What do you believe is required for Salvation?

[webdog]

See, you are defining faith different. It is impossible for someone to have faith and not be saved, because it is what it means.

I didn't define it at all...I answered your question.

You also didn't ask what I actually asked, and I think its important.

Your question was too broad, I got specific in my answer.

Do you believe it is unjust that God is going to send many people to hell? Do you believe the bible says that?

I already answered this. Based on biblical theology, or course not. Based on the man made theology I'm reading on here that says God gives a few this "saving faith" and not the others...while still requiring from all, absolutely it's unjust.

Do you believe that God gives faith to people? If so, why do they go to hell if they have faith?

Red Herring. I answered this already...please read. People with faith in Christ do not go to hell. People with faith placed in themselves, their good works or the god they have crafted in their own minds will spend eternity in hell.

 

[DHK]

Faith means the same thing as Romans 10:8-10:10, which is to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and the gospel message, which is from the faith God gives you, and Paul calls it "the word of faith", which he preaches.

Faith isn't the same thing as a verse. You cannot define a word with a verse. You have failed to give a definition of "faith." It seems as if you are using a word that you don't know the meaning of.

 

[chadman]

Hey Max, did you hear that? You don't know what faith is. Since you already read the Bible, now where you turn? Quite a problem if you ask me.

(just kidding Max) :tongue3:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen - Heb. 11:1

The difference between "faith" and saving faith is the "substance" or object which serves as the basis of hope. Saving faith is the ability to embrace Christ as revealed in the gospel as your only hope of salvation.

 

[chadman]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen - Heb. 11:1

The difference between "faith" and saving faith is the "substance" or object which serves as the basis of hope. Saving faith is the ability to embrace Christ as revealed in the gospel as your only hope of salvation.

So when you witness to a lost person, a complete neophyte - and the trust in Jesus and become saved that day - do they understand all this? If they come to a different conclusion later, do they then lose their salvation?

 

[Dr. Walter]

So when you witness to a lost person, a complete neophyte - and the trust in Jesus and become saved that day - do they understand all this? If they come to a different conclusion later, do they then lose their salvation?

Saving faith is not blind faith. Saving faith is the ability to comprehend and receive Christ as presented in the gospel as the only hope for salvation. People who make professions and yet have no comprehension of what they are embracing by faith are still in a lost condition.

I defined saving faith Biblically and correctly. Inherent in that definition is sufficient mental comprehension to understand what the gospel is and why Christ is embraced as the only hope of salvation.

I defined it solely from the human side of the issue rather from the divine causual side. From the human perspective it is the ability to embrace, thus cognantly understand and receive Christ as presented in the gospel as the only hope for salvation.

No one can embrace something they do no understand as faith requires cognance of what is being embraced by faith as saving faith is placing trust in a comphrensible and comprehended gospel. The Bible does not teach blind faith but faith that embraces specifics that are understood and received intelligently and purposefully.

 

[DHK]

No one can embrace something they do no understand as faith requires cognance of what is being embraced by faith as saving faith is placing trust in a comphrensible and comprehended gospel. The Bible does not teach blind faith but faith that embraces specifics that are understood and received intelligently and purposefully.

I agree.

"Blind faith" is a misnomer and is not faith at all. A better word would be "fatalism" such as the Muslims believe.
Faith is trust, or confidence in the word of another. Faith always has an object. The object of Biblical faith is Christ. But the object of faith doesn't have to be Christ. People exercise faith every day. I put faith in my wife that she won't burn dinner. I put faith in my car that when I turn the key in the ignition it will start. I put faith in my preacher that when he opens the Bible that he will preach the Word of God and not politics. I trust the bus driver that he will get me to where I want to go, where the bus # says it is going to go, and not in the opposite direction to where I don't want to go.

In each case I put faith or confidence in the word of another whether it be in the word of the Ford Company, the word of my wife, the word of my preacher, the word the bus company, etc. They have given my their word that they will do or their product will do exactly as they say. If the product fails (such as my car), then it doesn't mean my faith has failed. It simply means that man is fallible, his products are fallible, and they are prone to fail.
But we can put our trust, faith, confidence in a perfect God whose perfect promises will never fail. God is not fallible but infallible. I have no reason not to trust him. Paul, defined faith very well when he said about Abraham:

Romans 4:20-21 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Abraham was fully persuaded (had faith), that what God had promised he was going to do. He had faith in the word of another--the Word of God. His faith was absolute faith in the promises of God. That is Biblical faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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).

