glfredrick
New Member
Which is EXACTLY why we need biblical scholars conversant in the original languages instead of fundamentalistic Bible proof-texters who take God's Word out of context based on a reading in the English. Great post! :thumbs:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What do you believe is required for Salvation?
- Thread starter Thinkingstuff
- Start date
- Status
Which is EXACTLY why we need biblical scholars conversant in the original languages instead of fundamentalistic Bible proof-texters who take God's Word out of context based on a reading in the English. Great post! :thumbs:
Exactly right.
Yep - I agree with you.
I just kind of did "shorthand" in my explanation showing that there's nothing MORE to do (baptism, having to follow all the commandments, live a perfect life, etc.) to be saved than that. :jesus:
You nailed it... great post :thumbs:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
The problem with this statement is Paul does not pinpoint it in Genesis 11 in his quote from Romans 4:3 but rather pinpoints it 1) prior to circumcision 2) and at Genesis 15. As to not that Genesis 15 preceeds Genesis 17 (circumcision). Thus Paul as you note has not identified Genesis 11 in his discources in Romans 4. Its a streatch to say so. Galatians 3:8 is also Pauls way of connecting God's plan of incorporation of Gentiles into the faith by his prophetic language in Genesis 12 again not pointing to Genesis 11. Note again Paul quotes Genesis 15 previous to the discussion of gentile incorporation. So in niether instance is Paul refering to Genesis 11.
Which time? Your suggestion is originally at the point he believed God and left Haran. Which is fine. However, Paul indicates it happened later and James even later.
However, the language doesn't indicate specifically that. Each author offers a different point of justification. And it brings up a question what if Abraham chose not to believe God at either later period?
Which he identifies as occuring in Genesis 15 rather than 12. Was not Abraham justified in Chapter 12?
Yes it does. Which is why I brought it up. To show how one might go round and round with regard to this one consept often taken for granted by Christians (much like cattle) because they've been told how to view these verses time and again yet by looking at the text we may come to a different conclusion. And thus my point is taken from its original stance.
where you replied
and I stated
So not as straight forward as you would purport and I've shown using the text may not be as sufficient as you may believe even in this most recent post of yours you state
As though suprised someone else may come to a different perspective from the text alone. But I shown how a reasonable person may come up with a different view than what you've stated. Which means You've read into the text your view that Justification is not a repetative or progressive action. Which means you again are applying to the text a bias.
I have to admit, Thinkingstuff has a strong point. The text is the text and it says exactly what it says.
Many refuse to admit this, but most of us Evangelicals don't believe the Bible text as it is stated many times but use other techniques to resolve what to us are discrepancies based on OUR stated understanding. I'll admit, taking an modern day Evangelical position places many of these discrepancies in our path that do not exist in Orthodox or Catholic circles.
But rather than leaving a grey area grey, Evangelicals, which I am painting admitedly with a broad brush here (and I feel is accurate nonetheless), like to have things in solid BLACK and WHITE. We don't like grey. It must resolve or we go crazy. I believe this tendency also explains why we tend to hammer the circle into the square peg a lot of times. And with extreme intensity.
Many refuse to admit this, but most of us Evangelicals don't believe the Bible text as it is stated many times but use other techniques to resolve what to us are discrepancies based on OUR stated understanding. I'll admit, taking an modern day Evangelical position places many of these discrepancies in our path that do not exist in Orthodox or Catholic circles.
But rather than leaving a grey area grey, Evangelicals, which I am painting admitedly with a broad brush here (and I feel is accurate nonetheless), like to have things in solid BLACK and WHITE. We don't like grey. It must resolve or we go crazy. I believe this tendency also explains why we tend to hammer the circle into the square peg a lot of times. And with extreme intensity.
That passage does not support faith being from God, many scholars agree the greek does not allow for that interpretation. The gift in that passage is salvation, the whole of salvation by grace through faith. Your model has putting your faith in Christ as being irrelevant to salvation.
That passage is probably the most argued over in the NT. People argue over what the "that" is. Some people say it is grace, others faith. I think the weakest of them is savlation being that the word isn't even in the text. The word used in the text is saved, a verb. It says we are saved by grace through faith. I think the strongest argument is for faith being the gift of God. This is to remove boasting afterall. If we are saved by grace, and we are saved by grace through faith, and that faith is not of ourselves but rather is the gift of God, how can we boast? We cannot.
Another key passage is Galatians 5:22 which list the fruit of the Spirit. Part of that is faith. Faith is that which is produced by the indwelling Spirit, and thus wasn't there prior to the indwelling Spirit of God. Thus, faith is the gift of God given to saved people whereby they believe in God. The poster was right when he said that belief being exhibited in a person's life shows that he is saved.
