When Was Abraham Justified?

[seer]

Romans 4:3 quotes Genesis 15:6...

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

But Abraham was following God for years before this. Since Genesis 12. As Hebrews 11:8 states:


"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."

By "faith" Abraham "obeyed." But this happened in Genesis 12 when God called Abraham out of his home land. This is years before Genesis 15.

So are we saying that Abraham's faith in Gen.12 was not enough to justify him?

BTW - I don't want to argue this. I want honest opinions from both camps... I find it troubling

[Tercel]

Adding to the confusion:

"Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:21-24)

[Kevin Wayne]

Romans 4:3 quotes Genesis 15:6...

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

But Abraham was following God for years before this. Since Genesis 12. As Hebrews 11:8 states:


"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."

By "faith" Abraham "obeyed." But this happened in Genesis 12 when God called Abraham out of his home land. This is years before Genesis 15.

So are we saying that Abraham's faith in Gen.12 was not enough to justify him?

BTW - I don't want to argue this. I want honest opinions from both camps... I find it troubling



I don't suppose that the word "process" that I've been hammering on would help you at all here? Basicaly I see Abe as in the stream of salvation, believing God from the beginning, and Gen 15 is just one port stop on the way.


He obeyed in Gen 12 & he obeyed in Gen 15. And all of it God saw as righteous.

[Nang]

Romans 4:3 quotes Genesis 15:6...

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

But Abraham was following God for years before this. Since Genesis 12. As Hebrews 11:8 states:


"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."

By "faith" Abraham "obeyed." But this happened in Genesis 12 when God called Abraham out of his home land. This is years before Genesis 15.

So are we saying that Abraham's faith in Gen.12 was not enough to justify him?

BTW - I don't want to argue this. I want honest opinions from both camps... I find it troubling

A threefold answer:

Abraham was blessed and justified before the foundation of the world,for he was known by God and created in Christ. (Ephesians 1:3-10)

Abraham was justified in his lifetime by God gifting him with faith to believe the Covenant promises of the Messiah to come.

Abraham was justified (forgiven) his sins when Jesus Christ died in his behalf on the cross.

The same can be said for all of God's elect.

Their justification is eternal and Covenantal in nature, realized by God's grace in their lifetimes, based strictly upon the sacrifical and vicarious cross work of Jesus Christ in the fullness of chronological time.

IOW's, justification is valid for all saints despite the era in which they lived or when in time they were granted knowledge of the justification of their souls.

O.T. saints realized justification by being given faith in the Messiah promised to come into this world. N.T. saints realize justification by being given faith in the Savior who has come into this world.



Nang

[Chytraeus]

Romans 4:3 quotes Genesis 15:6...

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

But Abraham was following God for years before this. Since Genesis 12. As Hebrews 11:8 states:


"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."

By "faith" Abraham "obeyed." But this happened in Genesis 12 when God called Abraham out of his home land. This is years before Genesis 15.

So are we saying that Abraham's faith in Gen.12 was not enough to justify him?

BTW - I don't want to argue this. I want honest opinions from both camps... I find it troubling
Often the question "when" in theological matters is an attempt to look behind the curtain. There are some things God has chosen to reveal to us. That Abraham was justified before God by faith long before he obeyed God's command to circumcise himself and all the males in his household is one of those. That it was by faith that Abram left his comfortable home to live the life of a nomad looking for a promised land that he would never own is another. It is also possible that Abram was raised in the faith by his father, and had in fact trusted/believed in God since he was a child. This, however, is not revealed, for God tells us little about Abram's father. Neither Paul nor James, nor the annonymous writer of Hebrews were concerned about when Abraham was saved by faith, their only concern was that he was in fact saved by faith.

Paul makes it clear to all that Abraham was saved by faith, and not by works, for God counted his faith, his beliefe as righteousness, not his obedience. However, James makes it clear that while it is the faith that justifies, it is not a baren, intelectual faith, but a living, working faith that justifies. But we must never forget that the works are the fruit of faith, the result of justification, and never the cause.

Paul and James put both the palagian and the antinomian to shame. The palagian has fantasies that he can please God and gain eternal life by his own works. If this were true, how would we ever know when we had done enough? The antinomian takes grace for granted and goes on sinning as though there were no cost. If this were true, God would have found some other way other than the pain and shame of the cross to save us. If my sin had to be paid for at such a cost, even though I will never acheive it, I must strive to cease sinning.

