What is Justification by faith?

[The Biblicist]

So show me where I emptied the term.

This post demonstrates you have read my post and in that post I provided you a very simply way to prove I am lying. All you had to do is either agree or disagree with what I said the Biblical content of justification is. You chose not to respond. The reason is obvious, you know what I said is right.

Now, I could take the time and go back to the archives and prove that you denied the term "justified" is inclusive of imputed righteousness and remission of sins as a PAST TENSE COMPLETED ACTION. Do I really have to do that?

You had the full opportunity to have a full apology from me by merely saying "yes" I beleive they were justified, meaning they had been imputed the righteousness of God and there sins were remitted as a completed action. However, you and I both know you don't believe that. You have repeatedly stated (and every reader who has followed our debate knows this fully well) that justification in before the cross consisted of faith, plus obedience and sacrifices. Must I search through the archives and prove you said that too?

Stop being dishonest and coy and try just being truthful for a change. Until you respond truthfully our discussion is over.

 

[percho]

Man is made in the image of God and God has a soul and spirit and they are not blood nor breath. Man's "soul" cannot be killed by man (Mt. 10:28) yet blood is destroyed by man at death as it returns to dust. The "spirit" of man goes UPWARD and returns to God at death but "breath" dissipates into the atmosphere. So the cultist idea that man's soul is nothing but "blood" and his spirit is nothing but breath is completely repudiated by Scripture. Man is more than biological life, his soul and spirit are like unto God whose soul and spirit exist apart from a biological life form.

No, Paul tells you explicity who the "seed" singular was and it was Christ (Gal. 3:16)

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.





No, "of faith" means in context of Galatian's that you are a beleiver in the gospel of Christ (Gal. 3:6-7; 22,24,26)




Faith is a gift of God, a fruit of the Spirit and thus the fruit of regeneration. The lost man is without God, thus without life, without light and without holiness (Eph. 4:18-19). Regneration is the creative work of God whereby light of knowledge is created in the darkness of the human heart (2 Cor. 4:6). That light of "knowledge" is said to be specific knowlege ("of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" - 2 Cor. 4:6) and this knowledge is the substance and hope of faith which is eternal life (Jn. 17:3). Therefore we are "created in Christ Jesus" by quickening/new birth (Eph. 2:1,5,10).

The Old Testaments tells us plainly who "annointed Christ as well as the New Testament. He was annointed by his fellows or equals - God the Father anointed him by the power of God the Holy Spirit. This is plainly seen in his baptism.




Nothing changed. It was totally righteous for Christ to not want to be made sin as he had resisted sin unto death (Heb. 12:3-4). If there could be any other way it would be a righteous desire to accomplish it another way without being made sin and separated from his Father. There is no sin here. There is no change of mind here. Indeed, if the holy and righteous Christ had not desired this it would have been sin as to desire to be made sin is sin.

You forget he was totally man as much as totally God and his humanity had to grow in knowledge and wisdom. He "learned obedience" just as any other man "learns." That does not mean he learned it through trial and ERROR as no sin was found in him neither did he sin.


The word means "necessary" or "needful" and as a man it was necessary and needful for him to GROW physically, GROW in wisdom...GROW in knowledge. As the Second Adam he must demonstrate obedience rather than disobedience to God in order to inherit what Adam disinherited by disobedience.



Your problem is that you are failing to see Christ as fully man and yet fully God. Your problem is the same problem that JW's have both with Christ and the soul and spirit of man. They only see HALF-truths and that is your problem. You refuse to accept anything but HALF-truths on these subjects.

Now, you are attempting to derail this thread on these obsessions you seemingly cannot reconcile in your own mind. Nearly every thread you attempt to inject these same questions into regardless of the subject of the thread. Please create your own thread if you want to continue in your half-truth journey.

Please forgive me for interjecting my thoughts, I will not do ever again.

I will ask a couple more questions

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3;29

If you are Christ's, must you be of the faith of Abraham, to be Christ's? Do you have to be declared righteous in Christ to be Christ's and is that righteousness, of the faith of Abraham?

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Doesn't, "but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham: who is the father of us all," refer to and in thy seed (Christ, singular) all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? --- If the answer here is yes, which I believe it is, then isn't the faith of Abraham his singular seed Christ in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed?

Again forgive me for derailing the thread but I can not see how it does.

And please answer for I will never post in another thread of yours therefore I will not be able to ask again, Please show me where I am wrong in those two questions.

 

[Darrell C]

In Romans 3-5 "justified before God" is inseparably inclusive of imputation of "the righteousness of God" and "remission of sins" of the "ungodly." Any use of "justified before God" where there is no inclusion of imputed righteousness of God and remissions of sin is not Biblical justification.

