The Faith of Abraham

[Darrell C]

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."

Its not "my use," BIblicist, it is simply what James and Paul teach. There is no difference between saying "based upon," "by."


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have to leave for a few hours.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

No, that is not true! You were not quoting scripture, that was YOUR summary of YOUR position not a scripture quotation.

Show me in the context of Romans 3:24-5:2 where Paul deals with the point of justification at faith "before God" where scriptures say that? It does not say that, but says the very opposite "without works."

Don't bring James two into this discussion as james is not speaking about justification "before God" but before men and he is not speaking about the point of justification at faith in the promise but about the continuing life of the believer.

Please address Paul's clear and unequivocal justification "without works"

So far IN PRINCIPLE I see no major difference between your explanation of saved by grace and not by works and Rome's explanation of the very same Romans 4 passage.

 

[Darrell C]

However, Paul very explicitly says that the completed action of justification "before God" is "without works

And James makes the point that the completed action was not by faith alone. But neither are saying he was saved by faith and/or works, they are saying he was declared righteous based upon those elements.

But the very declaration of righteousness is credited, not to Abraham by faith or works...but to God. He was justified by faith and works, but he was saved by grace.

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.

And the reconciliation to the apparent contradiction is...we still go back to imputation. If faith, works, or belief were the means of salvation, or took precedence over the Grace of God, then men would have therewith to boast.

Paul's overarching point is that the grace of God is unmerited. It is neither bestowed as a wage nor is it a payment in debt to faith, belief, or works.

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.

They did occur in that "restricted time-frame." You are forgetting that God called Abraham, and Abraham obeyed God...right from the beginning.

Paul makes it clear that while uncircumcised he was declared righteous.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

No, that is not true! You were not quoting scripture, that was YOUR summary of YOUR position not a scripture quotation.

Show me in the context of Romans 3:24-5:2 where Paul deals with the point of justification at faith "before God" where scriptures say that? It does not say that, but says the very opposite "without works."

Don't bring James two into this discussion as james is not speaking about justification "before God" but before men and he is not speaking about the point of justification at faith in the promise but about the continuing life of the believer.

Please address Paul's clear and unequivocal justification "without works"

Once again...quote me, Biblicist. How can I defend your charge if I have to just take your understanding of something I said?

And I am well aware James is speaking about justification before men, but, he is still talking about the justification of Abraham...you cannot change that.

It is relevant, and you cannot create two Abrahams being justified two different ways.

Just because you want to defend the false argument you have raised doesn't mean you can divorce works from Abraham's justification.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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."

Only in your mind. It has nothing to do with my doctrine, nor anything I have said, which is why I asked you from the beginning to quote me.

Did you not defend the plural "beliefs" as part of this basis by pointing to events beyond his uncircumcised life??

I still do, but it is not a matter of his being justified by plural beliefs, the context in which I spoke dealt with the fact that there are differing beliefs between Abraham and New Covenant believers, and we can see in Abraham's life there were differing beliefs we consider. That's why I addressed that issue before, and here I am being forced to do so again.

So to put it simply, some of Abraham's beliefs were that he would receive a land, that he would be a father of many nations, that he would receive a son from his own flesh, that all families of the earth would be blessed through him, and that just to name a few.

Not all of these beliefs were embraced by Abraham at the same time, but that does not mean he was not justified based on beliefs. Because he believed, he obeyed, and those works evidenced that his faith in God was genuine.

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.

Biblicist, was Abraham justified before offering up Isaac?


James 2:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?


I'll let you answer that one for yourself. The answer dismantles your argument.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Its quite simple: I don't try to redefine Scripture or its events.

Nor do I try to divorce what Scripture teaches from what I believe.

Nor do I make arguments that rely on man-made means of interpretation which in many cases allow the one employing those techniques to use the same methods to conclude meaning which are in direct opposition to what the other side believes.

Grammatical suicide. Take heed, my friend.

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.

Again, you try to dictate what is relevant.

Both passages speak about Abraham being justified. There are not two justifications in view. We don't have Paul correcting James, both speak of Abraham being justified, and both are teaching what the Holy Ghost meant for them to convey to us.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

No, Biblicist, there is no disagreement except between you and yourself. This is entirely a false argument that has nothing to do with anything I teach.