Despite you long quote you've failed to connect Roman's 4 with Genesis 11. The Aorist word usage in romans 4 doesn't agree with going before Genesis 15. Galatians 3 also fails because when refering to justification/salvation Paul once again quotes Genesis 15 however, the change considered in this passage in comparison with romans 4 is not Abrahams Justification but the inclusion (prophetically) of the Gentiles which is spoken of in Gen 12. Paul does not at this point in Galatians indicate an earlier justification for Abraham but does indicate that at the out set of God's encounter with Abraham he has a provision for gentiles. This is Key because Paul indicates once again Abraham was Justified when he believed God in Genesis 15. Thus we have three authors indicating 3 different times of Abrahams justification.

I would have gotten back to you earlier but I've been pretty busy.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Saving faith is not on par with the common variety of human trust in an object or in someone's word. If that were the case then Paul would not have begun that passage concerning Abraham with the words "faith is of grace" (Rom. 4:16) as the common variety of human faith needs no "grace." Jesus would not have said that "no man can come to me except the Father draw him" (Jn. 6:44) if justifying/saving faith was the common variety of trust in an object. The common variety of faith is not "the work of God" (Jn. 6:29) nor is Jesus the "author and finisher" of the common variety of faith. The common variety of faith is not "the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8; Phlip. 1:29).

This is why I said saving faith is "the ability" to embrace Christ as revealed in the gospel as their only hope of salvation. The unregenerate nature does not possess that ability, however, they do possess the ability to place trust in almost anything else under the sun. "Not all men have faith" (2 Thes. 3:2) but it must be "given unto him" (Jn. 6:65).

I agree.

"Blind faith" is a misnomer and is not faith at all. A better word would be "fatalism" such as the Muslims believe.
Faith is trust, or confidence in the word of another. Faith always has an object. The object of Biblical faith is Christ. But the object of faith doesn't have to be Christ. People exercise faith every day. I put faith in my wife that she won't burn dinner. I put faith in my car that when I turn the key in the ignition it will start. I put faith in my preacher that when he opens the Bible that he will preach the Word of God and not politics. I trust the bus driver that he will get me to where I want to go, where the bus # says it is going to go, and not in the opposite direction to where I don't want to go.

In each case I put faith or confidence in the word of another whether it be in the word of the Ford Company, the word of my wife, the word of my preacher, the word the bus company, etc. They have given my their word that they will do or their product will do exactly as they say. If the product fails (such as my car), then it doesn't mean my faith has failed. It simply means that man is fallible, his products are fallible, and they are prone to fail.
But we can put our trust, faith, confidence in a perfect God whose perfect promises will never fail. God is not fallible but infallible. I have no reason not to trust him. Paul, defined faith very well when he said about Abraham:

Romans 4:20-21 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Abraham was fully persuaded (had faith), that what God had promised he was going to do. He had faith in the word of another--the Word of God. His faith was absolute faith in the promises of God. That is Biblical faith.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Despite you long quote you've failed to connect Roman's 4 with Genesis 11.

I believe I connected it very well. Your assertion is just that, an assertion.

The Aorist word usage in romans 4 doesn't agree with going before Genesis 15

The Aorist tense verb in Romans 4:12 totally destroys your position or theory of a progressive justification as a progressive justification would be inclusive rather than exclusive of circumcision. Paul's point in Romans 9:9-12 is that Abraham was justified as a COMPLETED ACTION prior to circumcision. Romans 5:1-2 where one Aorist and TWO Perfect tense verbs are used by Paul that demand that justification by faith is a COMPLETED state rather than an on going progressive action. Hence, your position is proven to be wrong at the get go.

Galatians 3 also fails because when refering to justification/salvation Paul once again quotes Genesis 15

That is not true! He is quoting verbatum from Genesis 12:3 not from Genesis 15:6

Gen. 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Gal. 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Paul pinpoints the preaching and reception of the Gospel by God to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 NOT GENESIS 15. Genesis 12:1 and the perfect tense "had" demands this occurred previously in Gensis 11.

however, the change considered in this passage in comparison with romans 4 is not Abrahams Justification but the inclusion (prophetically) of the Gentiles which is spoken of in Gen 12.

