What does Galatians 3:27 mean?

[Hark]

Here is a lesson you need to learn. You don't "pray" about what the Bible clearly teaches, you simply receive it.

You zeroed in on the witch's confession but had ignored the requst from Saul which was to "bring up" Samuel in order to favour your point of view.

When there is a dispute as to how one reads the scripture, then wisdom is needed to make sure you are in the right.

I am calm about this as seen in my replies whereas your replies are emotional and hostile. So which one needs to take pause here?

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Which one of us is serving Him in the spirit of meekness & gentleness in the hope that God will help the other to understand?

You don't have facts, just twisted interpretations of scriptures jerked out of context.

Another example of hostility is giving judgment without even considering that you can be judged by that same standard.

Let's talk about the faith of Abraham....

Hebrews 11:8 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. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

This faith of Abraham was looking for the city of God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

The scripture testified that they all had died in faith BUT not having received the promise yet of being citizens in the city of God which is in Heaven.

Now if they had died in faith and yet had not received the promise, then they were not in Heaven yet because the promised seed had not come yet by Whom they can gain entrance by.

If you disagree, then explain what promise that they had not received yet after having died in faith as testified in Hebrews 11:13.

 

[The Biblicist]

You zeroed in on the witch's confession but had ignored the requst from Saul which was to "bring up" Samuel in order to favour your point of view.

When there is a dispute as to how one reads the scripture, then wisdom is needed to make sure you are in the right.

I am calm about this as seen in my replies whereas your replies are emotional and hostile. So which one needs to take pause here?

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Which one of us is serving Him in the spirit of meekness & gentleness in the hope that God will help the other to understand?

I have discussed with a lot of calm heretics with seared consciences toward the truth. I simply have passion for the truth. You will find that when Biblical prophets and men of God discussed with heretics they also had a lot of passion for the truth and said some things that were not very flattering to their opponents.

Your theory repudiates the gospel of Jesus Christ denying that salvation benefits of that gospel (remission of sins, imputed righteousness; progressive sanctification, etc.) was applied before the cross when the Scriptures plainly and repeated say it was (Acts 10:43 Heb. 4:2; etc.). Hence, you are attacking the very gospel with your false doctrine. That is sufficient to be passionate about. Moreover, your repudiation of water baptism as a symbol of the gospel commissioned by Christ to the end of the world is equally heretical.

Let's talk about the faith of Abraham....

Hebrews 11:8 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. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

This faith of Abraham was looking for the city of God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

The scripture testified that they all had died in faith BUT not having received the promise yet of being citizens in the city of God which is in Heaven.

Now if they had died in faith and yet had not received the promise, then they were not in Heaven yet because the promised seed had not come yet by Whom they can gain entrance by.

If you disagree, then explain what promise that they had not received yet after having died in faith as testified in Hebrews 11:13.

Anyone calmly reading this passage can plainly see that were on planet earth and looking for that city on planet earth. Anyone reading Revelation 21:1-2 can plainly see that such a city will come DOWN from heaven to the new earth which has not yet occurred.

Furthermore, anyone calmly Hebrews 11:40 can clearly see NONE of God's people PRESENTLY have obtained this same promise either but they ALONG WITH US are still waiting for it as they will not receive it YET until WE DO and we have not received it yet either because that city has not yet come down on earth.

Heb. 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

So the promise they looked for and HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED and will not receive yet WITHOUT US is still future. So much for your theory.

 

[Hark]

I have discussed with a lot of calm heretics with seared consciences toward the truth. I simply have passion for the truth. You will find that when Biblical prophets and men of God discussed with heretics they also had a lot of passion for the truth and said some things that were not very flattering to their opponents.

True, but I was referring to the instructions in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 as I do not see you doing that, and I did not wish to return judgments by your standard which in turn will only turn the discussion in a biting and devouring event.

Your theory repudiates the gospel of Jesus Christ denying that salvation benefits of that gospel (remission of sins, imputed righteousness; progressive sanctification, etc.) was applied before the cross when the Scriptures plainly and repeated say it was (Acts 10:43 Heb. 4:2; etc.).

I believe I have quoted scripture why the OT saints needed His death to bring them to God the Father in Heaven, but let us address your references.

Acts 10:40 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. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Your use of verse 43 as implying that salvation had been obtained before the gospel was given just by believing in Him is not the truth of what verse 43 was being cited for. The prophets prophesied about the Christ and what He will do for His people and that all involves His death and resurrection.

If simply believing in Him before Jesus had come was enough to save anyone, then He certainly came down here for nothing & died in vain.

Hebrews 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Salvation is still connected to hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ which is what? Preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

If the disciples were saved before hand, then they be false witnesses and vain witnesses when they were saved before His death & resurrection to be telling others that because of His death & resurrection and believing in Him is how they are saved, but not them? Think again. Peter testified that he was saved just as the Gentiles was,

Hence, you are attacking the very gospel with your false doctrine. That is sufficient to be passionate about. Moreover, your repudiation of water baptism as a symbol of the gospel commissioned by Christ to the end of the world is equally heretical.

The gospel did not come in full effect until Christ had died, risen, and ascended to prepare a place for all believers in Heaven by Him. That is what He has been talking about all along when He was with the disciples on how and when one is born again and is saved.

Anyone calmly reading this passage can plainly see that were on planet earth and looking for that city on planet earth. Anyone reading Revelation 21:1-2 can plainly see that such a city will come DOWN from heaven to the new earth which has not yet occurred.

That city is in Heaven as that reference I had cited of them not having received the promise yet.

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

They were pilgrims on the earth seeking not the country they were living in, but a heavenly country; a city of God in Heaven. They had not received that promise yet, having died in faith.

They are in Heaven now.

Per your reference in Revelations: There are inhabitants in the City of God when it comes down in Revelations. This is after the great tribulation.

Yet the reference in Hebrews 11:13-16 said that they had not received the promise yet when referring to the past before Christ when they ad died in faith.

Furthermore, anyone calmly Hebrews 11:40 can clearly see NONE of God's people PRESENTLY have obtained this same promise either but they ALONG WITH US are still waiting for it as they will not receive it YET until WE DO and we have not received it yet either because that city has not yet come down on earth.

Heb. 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

So the promise they looked for and HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED and will not receive yet WITHOUT US is still future. So much for your theory

At least your are addressing it as a theory rather than a false teaching as all speculations of the future inheritance has to be, BUT... how we are saved and how the OT saints were saved and how the disciples were saved has to be the same as no flesh shall glory in His Presence.

The inheritance of the incorruptible and a place in the City of God is still yet to be had as they have not been made perfect yet when God judge His House to receive those to be vessels unto honour in His House and to leave behind the vessels unto dishonour.

Those slain during the great tribulation are in Heaven under the altar awaiting their physical resurrection as vessels unto dishonour in His House.

If they had to be under the altar, then what does that say of OT saints that had not Christ and His death to bring them into Heaven unto God?

The OT saints are in Heaven NOW, but Jesus is still preparing that place before He can receive the ready bride as the Bridegroom which is OT saints with NT disciples, but the OT saints were not in Heaven with God the Father until Jesus provided the way back to Him by being FOR all of us, OT saints & NT saints, our Passover Lamb.

 

[The Biblicist]

True, but I was referring to the instructions in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 as I do not see you doing that, and I did not wish to return judgments by your standard which in turn will only turn the discussion in a biting and devouring event.

In regard to the gospel, I have experienced with you in particular that you are not open to scripture that condemns your position. Your discussion on baptism demonstrates this clearly to me. Clear and undeniable evidence was presented to you several times in different ways and still your responses were totally irrational. So to answer your question, after second time Titus 3:10 comes into play.

I believe I have quoted scripture why the OT saints needed His death to bring them to God the Father in Heaven, but let us address your references.

First, simply quoting scripture means nothing. The contextual meaning must be correctly conveyed and representative of your application.