And I have been very clear concerning remission of sins, and consistently teach that remission of sins under Old Testament Provision is not equable to Eternal Remission accomplished by Christ.

There is no integrity in your posting, Biblicist, you misrepresent what your antagonist has said, and in fact outright lie about them.

I know you are doing this with me because I actually have a consistent teaching which is not blown about by every new argument that comes around that is asserted to show the weakness of my position.

Now, is one saved if they provide clothes to the cold? Is one saved because provide food to the hungry?

When you can understand the difference between justification outside of a salvific context, then you will understand that Abraham was saved by grace through faith, unlike your carnal teaching...that he was saved by faith through grace.

Now, while it is flattering that my teaching is so prevalent in your mind that you would create thread after thread in an attempt to dismantle it, I still have to ask you to provide a quote where I either implicitly or explicitly deny that the Old Testament Saint was justified.

How you can possibly even present that argument after all I have said concerning the perfecting of just spirits made perfect?

It just doesn't make sense, Biblicist.

Now quote me "emptying" the "Biblical content of justification," that is the only way you are ever not going to be seen as ridiculous as a debater.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

This post demonstrates you have read my post and in that post I provided you a very simply way to prove I am lying. All you had to do is either agree or disagree with what I said the Biblical content of justification is. You chose not to respond. The reason is obvious, you know what I said is right.

Now, I could take the time and go back to the archives and prove that you denied the term "justified" is inclusive of imputed righteousness and remission of sins as a PAST TENSE COMPLETED ACTION. Do I really have to do that?

You had the full opportunity to have a full apology from me by merely saying "yes" I beleive they were justified, meaning they had been imputed the righteousness of God and there sins were remitted as a completed action. However, you and I both know you don't believe that. You have repeatedly stated (and every reader who has followed our debate knows this fully well) that justification in before the cross consisted of faith, plus obedience and sacrifices. Must I search through the archives and prove you said that too?

Stop being dishonest and coy and try just being truthful for a change. Until you respond truthfully our discussion is over.

I am dishonest because I ask you to quote me to justify your slander.

Amazing.

You cannot even be honest with yourself, apparently.

Just face it, Biblicist, you have lied about me publicly, and you will not admit it.

Quote whatever it is that you feel justifies you saying I teach the Old Testament Saint was not justified.

That is the only question posed to you, and that will be continued to be offered until you substantiate your charge.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And I will put this next statement back into its original context so my response is not misunderstood:

My what a short memory you have. I have said repeatedly that you claim that they were justified, you use the Biblical terms in your claim. I have told you this, I don't know, at least three times. However, in spite of claiming it, and using the right Biblical terms ("justified by faith") you EMPTY those terms of its Biblical meaning and therefore you repudiate the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith and deny anyone was truly justified before the cross.

Let me see if I can break it down for you so that I won't have to repeat this a fifth time. Catholics claim they believe in justification by faith and salvation by grace. They make the claim and use the right terms but when they define these terms they empty those words of their true Biblical meaning. That is YOU!

In Romans 3-5 "justified before God" is inseparably inclusive of imputation of "the righteousness of God" and "remission of sins" of the "ungodly." Any use of "justified before God" where there is no inclusion of imputed righteousness of God and remissions of sin is not Biblical justification.

Now here is your opportunity to agree or disagree so all the readers can see precisely where you stand and how you differ from what I just stated.

I have been disagreeing the entire time, and pointing out you are debating something that doesn't have anything to do with my own views.

Catholics might believe in justification by faith but they add to that works...I do not.

And in regards to remission of sins...

...no man had been eternally forgiven through Christ until Christ died for them.

Your arguments are irrelevant to my own positions.

Yes, David received forgiveness, but, David still had to offer up sacrifice for sin his entire life.

I have asked you before, if Remission of sins is identical between the Ages and Covenants, then...

...why do you not have to offer up animal sacrifice?

Now consider that righteousness was imputed based on faith, where exactly does Christ's death come into Abraham offering up his son?

Now...

...quote me saying whatever it is that you feel justifies saying I deny Old Testament Saints were justified?

You are the one that empties the meaning of things, just as it is clear you have no problem making things up if they are convenient.

Quote me, Biblicist, instead of thinking your word has to be taken as truth.

That is a basic standard even among the unregenerate, and you cannot meet their level of justification of charges against another?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If you disagree YOU ARE PROVING THE VERACITY OF MY CHARGES. If you agree with me than I will sincerely apologize.