The word "salvation" not being in the passage is irrelevant. "That" refers back to "by grace are you saved through faith". Salvation is the gift spoken of here and throughout Scripture as a whole. If that is not salvation, I don't know what is.
Really? So when Paul wrote, "and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God," you say he was referring to the word salvation? Problem is, salvation doesn't appear in the text, and that is important considering that we are talking about language construction here. That, which is revealed to be a gift of God, must refer to something, and that something must logically be a noun. Either it is grace, or faith, or both. The strongest case is faith.
There are many times in scripture when something is said to be the gift of God:
eternal life
righteousness
faith and/or grace
Obviously, all of these are aspects of salvation. To say salvation is a gift and thus he's not talking about faith is a bit ridiculous. Righteousness is a gift, but is not the whole of salvation, only a part. Same with eternal life.
In Ephesians 2:8, 9 Paul is explaining that salvation excludes boasting. There must be a reason why boasting is excluded. There is. Salvation is all of God and none of us. We can't boast because, beginning to end, salvation is of the Lord. The righteousness whereby we are justified is the free gift of God. The faith whereby we believe in Jesus is the gift of God and fruit of the Spirit. The eternal life to which we are saved is the gift of God. It is Jesus Christ who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
There are many times in scripture when something is said to be the gift of God:
eternal life
righteousness
faith and/or grace
Obviously, all of these are aspects of salvation. To say salvation is a gift and thus he's not talking about faith is a bit ridiculous. Righteousness is a gift, but is not the whole of salvation, only a part. Same with eternal life.
In Ephesians 2:8, 9 Paul is explaining that salvation excludes boasting. There must be a reason why boasting is excluded. There is. Salvation is all of God and none of us. We can't boast because, beginning to end, salvation is of the Lord. The righteousness whereby we are justified is the free gift of God. The faith whereby we believe in Jesus is the gift of God and fruit of the Spirit. The eternal life to which we are saved is the gift of God. It is Jesus Christ who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Romans 4:3 refers to Genesis 15:6 where Moses uses the perfect tense. The perfect tense tells the reader that Abraham's faith in God did not originate in Genesis 15:3 but what is said is due to a completed state of faith at an earlier point. Abraham faith in God in Genesis 15:3 is due to a still earlier completed state previous to Genesis 15:3. A done deal that still stands a done deal - a completed action that still stands as a completed action. A once completed action that still stands as completed action. Abraham "HAD" believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness and still believed in God and God still imputed it for righteousness. This is the idea.
Why then does Paul choose Genesis 15:6 while in Galatians 3:6-8 go back to Genesus 12:3 when in both contexts he is referring to the same doctrine of Justification by faith and Abraham as the example??? The answer is very simple from the two different contexts. In Romans 4 Paul is emphasizing imputation through faith while in Galatians he is emphasizing the object of faith or the promised seed which is Christ (Gal. 3:8,16-17). Genesis 15:6 provides the precise language for Paul's doctrinal point in Romans 4, although, it actually occurred at an earlier point than Genesis 15:6. Genesis 12:3 provides the precise language for Pauls doctrinal point in Galatians 3:8-17 even though Genesis 12:3 also employs the same perfect tense demonstrating this conversation occurred earlier in Genesis 11 while Abraham was in Ur of the Chaldees.
The Mosaic languagae moves the completed act of justification and Abraham's faith in the gospel object back to Genesus 11 and the writer of Hebrews agree. It was in the land of Ur that the original conversation took place, the gospel was preached to Abraham and the promised seed being the object of faith, when Abraham believed the gospel and it was imputed to him for righteousness as a completed action that continued to stand as a completed action in Genesis 12, 15, 22, etc.
This is confirmed by Paul in Romans 4:12 where justification is a completed action (Aorist tense) previous to circumcision that occurred 14 years after Abrham believed the gospel in the Ur of the Chaldees. If your position were correct then obedience to circumcision would be a PROGRESSIVE evidence of PROGRESSIVE justification and Paul should have used the present tense. However, Paul uses the Aorist showing a completed action previous to circumcision.
This is confirmed in Romans 5:1-2 where Paul uses one Aorist and two Perfect tense verbs to demand that justification by faith in the gospel (Rom. 4:22-25) is a completed action rather than a progressive repeated action. Your position and theology would require Paul to use either imperfect or present tense verbs.
The contextual point in Romans 4 provides the explanation why he uses Genesis 15:3 as Gensis 15:3 not only contained the exact language to make Paul's point but contained the use of the Perfect tense in the Hebrew text so that it would not contradict Paul's use of Aroist and Perfect tense verbs to demand it is a completed action rather than a progressive action.