Second, no one, and I mean no one, has ever disputed the necessity of the coming life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for redemption of sinners. That is not the issue at all. The issue is has God applied the benefits of redemption prior to the cross on the basis of faith in the promise of what Christs would accomplish. You say no, but the scriptures clearly and repeatedly affirm He has. You make entrance into heaven conditioned upon POST-completion of redemption, when in fact, all other aspects of redemption are applied PRE-completion of redemption. Abraham was justified (aroist tense completed action - Rom. 4:11) precisely BEFORE he was circumcised (Rom. 4:9-10). In that context, his justification is precisely defined to be imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4:5-6) and remission of sins (Rom. 4:7-8) EXACTLY AS ACTS 10:43 states. Thus your quotation of verses 40-42 does not deny this fact in the least. All verses 40-42 prove is the redemption occurred as predicted.

Acts 10:40 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. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Your use of verse 43 as implying that salvation had been obtained before the gospel was given just by believing in Him is not the truth of what verse 43 was being cited for. The prophets prophesied about the Christ and what He will do for His people and that all involves His death and resurrection.

Your interpretative skills are seriously flawed. Verses 40-42 do nothing but confirm that that salvation then experienced which was based upon promise that Christ would come did in fact occur as predicted. It does not deny they actually received in their own life. It only demands the basis for that salvation did in fact come to pass as promised. Again, the aorist tense completed action of justification in the case of Abraham completely exposes your theory as totally false. You are confusing the salvation they actually (justification) received by faith in regard to their own person and their own relationship with God with historical promise that Christ would come as promised. Their EXPERIENTIAL salvation was based upon faith in the promise of the coming cross.

If simply believing in Him before Jesus had come was enough to save anyone, then He certainly came down here for nothing & died in vain.

Again, your theological mindset is seriously flawed. The salvation then experienced was based upon faith in the hope that he would come as promised. Again, read Hebrews 11:4 and you will see the sacrifice offered was offered due to faith that it represented the coming Christ as promised in Gen. 3:15 and proof that Abel WAS ALREADY RIGHTEOUS prior to offering the sacrifice. Your theory would deny he could be "righteous" prior to the cross. You theory is exposed as false by the fact both Abraham and Abel are said TO BE RIGHTEOUS rather than "SHALL BE RIGHTEOUS" as your theory demands.

Hebrews 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Salvation is still connected to hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ which is what? Preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Who said anything different????? Prior to the cross faith looks forward based upon promise and redemption is received by that kind of faith. After the cross faith looks backward based upon fulfillment. Both are still connected to hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The gospel in its fullest expression is written out in the four gospels. The gospel in an abbreviated expression is found in 1 Cor. 15:4-5 and please note the only "scripture" then existent is the Old Testament scriptures. Further, note the word "how" in 1 Cor. 15:4-5 which is explained much fuller in the gospels. The gospel in its most abbreviated form is found in the "promised seed" in Genesis 3:15. The gospel in its typical expression is preached by the sacrifice of a lamb according to John the Baptist in John 1:29 and according to John the beloved in Revelation 13:8.

If the disciples were saved before hand, then they be false witnesses and vain witnesses when they were saved before His death & resurrection to be telling others that because of His death & resurrection and believing in Him is how they are saved, but not them? Think again. Peter testified that he was saved just as the Gentiles was,

Your rationalization is irrational at best and heretical at most. What do you think Jesus preached in John 3:16 in the PRESENT TENSE or John the Baptist in John 3:36 in the PRESENT TENSE all before the cross????? John the Baptist demanded "fruit of repentance" which is not possible apart from regeneration or new birth, the same new birth Jesus explained to Nicodemus in John 3:3-11.

You are embracing a hyper-dispensationalism which is a false gospel because it teaches "another gospel" after the cross and denies any gospel of salvation before the cross. If any aspect of "salvation" could not be applied until after the cross then all who lived prior to the cross were lost as "lost" is the opposite of "saved."

The gospel did not come in full effect until Christ had died, risen, and ascended to prepare a place for all believers in Heaven by Him. That is what He has been talking about all along when He was with the disciples on how and when one is born again and is saved.

The scripture repudiates your theory by using the PRESENT TENSE instead of the future tense. He that "beleiveth" (PRESENT TENSE) "hath eternal life" (PRESENT TENSE) and all who were baptized by John and the disciples had to first profess BELIEF in the gospel that Jesus and John preached (Jn. 3:16; 36; 5:24; Acts 19:4-5). Your theory is repudiated over and over again by both Old and New Testament scriptures.

Heb. 11:8 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.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

It is clear, that he believed that the land unto which he went was in his mind AT THE POINT HE RECEIVED THE PROMISE was the "place which he should after receive for an inheritance" as the "land of promise" in which he "looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Obviously after he got there, he found out it was but a type of the coming prototype in Revelation 21:1-24.

Moreover, you are completely ignoring the application given by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:39-40:

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Notice the singular "THE PROMISE" which Abraham looked for. Notice that at the writing of Hebrews which is POST-cross that promise had still not yet been realized by them. Notice that it WILL NOT be realized by them "WITHOUT US"! Notice that its actual fulfillment is inseparable from both them and us being "MADE PERFECT" which does not occur until the resurrection. You ignored these facts simply because they expose your abuse of this context.

 

[The Biblicist]

In regard to the gospel, I have experienced with you in particular that you are not open to scripture that condemns your position. Your discussion on baptism demonstrates this clearly to me. Clear and undeniable evidence was presented to you several times in different ways and still your responses were totally irrational. So to answer your question, after second time Titus 3:10 comes into play.







First, simply quoting scripture means nothing. The contextual meaning must be correctly conveyed and representative of your application.

Second, no one, and I mean no one, has ever disputed the necessity of the coming life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for redemption of sinners. That is not the issue at all. The issue is has God applied the benefits of redemption prior to the cross on the basis of faith in the promise of what Christs would accomplish. You say no, but the scriptures clearly and repeatedly affirm He has. You make entrance into heaven conditioned upon POST-completion of redemption, when in fact, all other aspects of redemption are applied PRE-completion of redemption. Abraham was justified (aroist tense completed action - Rom. 4:11) precisely BEFORE he was circumcised (Rom. 4:9-10). In that context, his justification is precisely defined to be imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4:5-6) and remission of sins (Rom. 4:7-8) EXACTLY AS ACTS 10:43 states. Thus your quotation of verses 40-42 does not deny this fact in the least. All verses 40-42 prove is the redemption occurred as predicted.

Acts 10:40 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. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.



Your interpretative skills are seriously flawed. Verses 40-42 do nothing but confirm that that salvation then experienced which was based upon promise that Christ would come did in fact occur as predicted. It does not deny they actually received in their own life. It only demands the basis for that salvation did in fact come to pass as promised. Again, the aorist tense completed action of justification in the case of Abraham completely exposes your theory as totally false. You are confusing the salvation they actually (justification) received by faith in regard to their own person and their own relationship with God with historical promise that Christ would come as promised. Their EXPERIENTIAL salvation was based upon faith in the promise of the coming cross.



Again, your theological mindset is seriously flawed. The salvation then experienced was based upon faith in the hope that he would come as promised. Again, read Hebrews 11:4 and you will see the sacrifice offered was offered due to faith that it represented the coming Christ as promised in Gen. 3:15 and proof that Abel WAS ALREADY RIGHTEOUS prior to offering the sacrifice. Your theory would deny he could be "righteous" prior to the cross. You theory is exposed as false by the fact both Abraham and Abel are said TO BE RIGHTEOUS rather than "SHALL BE RIGHTEOUS" as your theory demands.