So, I guess my answer to your question is that I don't know, and I'm not sure that it matters. Of course, from God's eternal perspective, one which will always be hidden from us in this life, Abraham was saved before the world was created. I know that about him because God's Word tells me as much. For myself, I can only strive to remain in the faith. As for you, I will believe the best until proven otherwise.

But the real point of Moses, Paul, James and Annonymous was that Abraham was saved by faith, not by works, and that his faith produced works which proved to all that he was in fact saved, justified, chosen by God.

Amen

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I agree with folks here that there are different senses to "justified," and I believe it deepens, as in the quote from James! "The Scripture was fulfilled that said ...", so here, it seems the righteousness that God credited to him before, had, in a sense, become real.

Abraham was "mature and complete, not lacking" (James 1:4) then, though in the future, a fuller justification awaits God's people, when "we will be like him, for we will see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).

Galatians 5:5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.

And "righteousness" and "justification" come from the same root, so I think we may say this is a further justification, it gets deeper, all along the way, and started, when Abraham first heard the Lord, and obeyed, and set out from Haran.

Perhaps Paul focuses on the later time when Abraham believed God, after being told "so shall your offspring be," because the result is told to us there? Yet the result could have been the same before, and in a sense, all along the way:

Romans 4:24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness-- for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

"Believe" is present tense, yet "will credit righteousness" puts this "crediting" in the future, so it would seem God keeps on crediting righteousness for those who trust in him, though this changes, and the righteousness and the justification becomes more real, upon reaching the "James 1:4" point...

Blessings,
Lee

[IncRus]

Adding to the confusion:

"Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:21-24)

This is "the" Biblical answer to the question. As James said, "faith WITHOUT works is DEAD." Abraham was "made WORTHY (justified)" to be called a friend of God" by his "faith that was made perfect (alive) by his works" when he OBEYED God and offered his son Isaac on the altar.

In the same vein, "faith in Christ ALONE is DEAD" until that "faith in Christ" is "MADE perfect by works" and becomes a "living faith" that saves.

One of the "works" that makes "faith in Christ" perfect is "DOING the WILL of God for one to ENTER the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Another "works" that makes "faith in Christ" perfect is "ENTERING the fold" (John 10:9). Still another "works" that makes "faith in Christ" perfect is being "born again of water and the Spirit" (John 3:3,5).

Clearly, man is "JUSTIFIED by the blood of Christ" (Rom. 5:9) by "works" and NOT by "faith in Christ ONLY."

[Jomby]

Can I throw out the possibility that Abraham was not perfect in his faith until his willingness to sacrifice Isaac? Why? First, he journeys to the promised land-- but as soon as famine occurs, he no longer trusts God's promise, tries to take matters into his own hands, and leaves the promised land into Egypt.

Then after he is promised numerous offspring by God, he once again takes matters into his own hand and tries to conceive with Hagar, rather than with Sarah. Both times, he doesn't fully trust in the Lord.

It's not until he's told to kill Isaac that he really and truly trusts God. He even tells the servants that they'll both be back-- because now he knows, trusts in Gods promise, that even though it may seem impossible for him to kill Isaac and at the same time have Isaac's descendants be numerous, it will still happen through God.

[Nang]

Can I throw out the possibility that Abraham was not perfect in his faith until his willingness to sacrifice Isaac? Why? First, he journeys to the promised land-- but as soon as famine occurs, he no longer trusts God's promise, tries to take matters into his own hands, and leaves the promised land into Egypt.

Then after he is promised numerous offspring by God, he once again takes matters into his own hand and tries to conceive with Hagar, rather than with Sarah. Both times, he doesn't fully trust in the Lord.

It's not until he's told to kill Isaac that he really and truly trusts God. He even tells the servants that they'll both be back-- because now he knows, trusts in Gods promise, that even though it may seem impossible for him to kill Isaac and at the same time have Isaac's descendants be numerous, it will still happen through God.

So you are suggesting that all of us need to perfect our faith in order to be pleasing to God?

That would be a logical train of thought if the premise is one's faith is one's own responsiblity.