I "prove the veracity of your charges by...disagreeing with you?"

On the contrary, it is not my burden to prove anything, it is your burden to justify your charges by quoting whatever gave you the impression that I deny the Old TEstament Saint was justified.

And I have many posts concerning perfection which deny the charge, and you know that.

You are being openly dishonest and you know it.

Let me quote someone...

Diversion, ridicule, straw men, etc. tactics characterize a dishonest debate and a dishonest debater.

But you, Biblicist, are not subject to what you teach, is that it?

There is a word for that in Scripture.

Now, quote me.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If either Van's or Darrell's positions were true, then they would consistently deny that any salvational characteristic could be manifested in or by persons before the cross.

I have spoken quite extensively concerning salvation prior to the Cross, and made it clear that the Old Testament Saint was just as secure in their salvation, which was due to grace, as we are.

However, just as I have pointed out that we are no less saved because we have not received our glorified bodies, even so the Old Testament Saint was no less saved because they had not received Eternal Redemption through Christ.

And as far as I know I stand pretty much alone in the distinctions I make, though there are several that embrace certain elements that contribute to my doctrine.

You have said not the first thing that denies my position, so you are forced to run a smear campaign that you know full well will have a number of members, who also have debated these issues, to agree with you.

Not because of the doctrine, or the veracity of either position, but simply because they, like you...

...have ruffled feathers.

And that is as about as dishonorable as one can get in Doctrinal Discussion.

Now...

...quote me.


Continued...

 

[Van]

And Romans 5:9 contrasts justification through faith in that available to Abraham, and justification accomplished through the Cross.

You're just not going to be able to deny that Abraham is said to be justified by faith by Paul, and justified by works by James.
God bless.

Repeating, James 2:21-26 does not say when Abraham and Rehab were justified. I did not deny Abraham and Rehab were justified after Christ died.

Please address my actual position.

 

[Darrell C]

Yet, they are not consistent with their theory as the evidence is self-evident that such a view is foolish.

In your mind only.

Apparently you think that if Biblicist says something...its true.

Well, biblicist, you have said I teach the Old Testament Saint was not justified, yet...you can't prove this to be true.

I don't have to look through the conversations to know you have created this slanderous lie, because my doctrine is settled, unlike the evolving and sometimes revolving teachings you present.

So quote me.

That's all I ask.


Continued...

 

[Van]

Van, until you deal with my posts explicitly there will be no response from me as you simply repeat and repeat and do your best to remove our discussion from Romans 3-5. Sorry, I am not budging.

Thanks Biblicist, your contribution will not be missed.

I believe the Bible means what it says. Thus, Romans 5:19 says by the disobedience of the one (Adam) the many (everyone save Christ) were made sinners, and thus were conceived in iniquity.

Scripture is clear. No one was justified before Christ died. Because everyone that is justified, is justified through Christ's faithfulness on the cross.

Romans 4:5 does not say Abraham was made righteous or justified. It says his faith (Abraham's faith) was credited as righteousness. That determination gave Abraham approval by faith, and he waited in "Abraham's bosom" until after Christ died to be made perfect, righteous and holy.

There is no support for a "legal" righteousness before Christ died. Yes, Abraham was a righteous man, but still a sinner needing to be washed by the blood of the Lamb. There is no other way. No one comes to the Father except through Me (Jesus).

Romans 3:24
being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Only when God credits our faith toward Christ as righteousness, does God transfer us out of the realm of darkness, and into the kingdom of His Son. Justification occurs through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. No one was ever justified except by the blood of Christ.
What does it mean - justification by faith. Does our faith magically justify us with God? Or should we say justification based on faith. The idea being God justifies us (forgives and removes our sin burden) based on Him crediting our faith as righteousness.

Lets consider four verses, Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16 and Galatians 3:24.

We do not find the phrase "justification by faith" in the NASB, but we do find "justified by faith" in these verses. Interestingly, the NET translates "justified" as "declared righteous." And also the NET translates Galatians 2:16 as referring to being justified by [based on or through] Christ's faithfulness, not ours. Galatians 3:24 again refers to us being justified based on faith.

G1344, dikaioō, is translated a number of different ways including "declared righteous" vindicated, and freed, but the context would allow it to be translated justify, justified everywhere it appears.

In summary, we are justified based on our faith in Christ being credited as righteousness by God through the faithfulness of Christ on the cross.
If we translate the preposition "ek" as based on, "dia" as through, "ex" as from, and the construction lacking a separate preposition as by, we get these translations of our verses:

Romans 3:28 For we consider a person to be justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified based on faith through our Lord Jesus Christ, we have peace with God.
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a person is not justified from the works of the law but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified based on the faithfulness of Christ and not from the works of the law, because from the works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:24 Thus the law has become our escort to Christ, so that we could be justified based on faith.