The contextual point in Galatians 3:6-17 provides the explanation why Paul uses Genesis 12:6 as Genesis 12:6 not only contained the exact language to make Paul's point but contained the use of the perfect tense in the Hebrew text so that it would not contradict Paul's use of the Perfect tense verbs in Paul's treatise on the same subject in both Romans and Galations and harmonize perfectly with the statements made by the writer of Hebrews 11 that it was in UR of the Chaldees the faith of Abraham originated as both the perfect tense verbs in Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 12:3 point back to a previous time of a completed action and that time is in Genesus 11:28-29.
Your position necessarily demands the use of imperfect or present tense verbs whereas the Scriptures use Aorist and Perfect tense verbs in all of these passages.
Hence it was in Genesis 11:28-19 that the perfect tense verbs in Genesis 12:3 and 15:6 and the Aorist tense verb in Romans 4:12 point back to as the point of that completed action and that the writer of Hebrews confirms as the point of origin of Abrham's faith.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you even read what I wrote?! I never said the word salvation was in the text...please respond to what I say and not what you want to hear.
I agree completely salvation is the complete gift of God...and that is what the text is stating. Having the ability to have faith in Christ is not even of ourselves, as God has equipped us with everything needed to come to Him (Acts 17:26)
If faith is a gift God has only given a few, the many cannot be held accountable for not having it as it was not given to them! Justice demands that responsibility requires ability.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You're really trying very hard to incert your view of Justification on the passages quoted by Paul. Note Paul makes a simple quote of Genesis 15. Using the Greek form of Perfect tense. The conclussion that the Perfect tense
is wrong on two points its acutally Genesis 15:6 and the Aorist tense usage indicates only a "simple occurance" So in context of the passage we have
Verse 6 refers to verse 4 not back to Genesis 12. Past perfect tense would have been a better choice in that case and it would have been clarified in Genesis. Yet its clear from the Context of Romans and Genesis that its Gensis 15:4-5 that is being referred too. The passages don't take it back to the 12 th chapter. Note Paul doesn't really use a perfect tense but an Aorist tense and in either case not using a past perfect tense your theory is out in the cold even if paul used a perfect tense over the past perfect or Aorist but he uses the Aorist.
You've misapplied what I said. Galatians reference is to God's prophetic sense of what would occure with the Gentiles which also did not occure in Genesis 12 but in Gensesis 15. A different context indeed but both passages leave out Genesis 12.
You gave it a good try but it doesn't pan out the way you want it.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I confused verse 6 in Genesis 15 with verse 3 in Genesis 12. Just an oversight. I was going by memory when I made the reference.
Both Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:8 are referring to Abraham and the same doctrine of justification by faith without work in their immediate contexts. Agreed?
Galatians 3:8 quotes the phrase "In thee shall all nations be blessed" directly from Genesis 12:3. However, in the immediate context of Galatians 3:8 Paul makes it clear that it is initial faith in the gospel he is talking about (vv. 6-7) and the object of gospel faith which is Christ as he interprets Genesis 12:3 and that phrase to have direct application to Christ:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
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. - Gal. 3:16-17
Galatians 3:8 points to Abraham's initial encounter and his faith in the object of gospel "in thee shall- or the promised "seed" which Paul interprets as referring to Christ in Galatians 4:16-17.
Galatians 3:8 points to the reader to Genesis 12:1 where the perfect tense does not simply mean "a simply occurrence" but a "past completed simple occurence" in the land of Ur.
Gen. 12:1 ¶ Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Now whether you place this conversation in Haran or in Ur both Galatians and Hebrews take it back to this conversation.
The perfect tense in Hebrew is no different than the perfect in Greek - a completed action in the past that stands completed right to the time of writing. Hence, Moses places this conversation "had said" as a completed action that still stood complete/finished up to the writing in Genesis 12:1-3. It occurred previous to the death of Teran in Ur (Gen. 11:32).
However, it is better to place it all the way back in the land of the Chaldees in Ur as that was "thy country" rather than Haran which was outside of the Chaldees and hundreds of miles from Ur. God simply reminded Abraham of this conversation in Ur at the time of His father's death.
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. - Hebrews 11:8
Therefore, Galatians 3:8; hebrews 11:8 and Genesis 12:1 all place Abraham's initial faith in the Gospel object of the promised "seed" back in Ur of the Chaldees.
Also, Galatians 3 is referring to the same doctrine of justification by faith as in Romans 3:24-5:2 and both use Abraham as the example and both call him "the father" of all who believe the gospel (Gal. 3:6-7; Rom. 4:12).
In addition, Paul uses the Aorist tense verb in Romans 4:12 to prove that justification by faith in regard to Abraham was a COMPLETED ACTION long before he was circumcised - which makes no sense for your position as according to your position it would be inclusive of justification as your position is a progressive linear justification.