However, if the premise is that faith within all believers is a gift from God (which is my premise and belief), then that faith would be divine and perfect in nature and the exercise of that faith will ALWAYS point to and glorify God.

Therefore, the conclusion . . .on my part is that . . .

Even though Abraham's and Isaac's faith was demonstrated in their willing obedience to offer themselves sacrifically to God, the real reason for this event and demonstration of Godly faith, was to record and provide to mankind a strong Gospel message.*

For after all, the event was not determined or concluded according to Abraham's and Isaac's willingness, but the event was concluded and perfectly fulfilled by God providing a substitute sacrifice in place of Abraham's and Isaac's.

"And He (God) said, 'Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.' Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of the place, *'The-Lord-Will-Provide:' as it is said to this day, **'In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.'" Genesis 22:12-14

Is this not the import and key teaching of the entire occurrence?

Are we not sidetracked when we focus on Abraham's and Isaac's actions, instead of God's actions to substitutionally provide a most pleasing and sufficient blood sacrifice?

Does this not fly directly in the face of those who think the willful actions of men can please God, rather than recognizing that God has willfully provided perfect sacrifice Himself by the provision of His Son?

Nang

[Jomby]

So you are suggesting that all of us need to perfect our faith in order to be pleasing to God?

That would be a logical train of thought if the premise is one's faith is one's own responsiblity.

However, if the premise is that faith within all believers is a gift from God (which is my premise and belief), then that faith would be divine and perfect in nature and the exercise of that faith will ALWAYS point to and glorify God.

I'm trying not to import a premise through which I read right now.


Therefore, the conclusion . . .on my part is that . . .

Even though Abraham's and Isaac's faith was demonstrated in their willing obedience to offer themselves sacrifically to God, the real reason for this event and demonstration of Godly faith, was to record and provide to mankind a strong Gospel message.*

For after all, the event was not determined or concluded according to Abraham's and Isaac's willingness, but the event was concluded and perfectly fulfilled by God providing a substitute sacrifice in place of Abraham's and Isaac's.

"And He (God) said, 'Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.' Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of the place, *'The-Lord-Will-Provide:' as it is said to this day, **'In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.'" Genesis 22:12-14

Is this not the import and key teaching of the entire occurrence?

Are we not sidetracked when we focus on Abraham's and Isaac's actions, instead of God's actions to substitutionally provide a most pleasing and sufficient blood sacrifice?

Does this not fly directly in the face of those who think the willful actions of men can please God, rather than recognizing that God has willfully provided perfect sacrifice Himself by the provision of His Son?

Nang

I think the prefiguring of Christ plays a huge role here. I also think that Abraham didn't demonstrate "perfect" trust until this moment. Are they mutually exclusive? Shouldn't be.

[Kevin Wayne]

Seer specifically asked that there not be a debate over this issue, so I think we should just respect that and just allow each other to say what they have to say w/o harrasment, thank-you.

[Chytraeus]

Seer specifically asked that there not be a debate over this issue, so I think we should just respect that and just allow each other to say what they have to say w/o harrasment, thank-you.
I understand and appreciate that, however, doctrine is always helped when those with different views are allowed to respond to the comments of the others. I have seen some statements made here that contradict Scripture, and it would not do anyone any service to say nothing about that so as to avoid "harrasment." Not everyone who reads this will be well versed in the scriptures that deal with this subject, and to leave an unscriptural statement unanswered.

However, I understand that this is seer's thread, and I will respect what seer wants here. We should be able to discuss this without "harrasing" anyone. I do not believe that anyone's point is made stronger by calling the person holding different view names or of accusing them of being unchristian etc.

Well, what do you say, seer?

[seer]

I understand and appreciate that, however, doctrine is always helped when those with different views are allowed to respond to the comments of the others. I have seen some statements made here that contradict Scripture, and it would not do anyone any service to say nothing about that so as to avoid "harrasment." Not everyone who reads this will be well versed in the scriptures that deal with this subject, and to leave an unscriptural statement unanswered.

However, I understand that this is seer's thread, and I will respect what seer wants here. We should be able to discuss this without "harrasing" anyone. I do not believe that anyone's point is made stronger by calling the person holding different view names or of accusing them of being unchristian etc.

Well, what do you say, seer?

