points in detail.

And that is why, I am sure, that you are now pulling out. Posts too long, my foot. lol

Just address the points in general, Martin, that's all I ask.

Its true.

You are not going to dismantle my views that...

1. the disciples were unbelievers inr egards to the Resurrection of Christ;

2. the disciples did not know the Scriptures regarding the Resurrection;

3. the disciples had not received the Spirit of God promised by the Father and taught of by Christ.


And I'll stop there. That's enough for you to know that my statement is true, and you know it.

That's why you refuse to address it.

I don't believe it is right to debate someone who denies the word of God so clearly and egregiously as you have.

?

Are you serious?

Those are the people we need to address, Martin, and because too many sit back on their laurels false doctrine increases in popularity.

That is why we see false teachers in such prominence these days.

And if you want to call me a false teacher, you better be ready to back it up.

If you think that people must just accept your teaching just because you teach it, then you might take a look at the Ministry of Paul again.

We might discuss exactly how Abraham is father of believers,

We have, and you reject my position.

Secondly, you do not understand that the charge you levy against me, that I deny clear Bible statements...applies to you as well.

I am confident that anyone reading my responses will see that there is little reason to believe in having the "spiritual DNA of Abraham," all the reason to believe that we have the Spirit of God.

His Person, not DNA. And you don't say we have the DNA of God, but Abraham.

but when you simply deny it in the face of multiple texts baldly stating the fact,

I did not "simply deny it," I gave a detailed address that included Scripture as counterpoints to your doctrine.

And it is because it is not simple that you withdraw.

Sorry, brother, but this is looking like laziness to me.

Don't start something you have no intention of finishing.

And don't run under the delusion that anyone has to simply take your word for anything. All of us should be demanding a Biblical Basis, and I have dealt with what little basis you present for the Spiritual DNA of Abraham.

And I still haven't seen a bunch of people stepping up and claiming that.

to debate with you gives the suggestion that denial of Scripture is a reasonable position.

If that makes you feel better, Martin, so be it. I see it as a cop-out.

"The idea of debating someone that denies my views of what the Bible teaches on a Christian Doctrinal Debate Forum is simply absurd."

Amazing.

Finally, You have snowed my one post with about a dozen of your own.

And it wouldn't have mattered any way I posted, you would not address my points...

...because you cannot.

We aren't going to chat ourselves through this, Martin, and if you want to actually discuss the issues...then be ready to look at more than just your own proof-texts.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

That in itself is an unfair debate tactic

Its unfair to address the points of a debate...in a debate?

Just pick one point at a time, Martin. I didn't say you had to quote every single thing I said...its the points I am concerned about.

Here is an example of a post you could have addressed:


Post #82

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.


What is stopping you from addressing this one, Martin?

Where are the other members this challenge is given to? Why aren't they stepping up to claim to have the spiritual DNA of Abraham?


Here is another simple one to address:


Post #87


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).


I would think there would be a number of people who claim to be Reformed and Calvinist that would be glad to answer this one. How about you?


How about this one:

Post #100


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.


So I am not buying the cop-out. It doesn't matter if there are numerous posts addressing your arguments, points, and Theology, what matters is that you address the points raised that show not just weakness, but complete error and poor exegesis. And that doesn't mean that I think this is true of you in general, Martin, just when you are asked about issues you have not truly contemplated outside of the context of your own theology.

I can understand how embarrassing that must be. And if you think that is a goad...you are correct. Because I want to goad you into answering these questions, because only then will you see the weakness as I see it.

and even if I wanted to, there is no way I would have time to answer them all.

Just answer one of them, lol. I have until the Lord takes me, and it is important enough to me to invest that time in you, brother.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

apology accepted.

Awfully generous of you.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Okay, I have decided to address this post instead of heading to the other thread, and will just say in advance that this is illustrative of your technique in exegesis. You are still creating false arguments by grammatically hanging yourself. You rationalize your understanding and for you that becomes the truth.

Its very simple, Biblicist...

...you are imposing a present tense into my statement...

"...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 C

...when it is not there. You base a present tense on my mention of Abraham's actions, but, when you consider that I also mention his beliefs and faith we see the present tense cannot correlate.

Secondly, anyone that has discussed or debated me even only minimally knows I teach that Salvation is wholly the work of Holy God, that it is a one time event in which the believer is made perfect forever, and that I distinguish between that experience of the New Covenant believer and the Old Testament Saint in regards to the Promises of God, and do not deny that the Old Testament Saint was saved by grace through faith.