Who said anything different????? Prior to the cross faith looks forward based upon promise and redemption is received by that kind of faith. After the cross faith looks backward based upon fulfillment. Both are still connected to hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The gospel in its fullest expression is written out in the four gospels. The gospel in an abbreviated expression is found in 1 Cor. 15:4-5 and please note the only "scripture" then existent is the Old Testament scriptures. Further, note the word "how" in 1 Cor. 15:4-5 which is explained much fuller in the gospels. The gospel in its most abbreviated form is found in the "promised seed" in Genesis 3:15. The gospel in its typical expression is preached by the sacrifice of a lamb according to John the Baptist in John 1:29 and according to John the beloved in Revelation 13:8.




Your rationalization is irrational at best and heretical at most. What do you think Jesus preached in John 3:16 in the PRESENT TENSE or John the Baptist in John 3:36 in the PRESENT TENSE all before the cross????? John the Baptist demanded "fruit of repentance" which is not possible apart from regeneration or new birth, the same new birth Jesus explained to Nicodemus in John 3:3-11.

You are embracing a hyper-dispensationalism which is a false gospel because it teaches "another gospel" after the cross and denies any gospel of salvation before the cross. If any aspect of "salvation" could not be applied until after the cross then all who lived prior to the cross were lost as "lost" is the opposite of "saved."





The scripture repudiates your theory by using the PRESENT TENSE instead of the future tense. He that "beleiveth" (PRESENT TENSE) "hath eternal life" (PRESENT TENSE) and all who were baptized by John and the disciples had to first profess BELIEF in the gospel that Jesus and John preached (Jn. 3:16; 36; 5:24; Acts 19:4-5). Your theory is repudiated over and over again by both Old and New Testament scriptures.

Heb. 11:8 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.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

It is clear, that he believed that the land unto which he went was in his mind AT THE POINT HE RECEIVED THE PROMISE was the "place which he should after receive for an inheritance" as the "land of promise" in which he "looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Obviously after he got there, he found out it was but a type of the coming prototype in Revelation 21:1-24.

Moreover, you are completely ignoring the application given by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:39-40:

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Notice the singular "THE PROMISE" which Abraham looked for. Notice that at the writing of Hebrews which is POST-cross that promise had still not yet been realized by them. Notice that it WILL NOT be realized by them "WITHOUT US"! Notice that its actual fulfillment is inseparable from both them and us being "MADE PERFECT" which does not occur until the resurrection. You ignored these facts simply because they expose your abuse of this context.

Rom. 3:25 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Paul is clearly stating that pre-cross believers actually received remission of sins based upon the forbearance of God, and when Christ finished his work ("at this time"), it justified God's righteousness in granting them remission of sins. Therefore, remission of sins was granted them on the basis of God's promise in the gospel preached to them that Christ would come and fulfill that promise. Hence, the benefits of salvation were obtained before the cross based upon the promised IOU of God to fulfill the basis of their trust.

 

[Hark]

In regard to the gospel, I have experienced with you in particular that you are not open to scripture that condemns your position.

I had addressed most of your scripture and refuted them by putting them in context and countered some with scripture in return.

Your discussion on baptism demonstrates this clearly to me. Clear and undeniable evidence was presented to you several times in different ways and still your responses were totally irrational. So to answer your question, after second time Titus 3:10 comes into play.

Yes, it does seem to be the verse left for each of us to follow since the discussion is more of an argument.

But for your sake, I would like for other Baptists to chime in.

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

So feel free to get all your Baptists brothers & sisters to chime in; reading the whole thread and discern with His help and respond as He would lead..

First, simply quoting scripture means nothing. The contextual meaning must be correctly conveyed and representative of your application.

Ditto

Second, no one, and I mean no one, has ever disputed the necessity of the coming life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for redemption of sinners. That is not the issue at all. The issue is has God applied the benefits of redemption prior to the cross on the basis of faith in the promise of what Christs would accomplish. You say no, but the scriptures clearly and repeatedly affirm He has.

If God applied the benefits of redemption prior to teh cross on the basis of faith in the promise of what Christ would accomplish when He has not accomplished it yet and scripture thereby testified that they had not received the promise yet, then you are opposing yourself when you say the necessity of the coming life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for redemption of sinners; all sinners when that applies to OT saints as well.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:...23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Do you wish to amend those verses? Like say.. "Except for these OT saints that were saved without Christ because God has jusitified them before Christ."

And "Except for these disciples.." even though Jesus spoke of salvation as being connected to the cross and His ascension?

You make entrance into heaven conditioned upon POST-completion of redemption, when in fact, all other aspects of redemption are applied PRE-completion of redemption.

Explain why Saul said to the witch to bring "up" Samuel unless from Saul's understanding per Jewish & Biblical beliefs, that was where Samuel was as beneathe the earth but not in Heaven?

You did not really address that counter point earlier.

Abraham was justified (aroist tense completed action - Rom. 4:11) precisely BEFORE he was circumcised (Rom. 4:9-10). In that context, his justification is precisely defined to be imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4:5-6) and remission of sins (Rom. 4:7-8) EXACTLY AS ACTS 10:43 states. Thus your quotation of verses 40-42 does not deny this fact in the least. All verses 40-42 prove is the redemption occurred as predicted.

If you spoke of your faith in God's Providence and yet fail to lead by example, you are not justified for using that faith in God's Providence in that manner.

Since there are different kinds of faith; then there is different use of justification. Abraham was justified as that reward was being called a friend of God. Justification is not testifying of Abraham going to Heaven, but it is testifying of him not going to hell either.

Acts 10:40 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. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

If OT saints can be justified before Christ has paid the penalty for their sins on the cross, then there would be no need for prophets to prophesy.

Hebrews 10:1For 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.

All have sinned and all need His death & resurrection & ascension to go to Heaven to prepare a place for us to live in the Father's mansion.

Your interpretative skills are seriously flawed.

Saying so does not make it so.

Verses 40-42 do nothing but confirm that that salvation then experienced which was based upon promise that Christ would come did in fact occur as predicted. It does not deny they actually received in their own life. It only demands the basis for that salvation did in fact come to pass as promised. Again, the aorist tense completed action of justification in the case of Abraham completely exposes your theory as totally false. You are confusing the salvation they actually (justification) received by faith in regard to their own person and their own relationship with God with historical promise that Christ would come as promised. Their EXPERIENTIAL salvation was based upon faith in the promise of the coming cross.

John 3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 6:46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Does Jesus saying that include OT saints or not?

to be continued....

 

[Hark]

Again, your theological mindset is seriously flawed. The salvation then experienced was based upon faith in the hope that he would come as promised. Again, read Hebrews 11:4 and you will see the sacrifice offered was offered due to faith that it represented the coming Christ as promised in Gen. 3:15 and proof that Abel WAS ALREADY RIGHTEOUS prior to offering the sacrifice. Your theory would deny he could be "righteous" prior to the cross. You theory is exposed as false by the fact both Abraham and Abel are said TO BE RIGHTEOUS rather than "SHALL BE RIGHTEOUS" as your theory demands.

Doing something to be righteous does not mean they did not need the Saviour still.

And one can argue that Abel was deemed righteous by his offering.

Hebrews 11:4By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Who said anything different????? Prior to the cross faith looks forward based upon promise and redemption is received by that kind of faith. After the cross faith looks backward based upon fulfillment. Both are still connected to hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Which was why Jesus had to descend to preach to those in prison and after His resurrection, the OT saints were also resurrected and had appeared unto many; thus when He ascended, He brought them and Paradise up on high.

The gospel in its fullest expression is written out in the four gospels. The gospel in an abbreviated expression is found in 1 Cor. 15:4-5 and please note the only "scripture" then existent is the Old Testament scriptures. Further, note the word "how" in 1 Cor. 15:4-5 which is explained much fuller in the gospels. The gospel in its most abbreviated form is found in the "promised seed" in Genesis 3:15. The gospel in its typical expression is preached by the sacrifice of a lamb according to John the Baptist in John 1:29 and according to John the beloved in Revelation 13:8.