I have no problem with civil discussion on this thread. The responses have been interesting...

[Chytraeus]

I have no problem with civil discussion on this thread. The responses have been interesting...
Cool beans! I love to discuss, but I don't like vicious arguments with name calling!

IncRus suggested that faith does not save until it is made perfect by works and then becomes a living faith. This is the view of faith taught by the Roman Catholic church, and has no support in Scripture. Scripture always presents true faith as saving faith, even if it is weak faith. James 2 is quoted and misunderstood to support this view. The apostles often used the word "faith" is more than one way. When St. Paul said that you are saved by faith, and not by works, he was speaking of that act of trust and reliance upon the finished work of Christ upon the cross. When he spoke of defending the faith, he was speaking of those things which we believe about God and His Son, Christ Jesus, the content of the doctrine of the Church. It is this way that James speaks of faith in this portion of this letter.

This is made clear when he says, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble!" He could have gone further. "Do you believe that Jesus was the Incarnate Son of God? So does Satan. In fact, he has less doubt about this than you ever will. Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world? I can assure you that Satan believes this as well, and will do everything in his power to keep you from believing it." One can be absolutely orthodox in all the points of doctrine of the Christian Church and know and believe to be true every verse of Scripture, and still not be saved. I know of excellent preachers who are lost and condemned because although they know scripture and doctrine well enough to preach fine sermons which may do wonders for bringing others to the true faith, they have never trusted in Christ alone, and the works and deeds of their private lives show this fact. That kind of faith without works is dead.

True faith is not knowing that Jesus was the Incarnate Son of God and that He died on the cross for sins, it is knowing and believing that He died on the cross for your sins. This kind of faith always saves, and, it is a living, active faith that always produces good works of mercy, justice, and love. One can know that they have real, "perfect", living faith by seeing the works produced by their faith. However, it is never the works that cause the salvation and make the faith perfect, but they simply demonstrate to human eyes how powerful and effective their faith in Christ is.

It was said in another place that faith, since it is a gift from God, is always perfect. Although I agree in essence with that statement, it must be stressed that this does not mean that these people never doubt. As was said, Abraham often doubted God and relied on his own wisdom to protect his life, telling his wife to say that she was his sister (which was actually true, as she was his half-sister). Isaac did the same thing with his wife. Jacob failed to trust God and sent bribes to his brother to win his affection before returning to the promised land. David lost his faith for a time when he fell into sin with Bathsheeba. His faith returned when he was confronted about his sin by Nathan the prophet, and after repenting was told, "God has forgiven your sin. You will not die." Even Peter who confessed, "You are the Son of the living God," denied three times that he even knew the Lord. After returning to faith that time you would have thought he was through with failings, but not our beloved Peter. Paul had to rebuke him for fearing the rejection of the "circumcision party," and pretending to be one of them when they came to visit him in one of the gentile churches. Even Paul had a dispute with his friend Barnabas over John Mark, who later proved himself to the point of being chosen by God to pen one of the Gospel accounts.

With all of these heroes of the faith, we all must at times cry out, "I believe, please help my unbeliefe." Sometimes our faith is strong enough to move mountains, and sometimes it is weak and uncertain. Luther, who wrote powerful statements against the Roman Pope, the most powerful man in Europe at the time, when asked to recant his writtings, first responded, "May I have time to think on it?" Praise be to God that he did not fall from faith that night, for the next day he made that everlasting confessions, "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God."

Abraham was saved by his faith from the first time he heard that there was a God who forgave the sins of those who trusted in Him and believed it. It is very likely, although we do not know this, that he first heard this from his father. However, what it was that Abraham believed that was accounted to him as righteousness was that God would bless all nations through his descendant, which was the promised Messiah first spoken of by God at the Garden of Eden. This is the Son of Eve who would crush the head of the Serpent. He would bless all nations by undoing the curse of the fall and bringing many to righteousness. Through him we are all sons of Abraham if we have the faith of Abraham. And that faith will manifest itself in good works which will show to all that our faith is the perfect faith that saves and justifies. Amen.