This is equally false! Galatians 3:6-7 precedes verse 8 and verse 8 is proof that Abraham is the father of all that believe THE GOSPEL as that is the point of the preceding verses to verse 8:

6 ¶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Moveover, the doctrine of justification by faith in the gospel is the issue of the preceding and following context for Galatians 3:8.

The immediate context of Galatians 3:8 (Gal. 3:1-12) has NOTHING to do with the Gentiles per se except as Abraham himself and his own justificaiton by faith in the gospel is THE STANDARD for all true children of God.

Paul does not at this point in Galatians indicate an earlier justification for Abraham but does indicate that at the out set of God's encounter with Abraham he has a provision for gentiles. This is Key because Paul indicates once again Abraham was Justified when he believed God in Genesis 15. Thus we have three authors indicating 3 different times of Abrahams justification.

Paul does not merely indicate but in Galatians 3:8 quotes directly from Genesis 12:6, which conversation does occur in Genesis 11 as the perfect tense "had" demands. That provision for the gentiles is also the provision for himself and "all that believe" (Gal. 3:6-7). The context does not distinguish Jews from Gentiles in regard to justification by faith but does the very opposite it UNITES THEM as "all of faith" characterized by Abraham's own justification by faith described in Galatians 3:8 from Genesis 12:3 which occurred in Genesis 11 while in the Ur of the Chaldees. So there is no "3 different occassions" but only ONE! Genesis 15:6 is merely reaffirmation of a previous STATE of Justification by faith.

Your arguments make no sense because in both contexts (Romans 3:24-5:2; Gal. 3:1-11) the kind of justification by faith Paul is describing is a COMPLETED ACTION at the point of initial faith in the gospel (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:23-25; 5:1-2; Gal. 3:1-11). This cannot be honestly denied if the context and langauge is accepted as it is. Hence, your theory of progressive or repeated justification simply vanishes into thin air.

The promise in Genesis 15:1-6 is merely a reaffirmation of the previous initial promise made by God to Abraham.

I challenge you to deal with my exposition of Romans 3:24-31 because Your view of justification by faith in regard to its BASIC PREMISE is not one whit different than Rome's view - progressive justification. In its essence, your gospel is Rome's gospel and both are "accursed" by Paul.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I believe I connected it very well. Your assertion is just that, an assertion.



The Aorist tense verb in Romans 4:12 totally destroys your position or theory of a progressive justification as a progressive justification would be inclusive rather than exclusive of circumcision. Paul's point in Romans 9:9-12 is that Abraham was justified as a COMPLETED ACTION prior to circumcision. Romans 5:1-2 where one Aorist and TWO Perfect tense verbs are used by Paul that demand that justification by faith is a COMPLETED state rather than an on going progressive action. Hence, your position is proven to be wrong at the get go.

First of all, you gave it a good college try but still didn't connect the dots. the Aorist usage works against your position that it was a completed thing prior to Genesis 15. If Paul wanted to use that connotation he would have used the Past perfect tense which is completed past with continuing results. However, the Aorist tense makes it a matter of Simple Occurance there is no previous Justification prior to the referrence in Genesis 15. Aorist does not support your view. Paul being educated would have used the Past perfect tense and did not.

That is not true! He is quoting verbatum from Genesis 12:3 not from Genesis 15:6

Ah you would like it to mean that but you only speak a half truth. Lets look at the passage we are talking about. In Verse 6 Paul speaks about abraham again quoting Genesis 15

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Then he goes on to say what I've always said he then refers to prophetic language in Genesis 12:3 regarding the inclusion of gentiles. He does not at this point he's not indicating that Abraham was justified in Genesis 11 but making a promise of inclusion of gentiles. Which is a great starting point for him to discuss law as it relates to gentiles. You're misapplying the passage.

7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you.

So again we have 3 differing points of When Abraham was justified.

This is equally false! Galatians 3:6-7 precedes verse 8 and verse 8 is proof that Abraham is the father of all that believe THE GOSPEL as that is the point of the preceding verses to verse 8:

Your taking a point not related. No one said that Abraham was not the father of all who have faith. The question is when was Abraham justified or was he justified at each point? If a one time thing we have three different occurances. If progressive three different occurences makes sense. What you've attempted to do is detract from the point of Justification.