To be established with the promised seed, as yet to come as prophesied, then His death, resurrection, and ascension was necessary for the OT saints to follow Him above. It is just as true that disciples had to hear the gospel when it had come to its full relaization after His ascension, kept believing, until they had receive the seal of adoption to be saved on Pentecost.

Your rationalization is irrational at best and heretical at most. What do you think Jesus preached in John 3:16 in the PRESENT TENSE or John the Baptist in John 3:36 in the PRESENT TENSE all before the cross????? John the Baptist demanded "fruit of repentance" which is not possible apart from regeneration or new birth, the same new birth Jesus explained to Nicodemus in John 3:3-11.

There are disciples of John the Baptist and then there are disciples of Jesus Christ and therefore not all followers of John the Baptists were followers of Jesus Christ and therefore again, John's message is not to be confused with Jesus's message. John had to decrease so that Jesus may increase; John 3:28-30 So like the Old Covenant vanishing away, to bring in the New Covenant, so did John and his type of water baptism had to fade out for Jesus to begin His mission in preaching the gospel that is to come about for all to believe in & be saved by Him.

You are embracing a hyper-dispensationalism which is a false gospel because it teaches "another gospel" after the cross and denies any gospel of salvation before the cross. If any aspect of "salvation" could not be applied until after the cross then all who lived prior to the cross were lost as "lost" is the opposite of "saved."

If OT saints were being saved before the cross, then that means another gospel than the ones we are saved now by.

If the disciples were saved before Pentecost, then Paul is preaching another gospel different from His disciples which is the gospel Paul preached that we are saved now by.

That's three gospels.

If the disciples were saved, then how can Judas Iscariot be lost when he was given the Holy Spirit too in Matthew 10 & Luke 9 ?

If the disciples were saved before His ascension, then why heed the commandment to wait in Jerusalem when they can go around preaching the gospel after His ascension?

Because the promise of the Father of the permament indwelling Holy Ghost was based on the condition when Jesus was no longer present with them as that promise was referring to when any believer in Jesus Christ is actually born again.

The scripture repudiates your theory by using the PRESENT TENSE instead of the future tense. He that "beleiveth" (PRESENT TENSE) "hath eternal life" (PRESENT TENSE) and all who were baptized by John and the disciples had to first profess BELIEF in the gospel that Jesus and John preached (Jn. 3:16; 36; 5:24; Acts 19:4-5). Your theory is repudiated over and over again by both Old and New Testament scriptures.

Heb. 11:8 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.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

It is clear, that he believed that the land unto which he went was in his mind AT THE POINT HE RECEIVED THE PROMISE was the "place which he should after receive for an inheritance" as the "land of promise" in which he "looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Obviously after he got there, he found out it was but a type of the coming prototype in Revelation 21:1-24.

Moreover, you are completely ignoring the application given by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:39-40:

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Notice the singular "THE PROMISE" which Abraham looked for. Notice that at the writing of Hebrews which is POST-cross that promise had still not yet been realized by them. Notice that it WILL NOT be realized by them "WITHOUT US"! Notice that its actual fulfillment is inseparable from both them and us being "MADE PERFECT" which does not occur until the resurrection. You ignored these facts simply because they expose your abuse of this context.

Should NOT be made perfect.... as in they were not made perfect yet...WITHOUT US...yet

Thus not having received the promise yet without us as referring to the inheritance in the City of God as Jesus is still preparing a place for all saved beleivers that are abiding in Him as His disciples to receive them into that City of God; aka the Father's mansion when He comes as the Bridegroom at the pre trib rapture event.

Recapping....

The OT saints were not in Heaven yet when they did not have Christ as their Passover Lamb to bring them to God the Father in Heaven.

They OT saints are in Heaven now since His ascension.

The OT saints are not sitting down yet at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb which is in the City of God. They are in Heaven but as yet to receive the firstfruit of the resurrection when they can sit down and eat with NT saints.

 

[Hark]

Rom. 3:25 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Paul is clearly stating that pre-cross believers actually received remission of sins based upon the forbearance of God, and when Christ finished his work ("at this time"), it justified God's righteousness in granting them remission of sins. Therefore, remission of sins was granted them on the basis of God's promise in the gospel preached to them that Christ would come and fulfill that promise. Hence, the benefits of salvation were obtained before the cross based upon the promised IOU of God to fulfill the basis of their trust.

Paul hardly mentioned OT saints here nor referring to their justification for believing in the coming Christ when His blood has not been shed yet.

His blood was not given yet for the remission of sins that were past for the OT saints.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul hardly mentioned OT saints here nor referring to their justification for believing in the coming Christ when His blood has not been shed yet.

His blood was not given yet for the remission of sins that were past for the OT saints.

Your irrational responses, jerking texts out of context, totally disregarding the evidence presented makes it a worthless effort to keep on discussing anything with you. Let's depart peacably.

 

[Hark]

Your irrational responses, jerking texts out of context, totally disregarding the evidence presented makes it a worthless effort to keep on discussing anything with you. Let's depart peacably.

I agree. :thumbs:

1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

At least we know how we are saved now, right, brother? That's all that really matter is the faith we contend for now for the living. :jesus:

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

I appreciate your very detailed response to my statements concerning the various stages of Abraham’s life. I still have some reservations in accepting all that you have stated.

Note the use of the perfect tense "had said" (Gen. 3:1) as this conversation actually took place in Genesis 11 prior to Abraham leaving "Ur" of the Chaldees for Haran. This is where his faith in the gospel occurred (Gal. 3:8).

In anticipation of your next comment I will add verse 7:
Genesis 15:5-7 (KJV): 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

You should have quoted also verse 7 which shows that this was not the point of first belief, but rather simply a continuation of faith in an additional revelation added to what he first promised in Ur of the Chaldees.

Yes I agree that Genesis 15:5-7 is a continuation of faith in an additional revelation. Based upon Galatians 3:8 you state that Abraham believed the gospel in Ur of the Chaldees, that is he had faith in the words of Genesis 12:1-3. You give the impression that the two words “faith” and the “gospel” are complete and sufficient at this point in time, as if both terms have an absolute significance. Although Genesis 12:3 (KJV): in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed is a summary of the gospel as Paul states in Galatians 3:8, Abraham did not have a full understanding of all the implications of this, and how it would be accomplished.

Also between Genesis 12 and 15 Abram went down to Egypt and placed his own life and Sarah’s position as the future mother of the promised seed in jeopardy. He acted contrary to true or mature faith. In the events of Genesis 13, in a sense Lot’s faith failed, while in contrast Abram progressed in faith and trust in God and was given the land promise of Genesis 13:14-15.

It is not until Genesis 15:6 that God counts Abram’s faith for righteousness. What I am trying to suggest is that there is quality and quantity of faith. If I teach a 5-year-old that Jesus saves us from sin, and that he will return one day and we will be in the kingdom, and if the child accepts this teaching I could say that the child believes the gospel. But I do not believe that the child’s faith would at the age of 5 be counted for righteousness. While we are in Genesis 13:14-15 and speaking of quality of teaching and faith, my Sunday School teacher constantly reminded us of the land promise to Abraham and the link with Genesis 3:26-29. He more or less implied that our hope was not to go to heaven when we die, but to await the return of Jesus to inherit the land promise with Abraham and Jesus and all the faithful.

Despite your comments, I still consider that Abraham also progressed in faith after Genesis 15, and Romans 4 says concerning the promise of Isaac that he was strong in faith. To me God in effect puts his stamp upon this incident by saying “therefore”, that is, his faith at this point in time is to be counted for righteousness:
Romans 4:19-22 (KJV): 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20 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. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
It is as if God gives an additional stamp of approval upon Abraham’s faith.


The following also seems to indicate that only after Abraham had offered Isaac that Abraham would definitely receive the promises:
Genesis 22:15-18 (KJV): 15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

The initial Post in this thread was asking the meaning of Galatians 3:27. At the end of your Post you speak about cause and effect, but I gain the impression that you do not accept that faith and baptism are simply cause and effect.