 

[Darrell C]

Repeating, James 2:21-26 does not say when Abraham and Rehab were justified. I did not deny Abraham and Rehab were justified after Christ died.

Please address my actual position.

I did. You said Abraham was not justified Pre-Cross right?

We see why Abraham was justified:


James 2:21

King James Version (KJV)

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

Doesn't matter if one argues that he was not "justified in a manner consistent with salvific justification," its still a clear statement that Abraham was justified by works, the works being that he offered up his son Isaac.

I think we are in at least partial agreement in regards to the premise of your argument, but, I think you err to deny justification prior to the Cross.

Consider:


Romans 4

King James Version (KJV)


1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


The context is clearly concerning justification by faith, yet the one issue, Van, that I think we both agree on, is that we do not equate Abraham being justified through faith in his day, which warrants his faith being credited as righteousness...

...with the imputed righteousness of Christ.

We are not imputed the righteousness of Christ because of anything we do, but only because of what He did. That is freely given to those who have faith in Christ, and it is not given as a "reward" or wage."

Abraham being credited as righteous is a direct result of not just his faith, but the works that evidenced his faith. This is not to be equated to the justification through Christ or the righteousness of Christ. The righteousness credited to Abraham was not the Righteousness of Christ.

He was counted righteous by imputation because he believed God. The righteousness of Christ which is imputed to the Born Again believer is strictly Christ's Righteousness, and has nothing to do with what we do. We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by faith through grace. I'm not sure if you understand the significance of the distinction, but that is simply the case.

We nullify the concept of imputed righteousness if we make it the result of something accomplished by the one to whom righteousness is imputed to.

Regardless, though, Abraham was justified by faith, he was justified by works, and neither of these equate to being justified by the Death of Christ. That is the distinction most miss, hence they equate justification of the Old Testament Saint to Eternal Redemption, and then you and I have to point out they were not made perfect, hence they could not have been justified by the Blood of Christ.




God bless.

 

[percho]

God claiming he has a "soul" is found in the Old Testament long before the incarnation. Sorry, nice try but no winner.

I am not trying anything.

Lev 17:11 for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul. Darby
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. KJV

Is that verse about Jesus? Was it the obedient Jesus who poured out his soul unto death, who shed his precious blood, the blood wherein our righteousness comes from. Was that the obedience of faith, of one, by which we can be given the righteousness of God, whereby we become heirs?

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Even in that verse the seed is singular for it is speaking of Christ. Christ's obedience became the faith. Christ's obedience is righteousness. When he said, Not my will but thine be done and Father into your hands I commend my Spirit, he learned the obedience and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

διό

Outline of Biblical Usage G1223 and G3739; through which thing, i.e. consequently:—for which cause, therefore, wherefore.

The grace that brought salvation came. Being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation. God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: One made the other. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

What is the promise that, "he that saith to him," gave to the heir of God making him the inheritor of all things? Will father Abraham also receive the same promise?

 

[The Biblicist]

AS REQUESTED HERE ARE DARRELL’S OWN WORDS POSTED ON THE THREAD “Man’s Relationship to God Today”


A. HERE IS YOUR CLAIM:

Again, the Old Testament Saint was just as saved as we are by the Grace of God. Their Eternal Security was just as secure as ours. – Post 65


B. HERE ARE YOUR EXPLANATIONS

They did not receive remission of sins.

As I said, you need to read Hebrews.

The vicarious deaths of animals was the only means of remission given to Old Testament Saints, and it was given until Christ died in the sinner's stead.

There is no "literal" remission of sins in the Old Testament on an eternal basis...that is why Christ had to die.

It is pulpit bred mythology that the Old Testament Saints received remission of sins. The above makes it absolutely clear...they did not. – Post 66



No, our salvation is nothing like the salvation of the Old Testament Saint in the sense that we receive remission of sins on an eternal basis, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and are born again...when we are saved in this Age. – Post 145


God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.

Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...

...until the Cross.

And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed... – Post 157


The simple fact is that the sin is forgiven through the Death of Christ, not in the past, as your doctrine teaches. – Post 124


the only remission they received in their lifetimes was temporary, temporal, and had to be continually offered because they did not redeem the believer. – Post 99


It is true, the Old Testament Saint was not justified by their own righteousness, righteousness was imputed based on obedience, faith, and works. – Post 63

Now readers, of course these quotations won't make a bit of difference. Wait and see.