The immediate context of Galatians 3:8 (Gal. 3:1-12) has NOTHING to do with the Gentiles

That is a laugh! You've taken Galatians right out of context not only Chapter 3!!!! Shame really!

The promise in Genesis 15:1-6 is merely a reaffirmation of the previous initial promise made by God to Abraham

There is no indication in Romans 4 nor in Galatians 3 that this is the case. You're attempting to rewrite the scriptures first by claiming Paul uses the Perfect tense in Romans when he uses the Aorist tense then by expanding the Aorist tense to include the Past Perfect tense. Then by insisting in a non-conection of Galatians 3 discussion with regard to gentiles and law with Romans 4 and Abrahams justification. Certainly gentiles in Galatians show that their faith connects them to Abraham but he quotes Genesis 15! And shows the prophetic message for the Gentiles in Genesis 12. Genesis 11 isn't even mentioned in this passage of Galatians!

I challenge you to deal with my exposition of Romans 3:24-31 because Your view of justification by faith in regard to its BASIC PREMISE is not one whit different than Rome's view - progressive justification. In its essence, your gospel is Rome's gospel and both are "accursed" by Paul.

This shows two things one you attempt to derail the discussion by asserting another point. And Two you've given my original point validity in this discussion thread by once again calling me accursed when I've shown you quiet clearly how a reasonable view of Paul in context with his works a person may obtain a differing view than yours in justification. Claiming that I am accursed according to your interpretation of the bible points to your belief that you must do more than believe in Jesus to be saved or more than believe in the gospel message. But must believe in "your gospel message".

 

[Dr. Walter]

First of all, you gave it a good college try but still didn't connect the dots. the Aorist usage works against your position that it was a completed thing prior to Genesis 15. If Paul wanted to use that connotation he would have used the Past perfect tense which is completed past with continuing results. However, the Aorist tense makes it a matter of Simple Occurance there is no previous Justification prior to the referrence in Genesis 15. Aorist does not support your view. Paul being educated would have used the Past perfect tense and did not.

In his summary analysis he does use the Perfect tense TWICE (Rom. 5:1-2). Moreover, the Aorist tense use in Romans 4:12 by its very context demands a completed action or else it would include circumcision, which of course, the context demands it is excluding. This is the coupe de grace to your whole position of progressive justification.

Ah you would like it to mean that but you only speak a half truth. Lets look at the passage we are talking about. In Verse 6 Paul speaks about abraham again quoting Genesis 15 Then he goes on to say what I've always said he then refers to prophetic language in Genesis 12:3 regarding the inclusion of gentiles. He does not at this point he's not indicating that Abraham was justified in Genesis 11 but making a promise of inclusion of gentiles. Which is a great starting point for him to discuss law as it relates to gentiles. You're misapplying the passage.

Paul is making my point exactly and precisely. You are correct in stating that Gal. 3:6 is a reference to Genesis 15:6 but Galatians 3:7-9 is designed to apply that reference to initial faith in the gospel rather than to any kind of progressive on going application. This contextual time point is the coupe de grace to your interpretation.

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

They don't PROGRESSIVELY RECIEVE the Spirit but they received the Spirit at the precise point in time they received the gospel when they first head and believed in it. Paul brings in the illustration of Abraham to prove this point - the point of reception of justification by faith in the gospel WHEN it was first received.

Remember the whole point of writing this epistle is to challenge "another gospel" in contrast to what they initially "received" when Paul preached it to them as lost persons (Gal. 1:6-9). This other gospel is the idea of progressive justification by works in contrast to what they initially "received" when Paul preached to them the gospel.

Note that "even as" which opens Galatians 3:6 with the application of Abraham is completed with the words "so then" in verse 9. There is no change of horse in midstream. Paul has one point in mind to prove by the use of Abraham and that is justification by faith is received at the initial point when the gospel is embraced and remains a completed state. Galatians 3:8 is explanatory of verse 6 rather than a change of horse in midstream. Genesis 15:6 is the continuing result of the completed state of justification at the reception of the Gospel by Abraham in Genesis 12 which occurred in Ur of the chaldees. Galatians 3:9-11 demonstrate Paul's point is still the completed act of justification at the point of gospel reception as a finished or completed state. The faith expressed in Genesis 15:6 is the continuing result of the finished state of justification by faith in Genesis 12:1-3 which occurred in Ur when he initially heard and received the gospel (Gal. 3:8).