Also you have a criticism of Arminianism at the bottom of each Post, and this puts a question mark in my mind as to what Arminianism really represents, and what is your particular view in contrast. I have heard of the expression Calvinism versus Arminianism, and without putting a label on your view, your statement does make me question whether Calvinism is your particular position. Possibly the two labels are two extremes, with various shades between, and I can only guess whether you would espouse one of these shades of Calvinism, while maintaining antipathy towards Arminianism. Also you quote Philippians 2:13 as if this has been an important Scripture in your discussion with those that hold an Arminian view. I will also quote v12 as it seems to be needed for context:
Philippians 2:12-13 (KJV): 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
I have underlined what I consider important, and v13 needs to be understood in the light of v12, but I will not elaborate. Rather, if you could explain in a few simple words how you view the difference between Calvinism (or possibly your shade of this) versus Arminianism, this may be sufficient to set my mind at ease.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[The Biblicist]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

I appreciate your very detailed response to my statements concerning the various stages of Abraham’s life. I still have some reservations in accepting all that you have stated.

To Trevor and Hark,

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Both of your positions and intepretations make this question by Paul tp be stupid and his answer to be false if either one of your positions were correct!

Trevor and Hark, notice his question is a question of "WHEN"? "WHEN" did Paul actually receive this blessing described in verses 6-8! Davidl described the person obtaining remission of sins and imputed righteous as "BLESSED is the man"


Hark you claim he could not have been blessed with imputed righteousness and remission of sin (vv. 6-8) until AFTER the cross. Your position is completely repudiated by Paul as he provides only TWO options possible as to "WHEN" this occurred and neither is after the cross as your position demands. His only two options are "in circucumcision or in Uncircumcision". According to your position NEITHER would be correct and so Paul's question and answer is false according to your theory.

Hark and Trevor, his answer repudiates both of your positions. Trevor you claim it was a PROGRESSIVE justification BOTH in "uncircumcision and in circumcision" taking in Genesis 12 at least to Genesis 22 if not all of His life "in circumcision" but Paul repudiates your theory by denying it occurred " in circumcision" which happend in Genesis 17. Therefore according to Paul he received it PRIOR to Genesis 17 and it was not progressively received during Genesis 17-25:11.

Hark, his answer repudiates your position, as he says Abraham was justified while "in uncircumcision" rather than AFTER THE CROSS. He says in verse 11 that Abraham "received" it and "had" it while "yet uncircumcised" but you deny that, and call Paul a liar!

Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision

Furthemore, verse 11 repudiates both of your position once again by claiming he did in fact receive imputed righteusness or justificaiton as Paul uses the Aorist tense to pin point its occurrence BEFORE he was circumcised:

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul says "HE RECEIVED" but Hark denies that! This is an Aorist tense COMPLETED ACTION which denies both of your theories. If Trevor's theory were correct he should have used the PRESENT TENSE but He did not. If Hark's theory were correct he have used the FUTURE TENSE and then qualified it by the phrase "at Pentecost" but He did not. Both your theories are fully repudiated by the grammar.

Paul says "which HE HAD yet being uncircumcised" but both Hark and Trevor deny that. Again AORIST TENSE completed action which both of you deny.

I will take Paul over both of you. Both of your positions are clearly repudiated by Paul. PLEASE don't respond if you can't reasonably and rationally deal with the specific detailed contextual and grammatical evidence I have provided.

Furthermore, look at the development of the context. In Romans 4:1-3 the question is asked and answered. In Romans 4:4-5 he deals generically and abstractly with the doctrine itself. In Romans 4:6-8 he illustrates it by David's quotation. In Romans 4:9-12 he applies it specifically to Abraham in reference to the precise time it occurred in his life and when it did not occur. In Romans 4:13-15 He denies that it occurred as a product of Law keeping by Abraham. In Romans 4:16 he makes an assertion about the nature of faith being of grace and thus sure to all the seed. In Romans 4:17 he makes another assertion that God can do the impossible and provides two illustrations. In Romans 4:18-21 he then applies verses 16-17 to a specific promise by God to illustrate the nature of justifying faith to show that God can do the impossible and that the nature of faith excludes all works or any capabilities provided by Abraham in obtaining the promise, and then applies that definition of faith to justification in Romans 4:22-25. I outline this chapter in order to forbid you to abuse any aspect of it to support the very things that Paul denies is possible in verses 9-11. So don't attempt to pit any of the rest of this chapter against what Paul denies is possible in verses 9-12 and both of your positions DEPEND UPON CONTRADICTING PAUL'S CLEAR TESTIMONY that Abraham did in fact receive justification while "in uncircumcision" as a completed action. Hark needs to repudiate it because Hark says he could not have received it until after the cross. Trevor denies it because Trevor denies it was a completed action prior to his life "in circumcision" but was a progressive incompleted action throughout his life to his death in Genesis 25:11. Paul repudiates both of your positions.

His words contradict your positions. His grammar contradicts your positions. His only alternatives contradicts your positions. His answer contradicts your positions.


TTHER READERS - IF THE ONLY RESPONSE BY HARK AND TREVOR IS TO PIT OTHER SCRIPTURE AGAINST THIS CLEAR CONTEXTUAL BASED EVIDENCE, THEN THAT IS CLEAR PROOF THEY NEITHER PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THIS TEXT OR THE SCRIPTURES THEY USE TO PIT AGAINST IT, AS THE PITTING METHOD IS THE COMMON RESPONSE USED BY ALL CULTS IN DEALING WITH SCRIPTURE THEY CANNOT REFUTE.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Both of your positions and interpretations make this question by Paul to be stupid and his answer to be false if either one of your positions were correct!

Trevor and Hark, notice his question is a question of "WHEN"? "WHEN" did Paul actually receive this blessing described in verses 6-8! Davidl described the person obtaining remission of sins and imputed righteous as "BLESSED is the man"

Hark and Trevor, his answer repudiates both of your positions. Trevor you claim it was a PROGRESSIVE justification BOTH in "uncircumcision and in circumcision" taking in Genesis 12 at least to Genesis 22 if not all of His life "in circumcision" but Paul repudiates your theory by denying it occurred " in circumcision" which happend in Genesis 17. Therefore according to Paul he received it PRIOR to Genesis 17 and it was not progressively received during Genesis 17-25:11.

Firstly I believe that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness in Genesis 15:6. I gained the impression that you may have considered this to have happened in reference to Genesis 12:1-3 when Abram believed the gospel preached to him in Ur of the Chaldees. Having been reckoned as righteous Abraham did not loose this status, and yes this did occur before his circumcision as you correctly stated and reaffirmed from Paul in Romans 4.

Perhaps I have not been clear, or may have stated some things incorrectly, but I still believe that this status, of being declared righteous, of having our past sins forgiven, of being acceptable to God, is still conditional. It is not lost every time we sin, or gained again when we ask forgiveness. The Scripture is clear – Abraham never lost that status, but the same faith evidenced in Genesis 15 continued and responded in greater understanding, depth, humility and trust in God throughout the rest of his life. This is highlighted in respect to the birth of Isaac and the sacrifice of Isaac, so that the same stamp of approval stated in Genesis 15:6 can be applied to these two incidents in his life.

Perhaps I should spell out possibly some range of differences that may occur on this subject. I do not believe in OSAS. I believe in trying to understand why there is an important and necessary link between faith and righteousness. Faith and righteousness was only fully revealed in Jesus – he was God’s righteous servant – he never sinned – he delighted to do God’s will – he trusted in God. Now even though Abraham was counted as righteous in Genesis 15:6, it could only be in anticipation of his being ultimately accepted within Jesus as per Galatians 3:27. Likewise ourselves, we are only acceptable before God when we are clothed with the righteousness of faith in Christ.