Justification is not something that applies to the "whole life of a person," because prior to Abraham being justified by faith...he was a heathen Gentile as of yet uncalled.

It is not until he is justified that justification applies to Abraham, just as it is not until a believer is called and saved that it applies to them. We are not born justified, any more than we are born in relationship with God. There is no eternal connection between God and unregenerate man until they are eternally indwelt. And that Spiritual Union did not take place prior to Pentecost.

Abraham had eternal life in the sense that his salvation was secure, but it was not until he was called that he was actually saved. The Lord did not save him then call him, He called him and then saved him.

That is still true in this Age. I was not saved, nor justified by the Blood of Christ until I was born again.

In addition to these hurdles,

Your the only one on this track.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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

Both are false arguments:

1. I consistently teach that it is the Just that were made perfect;

2. I do not "claim" they were not wholly forgiven, I simply state what is just basic for most Bible Students. In other words...

...there is no "claim," that is simply what Scripture teaches.

Here are two passages that teach that specifically with direct statement:


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;


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.


And if you would just take into consideration that the same mistake you made in regards to "being" is the same mistake you are making in a few very key passages, you might understand that the Cross of Christ was not a mere formality, it is the very source of Remission on an eternal basis.

I have quote passages that teach that very thing, yet you are not fully grasping the import of the passages.

Here is another contrast between the two:


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


While the Writer has a focus on the Covenant of Law (because he is writing to Hebrews who have been under Law), the same principle applies to the sacrifices offered starting with Abel all the way through to the establishment of the Law.

The text here does not have to specifically mention the blood of bulls and goats offered by Abraham, Job, Noah, or Abel...in order for us to see the complete pattern and application to any blood of bulls and goats contrasted with the Offering of Christ.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Good thing it is made clear to us...


Romans 3:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


No-one, Biblicist...was ever justified by the Law.

Abraham was justified through faith, belief, and works. That is the testimony of the Word of God.

But, Abraham was not saved by faith, works, and belief, he was saved by Grace...alone.

And I want to consider what you say here, so I will put this by itself. While you say "the standard of the Law," you are implying justification through the works of the Law, and that is not how men are justified, because no-one, Biblicist...can meet the standard.

However, if you go back to Romans 2:11-16, you will see that men will either be justified or condemned based on their response to the Law written on their hearts. There is no demand for perfection to be justified, just a demand to obey within the framework of the understanding. We do not conclude Uzzah was condemned to eternal separation for breaking the Law by touching the Ark.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

In fact, is it not your view that the blood of Christ had to be chronologically shed first,

Its not my view, it is simply the very teaching of Scripture since first the Gospel was begun to be made known to men, That begins in Genesis 3:15 and is progressively revealed to men in more detailed understanding. However, the mystery is not necessarily understood to mean that the knowledge of the Gospel was non-existent, but that understanding was non-existent.

That is why the disciples of Christ can be both believing and unbelieving at the same time.

In regards to the truth that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Son of the Living God, they were believers, because that knowledge was revealed to them by God. But in regards to the knowledge that Christ must die, as Isaiah prophesied...they were unbelievers.

Consider this again:


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


Consider the rebuke of the Angels, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here,remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again?"


The disciples were themselves saved by grace through faith themselves, but, they were not Baptized with the Holy Ghost, meaning...they had not received the Spirit promised by the Father and taught of by Christ (Acts 1:4-5).

Receiving that Spirit is the source of eternal life for believers:


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.)


That is why manna is contrasted with the True Bread. That is why relationship with God through the Law is contrasted with the True Vine.

That is why the way into the Holiest of All, that is, Heaven...

...is ascribed to Christ's death:



Hebrews 9:8-9

King James Version (KJV)

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;


Hebrews 9:24

King James Version (KJV)

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


Hebrews 10:18-20

King James Version (KJV)

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

before any of its benefits could be applied to anyone?

That is correct.

Men received a covering for sin through the vicarious deaths of animals. Sins demands death, and God gave provision that animals, rather than themselves, should die in their stead.

And we do not equate that to the Offering of Christ. No-one in Scripture does, nor should we.

Are you then claiming that justification (imputed righteousness and remission of sins) are not benefits of the shed blood of Christ?

No, BIblicist, lol.

What I am stating clearly is that men were justified, declared righteous...based on their response to the revelation of God provided them. It was important that Abraham believed God, and acted according to that faith.