The point is this, Biblicist: if I am saying that Abraham's justification is ongoing, so too would I say that the justification of both is ongoing.

And you know I don't teach that Biblicist...

...because I have made it clear that the justified Saint of the Old Testament was made perfect through Christ.

So how can you possibly miss that?

That is my very point: they were justified but that does not negate the need to be made perfect. And the one issue that you raise in this post is in disdaining the fact that the Old Testament Saints were not made perfect in regards to remission of sins, yet you ignore everything I have said about perfection in regards to remission of sins.

So here we are again, addressing what you think I say, instead of what I have said. Imposing what you think I mean into what I have said.

This statement...

"...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 C

...is a statement I still stand by. Because there is a difference between Abraham being justified for his faith, which was based on his response to the revelation of God, his beliefs, which are plural (as addressed in a previous post), which is also based on his response to God's revelation, and his actions...

...clearly based on his response to the revelation of God...

...and...

...being justified through the Blood of Christ, receiving eternal redemption, and having the sins that were past forgiven, which were not forgiven in the lifetime of Abraham

But you will not take that into consideration, and your understanding is just like your understanding of what I say.

Now here is a parallel statement in which "being" is used without a present tense of continued action:

There is a difference between being forgiven through the sacrifice of animals (which is what happened under Old Testament Economies), and one being forgiven in completion through the Blood of Christ.

Am I still saying that the Old Testament Saints are still offering up sacrifice, or still being forgiven through those sacrifices?

No, because that is another point which is consistent in my doctrine...they did not receive the same forgiveness through those sacrifices. And that is just one point, that if you will just give it some consideration, might just help you understand what I say in the context I say it, rather than in the context you impose into it.

Now, that should be sufficient as an answer, and there is really no need to address the rest of the arguments you pose in this post, but...I am not going to do that. I will begin addressing, in detail...every word you say in this post. You demand an answer, and I am going to give it to you. If you read this post and understand your error, that of trying to impose a present tense ongoing justification into my teaching, and tell me "Okay, I understand, and based on the fact that you do distinguish that the Justified Old Testament Saint was made perfect, so no need to address the rest," then I will forego the detailed address.

But you have to understand your error.

There is no ongoing context to my statement, it is a false argument, and it lacks even the remembrance of other points I have tried to make with you. The two conflict, Biblicist. I can't both say they were justified and made perfect as well as say they were still being justified and then made perfect. My teaching is clear: the Old Testament was justified but that does not equate to being made perfect. I did a post in regards to perfection, and that was ignored. Its a great topic of discussion, and a consistent theme of my teaching.

Your false argument simply does not correlate to what I teach on a regular basis.

Now, the rest of your post will be broken up into small segments with a goal of secluding individual points. You don't have to address them all, I already know you will not. Just address the points, that's good enough for me. But, do me a favor...quote exactly what I say and give the time stamp. If you are confident you can show error in what I have said, don't do these loose quotes. I suggest you, and others, do that because they know if the context is maintained...you, and they, lose the ability to wrest what is said.

And yes, that is a goad, but it is the truth.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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?

No, Biblicist, I wasn't saying that, it is a fictitious issue you devised in an attempt to find something by which you could show error.

I do teach Abraham was justified, but that was not the point of the statement. I do affirm that Abraham was justified as a completed action within the time frame of his uncircumcised period of life just as Paul says.

The point, which you have completely avoided, and wasted much time instead with false arguments, is...


"...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 C


The distinction is that while they were justified...they were not justified through Christ, but that justification is based on faith.

And while Christ is the very reason for justifying them, the imputed righteousness is general to faith in God in those Economies, whereas in Christ it is specific to the righteousness of Christ. And if you understand that the Gospel was a Mystery, not revealed to men in past Ages...you would understand the distinction.

Was Abraham declared righteous? Yes.

Was he? No.

This is why the Writer of Hebrews states...do not lay again the foundation of faith in God, because he is urging them to go on unto perfection, leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ.

It is not enough in this Age to simply have faith in God. Muslims do that. Jews do that. But it is not enough. The Muslim and the Jew must conform to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and come under obedience to the revelation. The Jew is the better example, because they have the Oracles of God. They have the Gospel in the Old Testament.

But they don't understand it. And while we still have to consider the revelation that God gives to every man, and not divorce that as a Basic Bible Principle every Bible Student should understand, what we can say is that those who reject Jesus Christ will never be justified.

Right? You really did not mean by the present tense participle "being justified"

There is no "present tense participle" in my statement, just like there is usually no grammatical support for numerous positions you hold.