[seer]

Abraham was saved by his faith from the first time he heard that there was a God who forgave the sins of those who trusted in Him and believed it. It is very likely, although we do not know this, that he first heard this from his father. However, what it was that Abraham believed that was accounted to him as righteousness was that God would bless all nations through his descendant, which was the promised Messiah first spoken of by God at the Garden of Eden. This is the Son of Eve who would crush the head of the Serpent. He would bless all nations by undoing the curse of the fall and bringing many to righteousness. Through him we are all sons of Abraham if we have the faith of Abraham. And that faith will manifest itself in good works which will show to all that our faith is the perfect faith that saves and justifies. Amen.


This is the Problem with James, Chytraeus. For according to him even Abraham was not justified by faith alone. And we both assume that Abraham had the genuine you spoke of:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[Harald]

Much confusion here, indeed. Abraham was justified before God at the point in time when Messias died on Calvary's tree. So with all others of "God's elect", and all of God's elect that have been converted by the Spirit through God's gospel have known this thing.

James does not bring "confusion" with what he says respecting Abraham in James 2. To impute confusion to James is to be ignorant of what James is talking about. He is not treating of Justification Before God. Neither is Paul in Romans 4:1-3 treating of Abraham's justification before God the Judge of all men. Paul is here treating of the same thing as James treats of in James 2.

Romans 4:24a does not say "will (be imputed/reckoned/counted/attributed/ascribed)", but "is being about to be attributed time and again". Two verbs in a row, first mellô in the present active indicative, followed by logizomai in the present passive infinitive. Therefore Rom. 4:24 does not address Justification Before God, which Justification only involves (read: ínvolved) ONE once-for-all charging of Christ's merit to "God's elect" as their sole and entire saving justification in God's sight. KJV and a few other versions only add to the confusion by adding an unlawful "IF" in Rom. 4:24. And when it comes to Justification Before God of "God's elect", which is OTOH treated of in 4:25b, KJV increases the soteriological confusion (exhibited in KJV and in churchianity) with the ambiguous "for" when translating DIA followed by the article in Accusative case.


Harald

[seer]

Much confusion here, indeed. Abraham was justified before God at the point in time when Messias died on Calvary's tree. So with all others of "God's elect", and all of God's elect that have been converted by the Spirit through God's gospel have known this thing.

James does not bring "confusion" with what he says respecting Abraham in James 2. To impute confusion to James is to be ignorant of what James is talking about. He is not treating of Justification Before God. Neither is Paul in Romans 4:1-3 treating of Abraham's justification before God the Judge of all men. Paul is here treating of the same thing as James treats of in James 2.

Romans 4:24a does not say "will (be imputed/reckoned/counted/attributed/ascribed)", but "is being about to be attributed time and again". Two verbs in a row, first mellô in the present active indicative, followed by logizomai in the present passive infinitive. Therefore Rom. 4:24 does not address Justification Before God, which Justification only involves (read: ínvolved) ONE once-for-all charging of Christ's merit to "God's elect" as their sole and entire saving justification in God's sight. KJV and a few other versions only add to the confusion by adding an unlawful "IF" in Rom. 4:24. And when it comes to Justification Before God of "God's elect", which is OTOH treated of in 4:25b, KJV increases the soteriological confusion (exhibited in KJV and in churchianity) with the ambiguous "for" when translating DIA followed by the article in Accusative case.


Harald

There is still a problem. If Paul and James are both speaking of mere justification before men then Paul says that justification happens by faith without works and James says it includes both faith and works.

So Harald, how exactly is a man justified before God?

[Harald]

There is still a problem. If Paul and James are both speaking of mere justification before men then Paul says that justification happens by faith without works and James says it includes both faith and works.

So Harald, how exactly is a man justified before God?

I said that Paul in Rom 4:1-3 and James in Jam. 2 were not speaking of justification before God as respected Abraham. I did not specify what justification they speak of in respective places. As for Justification Before God I have already answered.

But since we are at it I say it appears that at least Paul in Rom. 4:1-3 is treating of Abraham's being "justified" or "vindicated" PRIMARILY (if not exclusively) in relation to self, or as some call it, "justification before conscience". Paul says it was EX ERGOON - "out of works", and he further specifies that it involved Abraham believing God (YHWH in the Hebr. of Gen.). So Paul affirms that Abraham was "justified" (dikaioô) "out of works". He then gives the disclaimer, lit. "but mark well, absolutely not in relation to the God". So the being justified here was not a "justification" before God. While Paul affirms Abraham was indeed justified out of works he does not, mark well, specify them as "works of law". This is important. Rather he defines the "works" here, in context, as "Abraham believed GOD (YHWH)...". So, we have Paul talking about "works" but also of "believing". Pretty much the same as Jacob in his 2nd chapter, speaking about a faith made perfect through works (not "works of law", but works of righteousness).