Finally I see that the sacrifice of Jesus is not as a substitute, but as a representative. I understand that the life of Abraham, and of Paul, and of all true believers must be enclosed in this progressive way of life in Christ. The following is a good example of both the position and progress of this life:
Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[The Biblicist]

Greetings again The Biblicist,
Firstly I believe that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness in Genesis 15:6.

That is not what Paul says in Galatians 3:8 or Gen. 12:1-3. The time he believed and was justified was in Ur of the Chaldees in Genesis 11 before he left for Haran.

What you fail to see is that the Galatians 8 with Genesis 12:1 uses the perfect tense. Are you familiar with the perfect tense? If not, let me explain it for you. The perfect tense demands that an action was completed at a point in the past, but that action continues to stand completed up to the point of speaking. Hence, in Genesis 12:1 "had" refers to a point BEFORE Genesis 12:1 that is a completed action which stands completed when Genesis 12:1 occurred. That point of completed action is describe by Paul in Galatians 3:6-8 - he believed the gospel preached to him by God.

Now, in Genesis 15 or Genesis 22 or Genesis 23 it is not that justification is a progressive action but a completed action that continues to stand complete. I pointed out to you verses 6-7 in Genesis 15 that ties what occurred in Genesis 15 with the original completed point of action in Genesis 11. Let me quote the scripture again were Moses ties verse 6 with the imperfect tense in verse 7.

6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
7 ¶ And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

He had already in a perfect tense completed action believed in the Gospel in "Ur of the Chaldees" and God had been making this promise ever since that time. That is what the imperfect tense ("said") in verse 7 is saying. Thus literally it would read "he had been saying unto him." Thus what the Lord said here was merely further revelation, further elaboration to what he had been saying and Abraham had already believed and still believed (perfect tense) this promise with every additional revelation that confirmed the same promise.

I illustrated this by 1 Jn 5:13 where the same idea is expressed and let me quote:

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. - 1 Jn. 5:13

This was not a new point of faith. They already had believed on Jesus Christ ("that believe") but he is writing to strengthen the faith they already possessed rather than a new point of faith. The same is true with Genesis 15:6-7 as the imperfect tense that purposely identifies it with "the Ur of the Chaldees" demonstrates. This is equally true of Genesis 22 and throughout his life until his death. He was not rejustified in Genesis 12, 15, 22, and 25 but the perfect tense completed action of faith in the gospel that occurred in "the Ur of the Chaldees" continued in that completed state but grew in strength with each new revelation and testing God provided. Scripture confirms that justification occurs at the point of faith in the gospel and the gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) in "Ur of the chaldees" before he left for Haran. This was a completed action of faith that continued to stand complete with each additional progressive revelation. His faith grew with each progressive revelation but it was not a new faith or a new act of justification by faith.

However, your theory PITS Galatians 3:8/Genesis 12 with Genesis 15/22 as though it was not a completed action that continues but rather a new action each time. That is simply false for not only the reasons I shared but additional reasons Paul provides in Romans 4 where he explicitly states that the action of justification was "WITHOUT WORKS" which your theory denies. Moreover, Paul says it was justification of the "ungodly" which fits Abraham's spiritual condition in "Ur of the Chaldees" when the gospel was first preached, but does not fit his condition after that point. Your theory is simply wrong because it does not harmonize with all the Biblical data. My position harmonizes with all the Biblical data including what James says. James is speaking about justification in its relationship with profession before men ("show me") or evidential justification that includes the complete sphere before men and God. In that sense what Abraham did by his works "perfected" his justification by inclusion of the sphere of visible witness.

is still conditional. It is not lost every time we sin, or gained again when we ask forgiveness.

Paul says justification is "without works"(Rom. 4:5-6 - while you say it includes and is conditional by works) and it is solely by grace (Rom. 4:16) and as such is "sure to all the seed" (Rom. 4:16) while you deny it is "sure" but can be lost. In addition, Jesus denies any potential possibility that a single solitary person given to him by the Father will fail to come to him by faith or fail to be ultimately raised to resurrection of life, and thus NOTHING SHALL BE LOST - Jn. 6:39. This surety is based solely and only upon the Son's obedience to the Father's will (Jn. 6:38-39) and not upon our obedience to the Father's will at all. Indeed, our obedience NEVER meets the demands or standard or level for even consideration of justification (Mt. 5:20,46) as that standard requires absolute sinless perfection without ever once coming short of God's glory (James 2:10-12).

Moreover, progressive sanctification is never able to meet that standard either (1 Jn. 1:8-10). Hence, no works produced in or through any fallen human can meet the minimum threshold requirement for justification in God's sight and that is why Paul says that God only justifies the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) whereas your position demands the very opposite.

Such a threshold requires that righteousness cannot be IMPARTED in or through any fallen human being unless and except it removes all potential for sin as in the glorification of man in the resurrection. However, glorification is the consequence not the cause of justification.

The only possible means for justification is by a ALIEN righteousness that is FOREIGN to ourselves which must be IMPUTED to our account since such a standard is not possible to be produced in or through us or imparted to us.

Paul repeatedly says that Christ died "FOR us" and rose again "FOR our justification." Mere representation cannot justify or condemn anyone. Adam did not merely represent us, but the whole human nature existed in Adam and acted when Adam acted, hence "all sinned" or the whole human race/nature sinned when Adam sinned. Adam only acted as representative in the period of initial testing. The whole human nature was contaminated by sin and fell into sin and death by sin when Adam sinned. The wages of sin is death and the Bible clearly says that by one man's sin death (Rom. 5:12) judgement and condemnation came upon all men. Paul does not say that by MANY MEN'S SINS death judgment and condemnation came upon all men - which is the view you are forced to take. The consequences were passed down through generative birth, so that all men are born into this world sinners by nature which is manifested when they are capable of being sinners by individual choice and actions. I have had five children and I have never had to teach any of them to do evil - it comes natural by birth. What I had to teach them is to do good and that is never accomplished except by threat of discipline OR due to self-centered reasons, but never for the glory of God. Hence, sin begins with motive and motive is determined by a hear condition that comes as part of our nature.

That is why Jesus says there is "none" but God who is intrinsically good by nature (agathos), and why Paul says there is "none righteous, no, not one" among fallen men. Of course your position must contradict all of this and attempt to explain this away. A weaker position is always the position that must explain away a text(s).

The wrath of God against sin was poured out upon His Son on the cross. He was MADE TO BE SIN on the cross. He did not merely represent sinners on the cross but was MADE SIN FOR US and the wrath of God was satisfied against sin on the cross. He did not potential obtain redemption but actually obtained redemption for his people. God was not potentially satisfied by the cross but was actually satisfied by the cross. The bill of sin was not potentially paid by the cross but was "paid in full" by the cross for His people.

 

[Hark]

To Trevor and Hark,

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Both of your positions and intepretations make this question by Paul tp be stupid and his answer to be false if either one of your positions were correct!

Trevor and Hark, notice his question is a question of "WHEN"? "WHEN" did Paul actually receive this blessing described in verses 6-8! Davidl described the person obtaining remission of sins and imputed righteous as "BLESSED is the man"

Hark you claim he could not have been blessed with imputed righteousness and remission of sin (vv. 6-8) until AFTER the cross. Your position is completely repudiated by Paul as he provides only TWO options possible as to "WHEN" this occurred and neither is after the cross as your position demands. His only two options are "in circucumcision or in Uncircumcision". According to your position NEITHER would be correct and so Paul's question and answer is false according to your theory.

Hark and Trevor, his answer repudiates both of your positions.

Hark, his answer repudiates your position, as he says Abraham was justified while "in uncircumcision" rather than AFTER THE CROSS. He says in verse 11 that Abraham "received" it and "had" it while "yet uncircumcised" but you deny that, and call Paul a liar!

Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision

Furthemore, verse 11 repudiates both of your position once again by claiming he did in fact receive imputed righteusness or justificaiton as Paul uses the Aorist tense to pin point its occurrence BEFORE he was circumcised:

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul says "HE RECEIVED" but Hark denies that! This is an Aorist tense COMPLETED ACTION which denies both of your theories. .... If Hark's theory were correct he have used the FUTURE TENSE and then qualified it by the phrase "at Pentecost" but He did not. Both your theories are fully repudiated by the grammar.

TTHER READERS - IF THE ONLY RESPONSE BY HARK AND TREVOR IS TO PIT OTHER SCRIPTURE AGAINST THIS CLEAR CONTEXTUAL BASED EVIDENCE, THEN THAT IS CLEAR PROOF THEY NEITHER PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THIS TEXT OR THE SCRIPTURES THEY USE TO PIT AGAINST IT, AS THE PITTING METHOD IS THE COMMON RESPONSE USED BY ALL CULTS IN DEALING WITH SCRIPTURE THEY CANNOT REFUTE.

To other readers; Biblicist had ended the discussion between us to depart peaceably and then yet engaged again in more hostility than ever before. He does protest way too much. :BangHead:

Let's examine his claim that Paul was talking about Abraham being justified before Christ's death, resurrection, & ascension.... in context.

Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: 20 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. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The promise of the seed of many nation from which Abraham was a part of had not come yet to establish that seed for that promise to come, but Abraham believed in that promise.

This righteousness from which Paul referred to how that righteousness was imputed was based on the condition of having raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offenses including Abraham's & David's, and raised again for our justification including Abraham's & David's.

Therefore Abraham & David had not received the promise yet until God had delivered good on that promise through Jesus Christ.

So naturally, Paul speaks of it as being presently received by Abraham as if in the past but referring to when Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended as that was when Abraham & David has received the promise.

Since the promise that God has given to Abraham depended on the seed Whom is Christ, then Abraham was waiting for that promise by faith to be given in order to be received so that means until the seed for our justification had been established, Abraham was not in Heaven yet till Jesus led the way.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

That is not what Paul says in Galatians 3:8 or Gen. 12:1-3. The time he believed and was justified was in Ur of the Chaldees in Genesis 11 before he left for Haran.

You gave a thorough explanation of why you claim that Abraham was justified when he was in Ur of the Chaldees, and the above is the start of your explanation and is sufficient to show that this is your position. I would like to simply state again that I believe that Abraham was justified by faith when he believed the promise concerning the seed in Genesis 15:5-7. I am not ignoring your explanation, but I find that Genesis 15:6 does not say that Abraham’s faith had been counted as righteousness when he was in Ur of the Chaldees. I believe that faith can be considered to have quality and quantity, and it was not until Genesis 15:6 that God acknowledges Abraham’s faith as being reckoned or imputed as righteousness.

That is simply false for not only the reasons I shared but additional reasons Paul provides in Romans 4 where he explicitly states that the action of justification was "WITHOUT WORKS" which your theory denies. Moreover, Paul says it was justification of the "ungodly" which fits Abraham's spiritual condition in "Ur of the Chaldees" when the gospel was first preached, but does not fit his condition after that point.

When Abraham believed God and was justified in Genesis 15:6 it was without works. The other aspect of Paul’s argument in Romans 4 is quoting Psalm 32, speaking of the justification of a sinner, and I believe it is speaking of God forgiving David after his sin concerning Bathsheba and Uriah. This does not seem to fit in with your general assessment of this subject, which seems to only allow justification when a person believes the gospel at the first time. Psalm 32 is a strong argument against the Judaisers who taught justification by works and justification by works of the Law, but here was forgiveness given to David after adultery and murder.

I do not think that you have adequately explained the meaning of “therefore” in the following, which relates to the time of the birth of Isaac:
Romans 4:19-22 (KJV): 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20 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. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

I do not think that you have adequately explained the meaning of “fulfilled” in James 2:23. Also you have not adequately explained why God pronounces the surety of the blessing upon Abraham after he had offered up Isaac, and the writer to the Hebrews emphasises this change from what seemed to be probation to a certainty:
Genesis 22:16-18 (KJV): 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Hebrews 6:11-18 (KJV): 11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: 12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
The above passage also indicates that we must endure unto the end to receive the blessing.

You have suggested that I believe in personal progressive righteousness, but I believe in the righteousness of faith, and this begins when we first affectionately believe the gospel of the kingdom and the name. The way of faith and life must grow, otherwise we will fail and turn aside from the way. Faith and righteousness are like the acorn to the oak, but it was only fully revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. We are not justified by our works, but by our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, or even by the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. But Christ is the pattern of all those who acceptable to God. You have not commented on Galatians 2:20, and there are many more passages that are similar. Another important passage is 2 Peter 2:1-12 showing the need to progress in a similar fashion as Abraham.

The wrath of God against sin was poured out upon His Son on the cross. He was MADE TO BE SIN on the cross. He did not merely represent sinners on the cross but was MADE SIN FOR US and the wrath of God was satisfied against sin on the cross. He did not potential obtain redemption but actually obtained redemption for his people. God was not potentially satisfied by the cross but was actually satisfied by the cross. The bill of sin was not potentially paid by the cross but was "paid in full" by the cross for His people.

I cannot accept that God the Father was in any way showing his wrath against Jesus or against our sins upon the cross. If the wrath of God was satisfied, and it was necessary for Jesus to suffer so that God’s wrath was satisfied, why was it necessary for others to suffer? Why did God require Paul and Peter and James and John to suffer? Why did God allow Job and Joseph to suffer? Have you found a real answer to the story of Job, as a pattern of what was to be accomplished in Jesus?

Concerning the subject of being clothed with Christ in Galatians 3:27, not only in baptism, but in a way of life, the following is a warning. There will be times of trouble near the return of Jesus, and it is possible that we could lose the covering of righteousness if we fail to be vigilant and watch for the return of Jesus, and life a life in love and conformity with this hope:
Revelation 16:15 (KJV): Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Revelation 19:7-8 (KJV): 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[The Biblicist]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

Yes I agree that Genesis 15:5-7 is a continuation of faith in an additional revelation. Based upon Galatians 3:8 you state that Abraham believed the gospel in Ur of the Chaldees, that is he had faith in the words of Genesis 12:1-3. You give the impression that the two words “faith” and the “gospel” are complete and sufficient at this point in time, as if both terms have an absolute significance. Although Genesis 12:3 (KJV): in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed is a summary of the gospel as Paul states in Galatians 3:8, Abraham did not have a full understanding of all the implications of this, and how it would be accomplished.

False! You forget that Galatians 3:6-7 demands that Abraham's reception of the gospel is THE EXAMPLE of our reception of the gospel and the scriptures are very clear that we are justified by faith at the point of that reception, not months, years afterwards, even though we continue to grow in our understanding of the gospel. Again, in Romans 4:11-12,16 Paul is stating that Abraham is the ROLE MODEL EXAMPLE of our own justification by INITIAL faith when righteousness is imputed (Rom. 4:5-6; 22-25). Romans 5:1-2 uses the Aorist and Perfect tenses in regard to faith in the gospel (Rom. 4:24-25).

Paul's point is that when he first received the gospel in UR of the Chaldees as clearly stated in Galatians 3:8 which Genesis 12:1-3 claims he already had done while in UR in chapter 11 that THIS was our example of justification by faith in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-7).

Here is the crux of your error. Romans 4:9-11 denies he was justified while in uncircumcision but the act was a completed aorist punctillar action confined within "uncircumcision." This means that it had to occur in its completed action prior to Genesis 17. YET, both Paul and James include Genesis 22 in regard to faith and justification (Rom. 4:18-21; James 2:21-23 and James claims that Genesis 15:6 was not completed until Genesis 22 long after Genesis 17. In addition, Paul refers to Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:2-3 as well as Genesis 22 in Romans 4:18-22.

Now, either he was or was not justified by faith prior to Genesis 17 and Paul claims he was not justified "in circumcision" but "in uncircumcision."