You are imposing that into my statement, and failing to recognize how the word is being used in the statement. THis is what I mean when I warn you of grammatical suicide. You impose into the text...

...something that is simply not there.

Do that with this statement as well:

There is a difference between being forgiven through the sacrifice of animals, and one being forgiven through the Blood of Christ.

I am just saying that there is a difference, there is no imposition of process or sequence. There is neither present tense, nor future tense, that would have to be derived from the surrounding context.

Why don't you give the post the statement is taken from, Biblicist, and factor in everything that has been said concerning justification?

I'll tell you why, because you know you can only seem reasonable in your false arguments by giving loose quote out of context.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You make this comment in one of your posts, which I ran across while trying to track down the original statements, which I would not have to do if you didn't loosely quote someone in order to support a false argument. And by the way, if the thread is closed, just right click and "Copy Link Location" on the number of the post.

Who can debate with a man who claims "being" is "but a past tense use of the word"?

Are you really going to say that "being" cannot be used in the past tense?

I was being detailed in my responses before, but I can see that I must be even more detailed in my responses.

So answer the question. For your statement to be reasonable you one must conclude that Biblicist is right, "being" cannot be used in the past tense.


And I ran across this:

!

Here are my words, show the readers where I ever said you quoting James is a revised edited version?

He is the example of justification based on faith.

No, his justifcation as a completed action by faith in the person and promises of God are without works is the fatherhood example presented by Paul and not your revised edited version.

What I said, and it is clear in my overall context, that what Paul set forth as THE PATTERN or the FATHER IMAGE of Abraham's justification by faith you have revised, edited and thus rejected and I explicitly gave point for point. You know what I said and meant and yet dishonestly jerked my words out of the overall context which made it clear what I meant. This is another example of what I pointed out in the thread about dishonest debate tactics.

I was being nice in not pointing out that your argument here does not factor in the fact that it was James I quoted, not Paul, which is relevant to the statement. You don't seem to think its relevant that since I was quoting James, that means you are saying that my position of James is a revised edited version, then are incredulous when I ask you how quoting James is a revised edited version.

As I said...I was being nice not exploiting this great blunder of yours. Was my kindness present tense with ongoing action, or past tense?

Okay, back to the post I am responding to now.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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?

Not sure why you would continue this argument when I have several times made this clear:

And by the way...where is the quote of me denying Old Testament Saints were justified?


And by the way...where is that quote of me denying men were justified in the Old Testament?


Okay, quote me where you come to this erroneous understanding of what I have said. This one should be easy, because I have spoken of justification by works in regards to Abraham.

It has nothing to do with sanctification, it has everything to do with we do not divorce Abraham's works from the fact that he was justified.


That Abraham was justified by faith prior to circumcision does not equate to...

...Abraham's was made perfect in Christ because he was justified by his faith.

Before you presume to speak for me you need to first understand what it is I believe.

Now, again, where is a quote to substantiate your charge that I teach the Old Testament Saint was not justified?


Quote me saying what it is I have said that gives you the right to say I teach the Old Testament was not justified.

This is a completely separate issue from what imputed righteousness means and how that is relevant to justification.

Quit changing the subject, Biblicist...

...and quote me.

(the statements are the links)

I have continued to ask for a quote, and you still haven't done that. The best I can find is...

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

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

And now in this response we are dealing with the fact that you simply have no quote, and now you destroy the English language by limiting the word "being" to present tense only.

This is not quoting someone, Biblicist. You need to give what that person said, and the post number.

Your false argument is exposed. If you don't have anything to hide, nor have made embarrassing blunders, there is no problem providing the quotes and the links.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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?

I am not saying anything of the sort. All I am doing is addressing the imposition of a false argument into something I have said.

What I said, past tense, which you quoted me on, was there is a distinction between being justified based on faith, action/works, and beliefs, and being justified through the Blood of Christ.

There is a difference in declaring a man righteous and a man having the imputed righteousness of Christ applied to him:

We see that here:


Romans 3:25

King James Version (KJV)

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;

Therefore, Abraham's justification was not a process throughout his life but a completed action within his uncircumcised life period? Right?

That is correct.

Abraham was justified by faith. That does not mean, though, that Abraham was not justified through works.

That can be said of Abraham, and that can be, in the context James speaks, said of Born Again believers as well, because...

...it is not salvation through Christ that is in view, it is justification that is in view.