Paul is, then, seen to be careful to distinguish between "works" and "works". Sometimes he speaks of works of law, a wicked thing, and sometimes of "works", of which the context shows that law-works are not in view. And if not law-works then the only possibility left is works of righteousness, works of faith. Believing God on the part of Abraham was a good work, a work of righteousness, a faith-work, NOT a law-work, a legal(istic) effort.

In the case of Abraham's being justified out of works (defined as believing in YHWH) in Ro 4:1-3 (& Gen. 15) I do not glean that any other men were involved, wherefore I conclude it was a case of being justified not in relation to YHWH God, but in relation to himself. Much as it was with Abel when he did a good work, and God informed him that he was righteous. Heb 11:4. Mark well, not that he did become righteous when doing that good work, but that the good work testified of his already being a righteous character.
In Jam. 2 I glean from the context that the "being justified" out of works treated of there is not only a justification in relation to self, but also before other men. But at the specific instance (quoted) of Abraham being in the process of offering up Isaac on the altar of sacrifice, (a good work of faith it was), I do not glean any other humans being present. So at that point when Abraham was "justified" out of works it was primarily if not exclusively a thing which was in relation to himself.

These are very simple and uncomplicated things to grasp, really. But unstable and unlearned men have confused things in their confused minds.

Harald

[seer]

There is still a problem. If Paul and James are both speaking of mere justification before men then Paul says that justification happens by faith without works and James says it includes both faith and works.

So Harald, how exactly is a man justified before God?

I said that Paul in Rom 4:1-3 and James in Jam. 2 were not speaking of justification before God as respected Abraham. I did not specify what justification they speak of in respective places. As for Justification Before God I have already answered.

But since we are at it I say it appears that at least Paul in Rom. 4:1-3 is treating of Abraham's being "justified" or "vindicated" PRIMARILY (if not exclusively) in relation to self, or as some call it, "justification before conscience". Paul says it was EX ERGOON - "out of works", and he further specifies that it involved Abraham believing God (YHWH in the Hebr. of Gen.). So Paul affirms that Abraham was "justified" (dikaioô) "out of works". He then gives the disclaimer, lit. "but mark well, absolutely not in relation to the God". So the being justified here was not a "justification" before God. While Paul affirms Abraham was indeed justified out of works he does not, mark well, specify them as "works of law". This is important. Rather he defines the "works" here, in context, as "Abraham believed GOD (YHWH)...". So, we have Paul talking about "works" but also of "believing". Pretty much the same as Jacob in his 2nd chapter, speaking about a faith made perfect through works (not "works of law", but works of righteousness).

Paul is, then, seen to be careful to distinguish between "works" and "works". Sometimes he speaks of works of law, a wicked thing, and sometimes of "works", of which the context shows that law-works are not in view. And if not law-works then the only possibility left is works of righteousness, works of faith. Believing God on the part of Abraham was a good work, a work of righteousness, a faith-work, NOT a law-work, a legal(istic) effort.

In the case of Abraham's being justified out of works (defined as believing in YHWH) in Ro 4:1-3 (& Gen. 15) I do not glean that any other men were involved, wherefore I conclude it was a case of being justified not in relation to YHWH God, but in relation to himself. Much as it was with Abel when he did a good work, and God informed him that he was righteous. Heb 11:4. Mark well, not that he did become righteous when doing that good work, but that the good work testified of his already being a righteous character.
In Jam. 2 I glean from the context that the "being justified" out of works treated of there is not only a justification in relation to self, but also before other men. But at the specific instance (quoted) of Abraham being in the process of offering up Isaac on the altar of sacrifice, (a good work of faith it was), I do not glean any other humans being present. So at that point when Abraham was "justified" out of works it was primarily if not exclusively a thing which was in relation to himself.

These are very simple and uncomplicated things to grasp, really. But unstable and unlearned men have confused things in their confused minds.