 

[Darrell C]

13) Next Hebrews 10:14 says everyone set apart in Christ has been perfected, yet this is denied.

I have tried to explain this to him. It did no good, he will not even give it consideration, but simply makes up what he wants perfection to mean. He has recently elaborated on his previous statement no man has been perfected yet to a view that Scripture teaches men have always been perfected.

So you are right, he does deny it, but even worse...he redefines it so he can hope to maintain the error he is teaching, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

AS REQUESTED HERE ARE DARRELL’S OWN WORDS POSTED ON THE THREAD “Man’s Relationship to God Today”


A. HERE IS YOUR CLAIM:

Again, the Old Testament Saint was just as saved as we are by the Grace of God. Their Eternal Security was just as secure as ours. – Post 65


B. HERE ARE YOUR EXPLANATIONS

They did not receive remission of sins.

As I said, you need to read Hebrews.

The vicarious deaths of animals was the only means of remission given to Old Testament Saints, and it was given until Christ died in the sinner's stead.

There is no "literal" remission of sins in the Old Testament on an eternal basis...that is why Christ had to die.

It is pulpit bred mythology that the Old Testament Saints received remission of sins. The above makes it absolutely clear...they did not. – Post 66



No, our salvation is nothing like the salvation of the Old Testament Saint in the sense that we receive remission of sins on an eternal basis, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and are born again...when we are saved in this Age. – Post 145


God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.

Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...

...until the Cross.

And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed... – Post 157


The simple fact is that the sin is forgiven through the Death of Christ, not in the past, as your doctrine teaches. – Post 124


the only remission they received in their lifetimes was temporary, temporal, and had to be continually offered because they did not redeem the believer. – Post 99


It is true, the Old Testament Saint was not justified by their own righteousness, righteousness was imputed based on obedience, faith, and works. – Post 63

Now readers, of course these quotations won't make a bit of difference. Wait and see.

Could you point out where I say the Old Testament Saints were not justified?

It does make a difference, Biblicist, because you have once again shown your dishonest debate tactics.

But we will get to that.


Continued...

 

[Van]

Hi Darrell C, my view remains unchanged, no one was ever justified except by the blood of Christ. Not Abraham, not Rehab. Certainly nothing in Romans 4 says Abraham was justified before Christ died. Yet you claimed it did.

And to repeat, James view is Abraham was justified by live faith, faith from which works flowed. It does not say when, repeat when, Abraham was justified. And he was not justified except by the post cross blood of Christ. Did he gain approval by faith, of course. But he had to wait to be made perfect.

 

[The Biblicist]

We see why Abraham was justified:


James 2:21

King James Version (KJV)

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

Doesn't matter if one argues that he was not "justified in a manner consistent with salvific justification," its still a clear statement that Abraham was justified by works, the works being that he offered up his son Isaac.


Abraham being credited as righteous is a direct result of not just his faith, but the works that evidenced his faith. This is not to be equated to the justification through Christ or the righteousness of Christ. The righteousness credited to Abraham was not the Righteousness of Christ.

We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by faith through grace. I'm not sure if you understand the significance of the distinction, but that is simply the case.

Regardless, though, Abraham was justified by faith, he was justified by works, and neither of these equate to being justified by the Death of Christ. That is the distinction most miss, hence they equate justification of the Old Testament Saint to Eternal Redemption, and then you and I have to point out they were not made perfect, hence they could not have been justified by the Blood of Christ.

.

Here is a treasure house of heresy straight from his lips.

 

[The Biblicist]

Could you point out where I say the Old Testament Saints were not justified?

It does make a difference, Biblicist, because you have once again shown your dishonest debate tactics.

But we will get to that.


Continued...

Like I said folks, it won't make a bit of difference and it did not. He can't even read his own words but needs an interpreter. YOU the Readers judge.

He can't even recall that I said he did in fact claim they were justified, as far as words go, but as far as understanding and application of those words, his quotes make it quite clear (except to him).

 

[Darrell C]

Hi Darrell C, my view remains unchanged, no one was ever justified except by the blood of Christ. No Abraham, not Rehab. Certainly nothing in Romans 4 says Abraham was justified before Christ died. Yet you claimed it did.

And to repeat, James view is Abraham was justified by live faith, faith from which works flowed. It does not say when, repeat when, Abraham was justified. And he was not justified except by the post cross blood of Christ. Did he gain approval by faith, of course. But he had to wait to be made perfect.

Well, you know I am not going to keep arguing about it, Van. I have shown that Abraham was justified, that is all I can do.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

I will set back with the rest of the readers and watch these two annihilate each other's heretical views.