Abraham was declared righteous prior to having his sins forgiven through the Cross, that is just a basic Bible Principle. Lot was considered Just, so what great expression of faith did he present? He left the city when he was told it was going to be destroyed? Well, that's good enough...

...he believed God.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

Its very simple, Biblicist...

...you are imposing a present tense into my statement...

Ok, after reading both posts I understand that you did not mean by "being"as a continuing action but rather as a state or condition of justified. However, after reading both posts you have not sufficientlly answered your use of "based upon."

Moreover, you use your position as a defense for your position with the assumption that your position is correct rather than the very object that is being debated. For example, you claim that anyone who has read your voluminous posts that they should know you do not believe in justification by works or salvation by works. However, that is beside the point as a person can be inconsistent with their own beliefs and I believe that it precisely the case with regard to Old Testament saints. So pardon me if I don't make the assumptions you want me to make.

After reading your explanations, the sum of your position seems to be that they were not justified in any sense like we are, but their justifcation was inclusive of literal blood from animals and their works rather than any righteousness from Christ and they continued in that state until the cross where at that point they were partakers of "in Christ" justification.

The point remains that you are denying the "father" image of justification by faith provided by Paul in Romans 4. You have two completely different types of justification one that involves literal animal sacrifices and one that does not. One that is without the righteousness of Christ AT THE TIME OF what you call "being justified" whereas post-cross have the righteousness of Christ AT THE TIME OF justification. In reality your view is that the justification of Abraham is only related to our justification by a common faith in Christ rather than actual justification contents as there is no Christ content in your view of Abraham's justification as it is animals rather than Christ that hold that position and their works rather than Christ's works of righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not saying anything of the sort. All I am doing is addressing the imposition of a false argument into something I have said.

What I said, past tense, which you quoted me on, was there is a distinction between being justified based on faith, action/works, and beliefs, and being justified through the Blood of Christ.

There is a difference in declaring a man righteous and a man having the imputed righteousness of Christ applied to him:

We see that here:


Romans 3:25

King James Version (KJV)

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;




That is correct.

Abraham was justified by faith. That does not mean, though, that Abraham was not justified through works.

That can be said of Abraham, and that can be, in the context James speaks, said of Born Again believers as well, because...

...it is not salvation through Christ that is in view, it is justification that is in view.

Abraham was declared righteous prior to having his sins forgiven through the Cross, that is just a basic Bible Principle. Lot was considered Just, so what great expression of faith did he present? He left the city when he was told it was going to be destroyed? Well, that's good enough...

...he believed God.


Continued...

I am sorry but you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You continue to confuse Paul's justifcation account "before God" with James justification between "you show me...I will show you" account. Before God justification is "WITHOUT works" (emphasis only) but you continue to say "that does not mean that Abraham was not justified through works" thus again reaffirming how I interpreted your use of "based upon" actions, beliefs and faith.

Paul's is teaching justification at the point of belief BEFORE GOD and he says that is WITHOUT works while you say it was "based upon his actions." That is a clear contradiction and YOU CANNOT GO TO JAMES to escape this contradiction because James is not addressing the POINT of justification BEFORE GOD.

 

[Darrell C]

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."

No, Biblicist, I didn't do that...Scripture did that.

Paul states his justification is based on faith and belief, James states his justification is based on faith and works, and there is no contradiction.

But I say it and you think there is a contradiction?

When a person uses the words "based upon" that refers to the underlying foundation for something.

What ineffable twaddle.

I am simply stating what both Paul and James teach. It is direct statement from Inspired Scripture.

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.

BIblicist, stop and think about this: you are equating the justification of Abraham with salvation, eternal life, and entrance to Heaven. That is what bothers you. You cannot understand that Abraham did not receive Eternal Life, because he was not reconciled to God through Christ at that time. I have tried to open this discussion up to that, and you refuse.

You cannot understand that Abraham did not go to Heaven, another issue I have addressed, but you refuse.

Now salvation is another story: Abraham was saved, but Biblicist...he was not saved by faith alone.

He was saved by the grace of God...through faith.

That is what you do not understand.

And that is the focal point of the discussion, Abraham's justification, and how that relates to salvation. As already shown, we see that the infant that dies in the womb can be saved and not regenerate, not indwelt eternally by God, so why would we object to Abraham being saved.

But because you cannot distinguish between the two, you confuse all of these and equate them as being equivalents.

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.

I didn't add anything, lol, this is simply what Paul and James teach.

The sooner you acknowledge that, the sooner we can progress in our discussion, and we will not have to waste so much time false arguments you create.


Continued...