In addition, after immediately applying the faith and imputation to the gospel in Romans 4:22-25 he speaks of it in the Aorist and Perfect tenses in Romans 5:1-2 as completed actions or the completed POSITION or STANDING at the point of faith in the gospel. Again this contradicts your whole interpretational theory.
Our point of disagreement is Romans 4:3 with Genesis 15:6 instead of with Genesis 12:1-3 as Galatians 3:8 refers to as the initial encounter as the point of justification by faith in the object of the gospel.
However, Romans 3:27 asks the question "where is boasting?" in regard to what Paul said in verses 24-26 where God's provision of Christ is the object of faith ("faith in His blood" and "believe in him") providing nothing for the believer to boast in because it is all provided "freely by grace" and the only role of faith is to embrace Christ's work (believe in his blood) and person (believe in him).
So Romans 4:1 is still using Abraham and challenging what basis could Abraham have to boast in His own justification - the basis described in Romans 3:24-26! Hence, the provision of grace in Christ in Romans 3:24-26 is the concluding application in Romans 4:22-5:2.
Hence, why does Paul refer the reader to Genesis 15:6 instead of Genesis 12:1-3 where Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-17) when it is justification by faith in the gospel that is still the subject of Romans 3:24-5:1?
The reason is to point out that Abraham could not boast in his own works because justification by faith was IMPUTED rather than something to do with Abraham's person or efforts. Genesis 15:6 says that righteousness was "counted" to him due to faith and the perfect tense is used "believed" not because Abraham first believed in Christ as the promised seed in Genesis 15:1-6 but because he had already beleived in the gospel of Christ at the point it was first introduced to Him in the Ur of the Chaldees and he continued in that perfected state of faith and position of justificaiton due to imputation rather than any kind of personal faithfulness on his part. His faithfulness to God since Ur was because of His faith in the promise of what God did for him as presented in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-17).
Hence, all the evidence taken together (Gal. 3:6-17; Heb. 11:8; Gen. 12:1-3; Romans 3:24-4:3; 4:22-25; 5:1-2) demonstrate the perfect tense in both Genesis 12:1 and 15:3 refer to the same simple but completed action of faith in the gospel while in Ur and that completed state continued to stand completed throughout Abraham's entire life. He never repeated that action because that was his STANDING (Rom. 5:2) before God by faith in the gospel (Rom. 4:22-25).
Whose justice requires that? Yours? You are imposing your own sense of justice on God. The justice of God requires nothing from Him. He would have been just to leave the entire human race in condemnation. Right now God endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. They cannot please God and will not come to the light.
The same question can be asked of you:
"Whose justice requires that? Yours? You are imposing your own sense of justice on God."
Really. So when Paul said, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned," he didn't really mean it? Paul said the natural man will not and cannot receive and understand the things of the Spirit of God. Paul said the carnal mind is emnity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Apparently God isn't constrained to make everyone capable of believing on Him and receiving Him and all of that. Apparently there are people who will not and cannot come to God yet God is obligated to render them able. The truth is, God was never obligated to do anything for sinful man. Every good thing God has ever done for men is an expression of His wonderful grace.
What sense is this? Webdog said this:
"If faith is a gift God has only given a few, the many cannot be held accountable for not having it as it was not given to them! Justice demands that responsibility requires ability."
He had a different point of view.
And now, in your statement above, it seems that you are questioning his salvation. His view on Eph.2:8,9 is different. That doesn't mean that God is an unjust God, or that he is unsaved. Where do you get these absurd conclusions?
Where did you get the idea I was talking about webdog or questioning his salvation? I never did that. Try to follow me: webdog is trying to obligate God. He is saying that God must make everyone able to come to Him, must give everyone faith, in order to be just. That's flat out against the word of God. The bible says the natural man (not webdog, but unregenerate man) will not and cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. Here is a man that not only will not, he cannot. God hasn't given him the ability to come to Him. Is God unrighteous for acting in this manner? God forbid. God was never obligated to give anyone faith, or any other spiritual blessing. God was never obligated to do anything good for man. God would have been just to leave us all in condemnation. Praise God that He has pulled myself, you, webdog, and countless others out of our sins and blessed us beyond measure!
First, I have not obligated God to do anything. He has. He is just, it is His very nature. Words have meanings. Responsibility requires ability or by definition it is NOT responsibility. Our justice system (the good that is derived from God Himself) cannot be more just than God's! In your zeal for your theology you are throwing out any kind or reason with it!
Second, when Paul said the "natural man cannot...", who was he speaking to, and what was the context? Was he giving a soteriological lesson to the church? In context it is NOT saying what you are trying to make it say
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status