But it was more important that Abraham's sin be dealt with on an eternal basis, rather than on a temporal basis of an animal dying in his place.

And it was not until Christ died for Abraham that he was made perfect. Perfection simply means completion, Biblicist, and what it means is that if they were not made complete in regards to remission, then we cannot view them as being made complete.

God intended to forgive sins on an eternal basis through the Shed Blood of Christ before the world began. And that is why He promised this when He promised Israel that He would establish a New Covenant:


Hebrews 8:7-13

King James Version (KJV)


7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Now see the remembrance of sin for the Old Testament Saint:


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


Now, you want to see one of the greatest statements made in Scripture?

Consider:


Luke 22:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


Do you understand what the Lord is saying here? Do you see the remembrance of sin for the Old Testament Saint and the remembrance of the Sacrifice we are exhorted to?

Every time a sacrifice was offered up there was the remembrance of sin.

And for us? There is no sacrifice, but the remembrance of the Lord's Sacrifice.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You certainly claim such are "redemption" benefits for post-cross Christians do you not?

Not on an eternal basis, no.

When sin was forgiven through animal sacrifice, it did not take away the sin.

When the Lamb of God was Offered...it took away sin. The penalty, the remembrance, and even the process as it impacts our temporal lives. Because through that offering Christ was glorified and is now indwelling those that believe on Him, While He is the same God that ministered in the hearts of the disciples and all Old Testament Saints...He was not indwelling them until after He sent the Comforter.

Those are His words:


John 14:15-18; 21-23

King James Version (KJV)


15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.


22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?


23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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?

First, no, your conclusion is in error primarily because your premises are in error.

Secondly, men did not go into Hades because they were not "fully justified," they went into Hades because they...

...were not in union with God on an eternal basis.

That is what salvation in Christ accomplishes.

You cannot impose the teaching here...


2 Corinthians 5:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.


...into the Old Testament.

You are equating Justification with Eternal Redemption.

Eternal Redemption was accomplished on the Cross.

It is through the Cross that completion was accomplished, which is why Christ is called...


Hebrews 12:2

King James Version (KJV)

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


Only in the Cross do we have Eternal Life and Eternal Redemption.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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"?

From an eternal perspective that reaches into eternity past...yes of course.

The easiest way I can explain the difference between justification as contrasted with Eternal Redemption is to point out that in eternity past we could say we were already secure in our eternal destiny, but, it was not until we heard the Gospel and were saved that we could say, from the temporal perspective...we were saved.

So too with Abraham, He was saved, though he was not yet eternally redeemed. It is no different than what I have said before, he was saved though not born again, just as we are saved and not glorified. He wasn't any more saved when he was made perfect in Christ, and we will not be any more saved when we are glorified.

But we do not impose those elements into Ages where they were not present, particularly when we are told specifically they were not. We know Abraham and other Old Testament Saints enjoyed an "indwelling of God" in their lives, but that indwelling is not equated in Scripture with the Eternal Indwelling that began when the Comforter was sent. God has always ministered in and through men, but that does not mean that this equates to that which was only promise.

When the disciples were baptized with the Holy Ghost, this was the fulfillment of the Promise of the Father which Christ said He had taught them. We don't have to look very far to see how He taught them. John 14-16 has much teaching about this promise.

And the basic point is that Justification, while certainly an element of salvation, is not equal to Eternal Redemption.

Could Old Testament saints believe their justification and redemption was "in Christ" or did they believe it was in something other than Christ?

They believed in God their Savior. Jesus is God our Savior.

But the fact remains that the Covenants established by God were not the New Covenant, which is the Covenant that is Eternal. It is Eternal both because God intended this to be the relational Covenant of Eternity future, as well as the fact that God established this Covenant with no intention of it ever being a relationship with man that would end.

And while we have the same Savior God throughout Scripture, we see that in prior Covenants there was a failure on man's part:


Psalm 106:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt;


The Abrahamic Covenant was not a Covenant that could be defaulted on, because it did not involve anything men would do. Abraham was asleep when God established this Covenant. This Covenant is to be viewed as the giving of Promise, whereas the New Covenant is to be viewed as the bestowing of the promise themselves.

God has always been the Savior:


Isaiah 43:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.