So we do not "have 3 differing points of When Abraham was justified" but just one point in Gensis 12 that continues as a finished state in Genesis 15.

Abraham, at one and the same time was a Gentile (Chaldean) and yet the "Father" of the Jews and that is the very purpose Paul resorts to the use of Abraham as an example for all who are of faith as he is the embodiment of both Gentile and Jews. Abraham's personal justification received at the initial point of faith in the gospel is the standard for both Jews and Gentiles.

Paul proves that the object of faith spelled out in Galatians 3:8 which is a quotation of Genesis 12:3b which in turn occurred in Genesis 11 in Ur of the Chaldees is the promise of the gospel in regard to Christ, not Isaac (Gal. 3;16-17) and that Abraham was confirmed by faith "IN CHRIST" (Gal. 3:17) when he received this promise of the gospel.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In his summary analysis he does use the Perfect tense TWICE (Rom. 5:1-2). Moreover, the Aorist tense use in Romans 4:12 by its very context demands a completed action or else it would include circumcision, which of course, the context demands it is excluding. This is the coupe de grace to your whole position of progressive justification.

You're basically saying that verse doesn't work out so I'll use another one. By context! Really! If he wanted to show that he would have used the Past Perfect tense and chose not to. You're as bad as Luther saying "well he meant that". Well, Its not what he said. Jumping to Romans 5:1-2 where he is not talking about Abraham but Christians who already believed it as thus/ therefore statement or If/Then. Romans 5 is speaking directly to the Christians in rome and is not a commentary on Abraham. Your grasping at straws.

Paul is making my point exactly and precisely. You are correct in stating that Gal. 3:6 is a reference to Genesis 15:6 but Galatians 3:7-9 is designed to apply that reference to initial faith in the gospel rather than to any kind of progressive on going application.

Your argument that if its not saying it; its arguing against it doesn't fly. The context has to do with gentiles by faith being incorporated into Abraham. it has nothing to do with Abraham's justification and it isn't an argument against it but it does show incorporation of gentile believers through the same process. Faith.

They don't PROGRESSIVELY RECIEVE the Spirit but they received the Spirit at the precise point in time they received the gospel when they first head and believed in it.

Your reading into it your view again. It only shows that they've gained the blessing through faith. This passage isn't a statement of progressive justification. However, it would seem that Galatians 5:6 may point in that direction and corrisponds how James is viewing justification.

Paul brings in the illustration of Abraham to prove this point - the point of reception of justification by faith in the gospel WHEN it was first received.

Paul in Galatians brings the point that faith is offered to the gentiles from the
very out set with Abraham and that they are justified the same way. Faith.

So we do not "have 3 differing points of When Abraham was justified" but just one point in Gensis 12 that continues as a finished state in Genesis 15.

We Actually Do. Romans, Hebrews, James.

 

[Max Kennedy]

Saving faith is not on par with the common variety of human trust in an object or in someone's word. If that were the case then Paul would not have begun that passage concerning Abraham with the words "faith is of grace" (Rom. 4:16) as the common variety of human faith needs no "grace." Jesus would not have said that "no man can come to me except the Father draw him" (Jn. 6:44) if justifying/saving faith was the common variety of trust in an object. The common variety of faith is not "the work of God" (Jn. 6:29) nor is Jesus the "author and finisher" of the common variety of faith. The common variety of faith is not "the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8; Phlip. 1:29).

This is why I said saving faith is "the ability" to embrace Christ as revealed in the gospel as their only hope of salvation. The unregenerate nature does not possess that ability, however, they do possess the ability to place trust in almost anything else under the sun. "Not all men have faith" (2 Thes. 3:2) but it must be "given unto him" (Jn. 6:65).

I'm going to argue the side of the person I seem to have been arguing with, just to see if I can understand it. I really have no boats in this race, and believe simply God gives you the faith. You don't need to understand everything to be saved - The simplicity of the gospel of Christ.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

We love him because He first loved us. The beginning of the understanding of that is how God begins to give faith in us. It's not that people know their only hope is Jesus Christ initially - they don't even understand before God reveals his love to them.

God gives that to everyone. But some reject it. John 3:17 forward. And He will baptise with the Holy Spirit and (fire for those that reject).