How are we then to explain James 2:23 and Romans 4:2-3 in light of Gal. 3:8 and Gen. 12:1-3?

The explanation is simple as Paul uses the perfect tense to define this action "in uncircumcision" in Romans 5:1-2. Moses uses the perfect tense to describe this action in both Genesis 12:1 and Genesis 15:6. The perfect tense refers to a completed action in the past which CONTINUES in its completed state right up to the point of speaking. Abraham was justified as a complete action when he by faith received the gospel in UR and acted upon that faith by leaving UR toward the promised land. That completed action of justificaiton by faith CONTINUED when he additionally left Haran to further his trip toward Palestine. That completed action of justification by faith CONTINUED when he was given ADDITIONAL revelation of the very same promise in Genesis 15:6. That completed action of justificiation by faith CONTINUED as a completed action when Abraham offered his son upon the altar in Genesis 22 making it evidential before men.

When I first received the gospel, at that precise point I was justified by faith as a completed action. During the period between that point and now I have continued to grow in my understanding of the gospel but that does not mean justificaiton is progressive! No! It is my understanding that is progressive and my faith which progresses in strength due to that understanding.

You really believe in progressive justification throughout ones life. You really don't believe in a completed action of justification that stand completed throughout life from the point of reception of the gospel to the point of death. Hence, you really believe in "INITIAL" justification but not COMPLETED justification and you really believe this "INITIAL" justification is a PROGRESSIVE justificaiton NEVER A COMPLETED ACTION until death. Right? So you don't really believe that justification by faith in the gospel (Gal. 3;8) is a PERFECT TENSE COMPLETED ACTION THAT CONTINUES AS A COMPLETED ACTION??? Rather you believe it continues as an INCOMPLETED ACTION but only had its INITIAL start in Abraham's life "in uncircumcision." You actually believe he was justified progressively "in circumcision" as well as "in uncirumcision."

Also between Genesis 12 and 15 Abram went down to Egypt and placed his own life and Sarah’s position as the future mother of the promised seed in jeopardy. He acted contrary to true or mature faith. In the events of Genesis 13, in a sense Lot’s faith failed, while in contrast Abram progressed in faith and trust in God and was given the land promise of Genesis 13:14-15.

It is not until Genesis 15:6 that God counts Abram’s faith for righteousness. What I am trying to suggest is that there is quality and quantity of faith. If I teach a 5-year-old that Jesus saves us from sin, and that he will return one day and we will be in the kingdom, and if the child accepts this teaching I could say that the child believes the gospel. But I do not believe that the child’s faith would at the age of 5 be counted for righteousness. While we are in Genesis 13:14-15 and speaking of quality of teaching and faith, my Sunday School teacher constantly reminded us of the land promise to Abraham and the link with Genesis 3:26-29. He more or less implied that our hope was not to go to heaven when we die, but to await the return of Jesus to inherit the land promise with Abraham and Jesus and all the faithful.

Despite your comments, I still consider that Abraham also progressed in faith after Genesis 15, and Romans 4 says concerning the promise of Isaac that he was strong in faith. To me God in effect puts his stamp upon this incident by saying “therefore”, that is, his faith at this point in time is to be counted for righteousness:
Romans 4:19-22 (KJV): 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20 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. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
It is as if God gives an additional stamp of approval upon Abraham’s faith.


The following also seems to indicate that only after Abraham had offered Isaac that Abraham would definitely receive the promises:
Genesis 22:15-18 (KJV): 15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

The initial Post in this thread was asking the meaning of Galatians 3:27. At the end of your Post you speak about cause and effect, but I gain the impression that you do not accept that faith and baptism are simply cause and effect.

Also you have a criticism of Arminianism at the bottom of each Post, and this puts a question mark in my mind as to what Arminianism really represents, and what is your particular view in contrast. I have heard of the expression Calvinism versus Arminianism, and without putting a label on your view, your statement does make me question whether Calvinism is your particular position. Possibly the two labels are two extremes, with various shades between, and I can only guess whether you would espouse one of these shades of Calvinism, while maintaining antipathy towards Arminianism. Also you quote Philippians 2:13 as if this has been an important Scripture in your discussion with those that hold an Arminian view. I will also quote v12 as it seems to be needed for context:
Philippians 2:12-13 (KJV): 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
I have underlined what I consider important, and v13 needs to be understood in the light of v12, but I will not elaborate. Rather, if you could explain in a few simple words how you view the difference between Calvinism (or possibly your shade of this) versus Arminianism, this may be sufficient to set my mind at ease.

Kind regards
Trevor[/QUOTE]

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

Here is the crux of your error. Romans 4:9-11 denies he was justified while in uncircumcision but the act was a completed aorist punctillar action confined within "uncircumcision." This means that it had to occur in its completed action prior to Genesis 17.

Please note that I believe that Abraham was justified by faith before Genesis 17, that is before he was circumcised as Romans 4 states. Thus Paul proves that the Christian believer, whether Jew or Gentile does not need to be circumcised to be justified by faith. This was an issue that was contentious in the early days of Christianity as the Book of Galatians and the Jerusalem Conference indicates. My present understanding is that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15:6.

I take on board your explanation regarding Genesis 12 and Galatians 3:8, and your argument almost looks watertight, and even though I have not accepted your assessment, you have made a thorough statement that I imagine many would agree with. I am happy to discontinue further discussion on this particular aspect at this point of time. You seem to have accidentally added other portions of my earlier Post #71 to the bottom of your response, without answering these portions.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Hark]

Greetings again The Biblicist,

Please note that I believe that Abraham was justified by faith before Genesis 17, that is before he was circumcised as Romans 4 states. Thus Paul proves that the Christian believer, whether Jew or Gentile does not need to be circumcised to be justified by faith. This was an issue that was contentious in the early days of Christianity as the Book of Galatians and the Jerusalem Conference indicates. My present understanding is that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15:6.

I take on board your explanation regarding Genesis 12 and Galatians 3:8, and your argument almost looks watertight, and even though I have not accepted your assessment, you have made a thorough statement that I imagine many would agree with. I am happy to discontinue further discussion on this particular aspect at this point of time. You seem to have accidentally added other portions of my earlier Post #71 to the bottom of your response, without answering these portions.

Kind regards
Trevor

Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 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.

Abraham had faith in the promises made that had not come yet because the seed had not come yet and thus he had not received the promises yet.

If we are to go to another reference of Paul explaining Galatians 3:16 in more detail; He may yet help readers to see this truth.

Let's examine what Paul was talking about Abraham being justified by faith before Christ's death, resurrection, & ascension.... in context.

Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: 20 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. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The promise of the seed of many nation from which Abraham was a part of had not come yet to establish that seed for that promise to come, but Abraham believed in that promise.

This righteousness from which Paul referred to how that righteousness was imputed was based on the condition of having raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offenses including Abraham's & David's, and raised again for our justification including Abraham's & David's.

Therefore Abraham & David had not received the promise yet until God had delivered good on that promise through Jesus Christ.

This is the reason why Abraham was not in Heaven yet, but his faith in that coming promise did have him NOT in hell.

John 14:1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Only through Christ in providing the way to God the Father could those pre pentcostal saints could ever approach God the Father in Heaven.

They & Abraham have not put on Christ Jesus till He had resurrected...

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

..and they were not in Heaven till He had ascended first in leading the way.

No man can come to God the Father except by Him and He had meant it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Gal. 3:17 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.

430 years before Moses gave the Law Abraham was justified by faith in the gospel of Christ (Gal. 3:6-8) and "IN CHRIST". Indeed, all human beings saved among men were "chosen in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) "UNTO salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" of the gospel (2 Thes. 2:13-14) as there is NO SALVATION at any point in human history OUTSIDE OF CHRIST for anyone (Jn. 14:6; Acts 10:43; Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; Acts 4:12; etc.).