But God has ministered to men in differing ways. That is why we call them dispensations.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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."

Doesn't change the fact that Job offered up sacrifice...

...and you don't.

You know more about Redemption and remission of sins than Job did.

Could belief in the same person as "redeemer" be their basis for justification as well?

Not could...was. Past tense.

Because their faith was in the same God, Biblicist.

Noah was not saved because he got on the Ark, he was saved by the grace of God, Who revealed to Noah His will, and Noah believed God...and his works give evidence to that faith and belief.

We could speculate God could have kept him from perishing in the Flood apart from the Ark, but, just as Abraham stands as a Model for faith because of his works, even so Noah does.

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."

For one thing, Jesus Christ Himself has a point in time as beginning.

God said "This Day," and that is without contradiction present tense. The context cannot be mistaken.

But the Son of God is Eternal, He is God, and has no beginning in time, because He is the Creator. But that flesh He took upon Himself has a beginning in the womb of Mary.

Now the verse in question:


Galatians 3:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


I have already addressed this. Maybe the New King James might help you to understand that this is not speaking about Christ confirming the Covenant of Law before (His coming)...


Galatians 3:17

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,[a] that it should make the promise of no effect.

Footnotes:

1. Galatians 3:17 NU-Text omits in Christ.

If one is a KJVonlyist, and rejects the notion that "in Christ" is not in there," okay, that's fine, but where do we see Christ confirming the Covenant?

He is specifically taught as the Mediator of the New Covenant, and while we know that it was indeed God who confirmed the Abrahamic Covenant...the simple fact is that in view is not that the Abrahamic Covenant is the same Covenant as the New Covenant, but that in view is the promise that Covenant held, and that is what is said was not annulled.

Secondly, we consider the time Christ confirmed that Covenant, and you assume that it in that day, rather than in Christ's Day, after He actually came.

The basic thrust is "The Covenant of Law cannot annul the Abrahamic Covenant so that the promises become obsolete."

What we do with "Confirmed in Christ is going to depend largely on our Soteriology.

And I have quite a bit of Scripture to verify that the Incarnate God confirmed the Promises of the Abrahamic Covenant whereas you have nothing to confirm that it was Jesus Christ Who confirmed the Abrahamic Covenant in the Day it was established.

Jesus Christ has to be distinguished as God manifest in the flesh, and this has to be distinguished from God the Son Who is Eternal. On the surface you might think that sounds blasphemous, but again...this is simply what Scripture teaches:



Philippians 2:5-9

King James Version (KJV)


5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:


John 17

King James Version (KJV)

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


The creed that states Jesus is the "eternally begotten Son" is one of the grossest errors on record.

And for the record, as to whether "in Christ" is in the original texts is of little consequence to my doctrine, and I have no opinion on it, because I do not interpret that as having an identical meaning to being "In Christ" as taught by Paul.

Isn't this precisely what is meant in Acts 10:43 by the words "to Him" and "believeth in his name"???

Not from my perspective:


Acts 10:40-43

King James Version (KJV)


40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.


This is saying the same thing Christ states here...


John 5:39

King James Version (KJV)

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


Of course the Prophets testify of Christ, that is why it is called Prophecy. Peter is saying that all the Prophets give witness to the One he is preaching to Cornelius and his household. It doesn't mean that the Prophets understood the Prophecy as we do having had the Mystery revealed unto us.

Peter will later say...


1 Peter 1:9-12

King James Version (KJV)


9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Who is the Spirit of Christ, Biblicist? Is He not the same Spirit that spoke to the Children of Israel in the Wilderness? Is He not the same God that Took upon Himself the flesh of man, died in that flesh, rose from the grave, returned to Heaven...and sent the Spirit?

Two different dispensations. But the same Spirit.

And note that the preaching of the Gospel is based on the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven.

Who is that referring to?

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?

I AM is not confined to the chonological order...the Son of Man is.

There is no remission of sins on an eternal basis outside of the Cross, and the Cross did not take place prior to the Incarnation.

That is John's point here:


John 1:11-14

King James Version (KJV)


11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


John goes on to write...


John 1:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


The Eternal Indwelling of God is specific to this Age. That is made known in many passages.

We know Adam saw God. We know Abraham saw God. We know that Jacob saw God. So what is John speaking about here?