Some differences here seems to be in believing that repentance of sins is a work of the Holy Spirit after you are saved, and Jesus Christ already paid the price for all your sins before you were saved.

Its a considerably different message: God first gives you the knowledge that your going to hell or the day star that rises up in your hearts is when God first gives you the knowledge that He loved you so much that he *already* paid the price for your sins.

I believe Lordship salvation teaches that he hasn't already paid the price for your sins, and you have to repent of them all before you can ask to be saved - even if you don't know them all - and you don't, because even as a Christian of many years, God is still revealing and removing sins in my life - with growth. But when I was saved, there were things I immediatly saw that God had changed in my life - but it didn't end there.

Regardless, I neither confirm nor deny the above personally for this thread, just putting it out to see the responses.

 

[Dr. Walter]

1 Jn. 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

John did not write this epistle for believers in the Gospel to REBELIEVE in the gospel but rather that their initial faith in the gospel might be strengthened by the additional expansion and explanation given in the first epistle.

Likewise, Genesis 15:1-6 was merely a further expansion of the same and initial promise given to Abraham by God in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 12:1-3; Gal. 3:8). In Genesis 12:1-3 Abraham was promised that "in thee shall all families be blessed" whereas that promise "in thee" was expanded and further explained in Genesis 15:1-5 to be the "seed" born from his own bowels rather than his servant. No new gospel, just the old gospel expanded in detial, just progressive revelation of the same gospel.

This is the precise point that Paul is making in Galatians 3:6 with verse 8. There is no new belief, no new gospel in verse 6 (Gen. 15:1-6) but the same gospel intially presented by God to Abraham in verse 8 (Gen. 12:1-3).

Genesis 15:6 is not another or additional justification by faith but strengthened faith in the same essential but progressive revelation of the gospel first given him in Genesis 12:1-3. His imputation and justification was a completed state in Genesis 12:1-2 with faith in the initial gospel and Genesis 15:6 was merely the continuing results of that finished state continued to have access by the same faith:

By whom also we have access (Perfect tense)by faith into this grace wherein we stand (Perfect Tense), and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

 

[Max Kennedy]

I'm going to argue the side of the person I seem to have been arguing with, just to see if I can understand it. I really have no boats in this race, and believe simply God gives you the faith. You don't need to understand everything to be saved - The simplicity of the gospel of Christ.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

We love him because He first loved us. The beginning of the understanding of that is how God begins to give faith in us. It's not that people know their only hope is Jesus Christ initially - they don't even understand before God reveals his love to them.

God gives that to everyone. But some reject it. John 3:17 forward. And He will baptise with the Holy Spirit and (fire for those that reject).

Some differences here seems to be in believing that repentance of sins is a work of the Holy Spirit after you are saved, and Jesus Christ already paid the price for all your sins before you were saved.

Its a considerably different message: God first gives you the knowledge that your going to hell or the day star that rises up in your hearts is when God first gives you the knowledge that He loved you so much that he *already* paid the price for your sins.

I believe Lordship salvation teaches that he hasn't already paid the price for your sins, and you have to repent of them all before you can ask to be saved - even if you don't know them all - and you don't, because even as a Christian of many years, God is still revealing and removing sins in my life - with growth. But when I was saved, there were things I immediatly saw that God had changed in my life - but it didn't end there.

Regardless, I neither confirm nor deny the above personally for this thread, just putting it out to see the responses.

FYI my boat is in a different race. I want to yank up the weed of lordship salvation without pulling anything else up

 

[Dr. Walter]

You're basically saying that verse doesn't work out so I'll use another one. By context! Really!

No I am not! Abraham is the chief illustration in both texts and both quote Genesis 15:6. The summary in Romans 5:1-2 is exactly that, the summary of the doctrine of justification he has been teaching since Romans 3:24-4:25. My point is that Paul does not teach one thing in Romans and another thing in Galatians but the same thing and the summary expresses exactly what that is. Your position assumes Paul is contradicting Paul because you position does not harmonize with the Paulian summary of his doctrine.

Your argument that if its not saying it; its arguing against it doesn't fly. The context has to do with gentiles by faith being incorporated into Abraham. it has nothing to do with Abraham's justification and it isn't an argument against it but it does show incorporation of gentile believers through the same process. Faith.

Rediculously false!!!!! My argument is based upon the preceding and foregoing context where Paul's point is made clear by the word "received" not by any words that denote progression!!!!!! It is Abraham's justification by faith that is used in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-9 that is the STANDARD for Gentiles to measure up to not vica versa as you claim. Gentiles are not "being incoporated into Abraham" but rather their view of initial justification by faith in the gospel is being TESTED against Abraham's justification by faith. Abraham's justification by faith in the gospel is the STANDARD for "all that beleive."

Your reading into it your view again. It only shows that they've gained the blessing through faith. This passage isn't a statement of progressive justification.

I am happy to see you admit this text is not a passage to support "progressive justification." However, "the blessing" defined by context is justification through faith.

We Actually Do. Romans, Hebrews, James.

No, they do not! You are reading that into them. Hebrews is speaking of the same point as Galatians 3:8 and Genesis 12:1-3. James is not speaking of justification before God at all. Romans defines precisely the kind of justification Paul is speaking of in his exposition and summary, neither of which support a progressive justification but rather the initial completed action at the point of faith in the gospel. The only TIME aspect used for Abraham's justification is found in Romans 4:9-12 "when" as all other aspects do not deal with the time but with the characteristics of justification by faith as found in the life of Abraham. Genesis 15 and Genesis 22 are used to provide the characteristics of justification by faith rather than to deal with any TIME aspect. Romans 5:1-2 deals exclusively with the TIME aspect in connection with the gospel (Rom. 4:22-25).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Got to go to my classes. So I am not ignoring you if I don't respond as I am not on line but gone. Maybe I will get back on this coming weekend or between classes.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Rediculously false!!!!! My argument is based upon the preceding and foregoing context where Paul's point is made clear by the word "received" not by any words that denote progression!!!!!! It is Abraham's justification by faith that is used in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-9 that is the STANDARD for Gentiles to measure up to not vica versa as you claim. Gentiles are not "being incoporated into Abraham" but rather their view of initial justification by faith in the gospel is being TESTED against Abraham's justification by faith. Abraham's justification by faith in the gospel is the STANDARD for "all that beleive."

Your argument is putting a hodge pog of verses to try and say Paul is referring to Genesis 11 in Romans 4 when He's clearly referring to Genesis 15. You keep trying to get pass that fact and keep falling on your face doing it. Stop it you may hurt yourself. You're reading stuff into the text and not taking the text as it stands on its own.

I am happy to see you admit this text is not a passage to support "progressive justification." However, "the blessing" defined by context is justification through faith

I've never said other wise I'm just telling you the context of the passage. You 've attempted to say that I say this verse specifically spells out progressive justification but I had not I say the fact that there are three different periods of time when Abraham is considered to be justified by the NT writers can give that impression.

No, they do not! You are reading that into them.

Not at all
Romans 4

3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." ... We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited?...13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world

Which is a direct referrence to Genesis 15

4 Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Which btw was before Genesis 17 where he is circumsized. Hebrews 11:8

8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Which all can agree is a "saving faith" as earlier in the chapter seems to indicate but it referrences Genesis 12

1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you...So Abram left, as the LORD had told him;

Which is a different time that Abraham was justified than recorded in Roman's 4. And then James declares

Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

Which refers to Genesis 22

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac.

So there are 3 times which the NT. claims Abraham was justified at different periods of his life. The early reformers had issues with this. Look what Luther said.

For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous, but moving toward righteousness

and again

the Swiss Reformer Martin Bucer regarded man as receiving a two-fold justification. First he received the iustificatio impii, or primary justification, in which he was declared righteous before God, and then he received the iustificatio pii, or secondary justification, in which he was actually made to behave righteously

So seeing this issue they used the term Justification in two senses.

 

[DHK]

So seeing this issue they used the term Justification in two senses.

You are one confused kid.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Justification is not a process, is not progressive, and never was. It happens once, and that is when a person is born again of the Spirit of God, that is when he initially puts his faith in Christ and is saved. The rest of his Christian life is sanctification, which has nothing to do with justification. There is no such thing as progressive justification. We are justified but once in our lives. If you are not justified but one time in your life, perhaps (that person) is not justified at all.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved (and justified).
It is not believe, and then believe again, and then continue to believe again, all the while being justified each time you believe. That speaks of heresy.