And I am going to restrain myself from expanding on this, there is enough in this response to generate discussion, and perhaps even a few more threads.

Going back to the post itself, as a whole, the attempt to show that I teach men were not saved, or were not justified, or, that justification is or was an ongoing process rather than a declaration of fact is just not something I have ever taught, or will ever teach. There is not a single quote from anything I have posted, on this forum or another...that can support that charge.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Its not me you have an argument with, the Scripture is clear:


James 2:20-24

King James Version (KJV)


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


You are saying that James is wrong and you are right.

James makes it clear that Abraham's faith was made perfect by works.

And his next statement is "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."

The works in one sense justify the justification, lol. Because of the works, we know that Abraham believed God.

And we still have James saying that the righteousness declared upon Abraham is...

...imputed.

And that still returns us to the fact that the declaration of righteousness remains as the Work of God, and is considered still unmerited favor.

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.

I would agree with that in large part, but, we still have both speaking of the same belief, the same faith, and the same imputation of righteousness.

There is really no more I can say on that point. No sense in having to reiterate the same points just to get insults.

Just focus on the doctrine, Biblicist.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Both passages speak about Abraham being justified.

Yes

There are not two justifications in view. We don't have Paul correcting James, both speak of Abraham being justified, and both are teaching what the Holy Ghost meant for them to convey to us.

Yes, but neither is teaching what you believe. The fact is they are teaching about justification from two completely different perspectives (1) Divine versus (2) human. Paul is teaching about justification at the POINT of faith before God whereas James is teaching about the progressive manifestation of that point of profession by works before men. - Period!

Neither teach that justification is "based upon actions, beliefs and faith." That is pure Roman Catholic double talk and it is easy to prove that it is Roman Catholic double talk. If the Reformers had embraced your definition of justification "based on actions, and beliefs and faith" there would have been no reformation at all and they would still be Roman Catholics because that is precisely the Roman Catholic interpretation of Romans 4 James 2.

You have made it clear this is your interpretation of justification period and that is Roman Catholicism not Paul or James theology.

 

[The Biblicist]

Its not me you have an argument with, the Scripture is clear:


James 2:20-24

King James Version (KJV)


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Both Abraham and Rahab demonstrated their faith before men. Abraham demonstrated before his son and his servant and before all the world through the written record. Rahab demonstrated to the spies and then before all israel by hanging out the red cord. But neither instance refers to the event of justification before God and that event before God was not "based on actions, beliefs and faith" as that is the essence of the false gospel as it is the truth of the doctrine of justification that is the primary content of the gospel. We do not tell people they cannot be justified BEFORE GOD except "based on actions, beliefs and faith." That is the essence of the Roman Catholic gospel they call salvation by grace without works but when it comes to definition it is defined to be exactly what the Bible condemns.

Absolute proof you are not teaching the truth of God's Word or are properly understandingn it is that you cannot say what Paul said "he that WORKETH NOT but believeth" or that one is justified "without works." Paul did not qualify these statements but you can't say them without qualifying them because you ASSUME that what Paul said is INCOMPLETE..

IT IS NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BELIEVE OR SAY YOU BELIEVE, BUT HOW YOU DEFINE WHAT YOU BELIEVE THAT REALLY REVEALS WHAT YOU TRULY BELIEVE AND WHETHER IT IS BIBLICAL OR NOT. Your definitions reveal you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Nobody cares what you SAY you believe, only HOW YOU DEFINE what you believe - Remember that! Don't come back on and say "I don't believe in justification by works but by grace" because that is not how you define it and it is self-evident as you can't say what Paul said about justification that is is "without works" - you simply can't say we are justified before God "without works". You can't say "he that worketh not but believeth" is the kind of man justified by God - you can't say that and your definitions prove you cannot say that. So according to Darrelic soteriology Paul's statements are incomplete and inadequate which demonstrates you either don't understand or are denying his statement thatit is "without works."

Our conversation is closed.

 

[percho]

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


God bless.

It says to me before Abram was born he was a sheep. he would be a believer, he would be imputed with the righteousness of God, through the faith of God.

That faith being before the foundation of the world the Christ, without sin, would shed his blood for redemption. For the Lamb to be without spot and without blemish he would have to learn the obedience of faith through sufferings all the way unto death. That he did.

Per Heb 5:7,8 & Phil 2:8 Christ did just that.