Harald

What? Could you simplify please...

[7thangel]

Romans 4:3 quotes Genesis 15:6...

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

But Abraham was following God for years before this. Since Genesis 12. As Hebrews 11:8 states:


"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."

By "faith" Abraham "obeyed." But this happened in Genesis 12 when God called Abraham out of his home land. This is years before Genesis 15.

So are we saying that Abraham's faith in Gen.12 was not enough to justify him?

BTW - I don't want to argue this. I want honest opinions from both camps... I find it troubling


Well, faith is not just mere good feelings towards God but is also coupled of our wisdom towards God. Thus faith is always coupled with understanding.

There is a different measure of faith, as Paul said. When Abraham believed God in Gen 12 he has a wisdom that goes with his faith. And when God commanded him to offer his son, there is a different wisdom that goes with it by which it is more deeper and grown. And that different depthness of believing, of that different depthness of faith, is that where God was judging Abraham and of the reason of commending him.

The works done by Abraham in obedience on both occasions are mere product of his faith, and by which we can measure faith; just like how Christ judge the greatness of centurion through how he wisely responded.

.

[Harald]

seer,

Recently we discussed these same things on another forum. Here I copypaste what I said in one of those posts. Hopefully it may be of some help.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

>> Shall just put forth a few thoughts.

I cannot believe how some here keep on casting doubts on the character of Jacob (James) the brother of the Lord Jesus. As if he was propounding another scheme of justification than Paul. How are you folks reading the Scriptures, really?? It is very clear from reading James 2 that James does not say he is treating of the doctrine of Justification Before God. When Paul in Romans 3:19-26 treats of Justification Before God he clearly spells it out in v. 20. I.e., the context clearly informs WHAT KIND OF justification is treated of.
And from reading the pertinent context of James 2:24 it is very clear James is not treating of Justification Before God. Moreover, the context there does not explicitly state he is treating of "justification before men". Inasmuch as James is NOT treating of JustificationBeforeGod he must be treating of either

1) "justification before self or conscience" as it has been called by some who know well enough to engage in making proper distinctions ("to distinguish things differing", Paul)
or
2) "justification before men" as called by some
or
3) both 1 and 2, by way of necessary implication


The fact is that the Greek NT does not use the noun DIKAIÔ-SIS (justification, cp. RO. 4:25b) when treating of the things that have been called (in theology) "justification before men" and "justification before conscience or self". This may be one of the reasons why some have such difficulty understanding the latter concepts, which the Scriptures do treat of, but in other terminology. Even to the point of denying that the Scripture treats of them, and consequently they have a problem with the canonicity of James, even imputing error to him as respects soteriology when it comes to justification. James was not in error.

In Paul the primary emphasis is on Justification Before God where the verb "to justify" is used by him. Where the noun "dikaiôsis" is used by him he always talks about JBG. Secondarily when Paul uses "to justify" (dikaioô) he treats of "justification before conscience/consciousness/self". Thirdly when using dikaioô he treats of "final justification before all other created beings" (angels good and evil, men elect and reprobate). And only fourthly, if at all, when using "dikaioô", does he treat of "justification before men".

When it comes to the Genesis account of Abraham believing YHWH ("God" in Rom. 4, James 2, Gal 3) I fail to see why some keep on saying this was "justification before men". What men where present at that point when Abraham believed YHWH? So, whereas I do not glean that any "men" (plural) were present, before whom he might have been "justified" (or, vindicated as a just man), I glean that the being justified that both Paul and James treat of when quoting Genesis is PRIMARILY "justification before conscience/self", because Paul clearly says in Rom. 4:2 "absolutely not in relation to (pros) God". Meaning this Abraham's being justified EX ERGÔN ("out of works") was not "in relation to God" as Judge, i.e., it was not a being justified "ENÔPION AUTOU" (God the Judge), cp. Rom. 3:20. KJV mistranslates in Rom. 4:2 by rendering DIKAIOÔ as "were justified", as if there was some uncertainty. The Greek construct is a first class condition, "EI" followed by the indicative - "if in fact Abraham was justified out of works". So, it is an assumed fact with Paul. Paul says Abraham was indeed justified out of works (MARK WELL, Paul does not specify them as "works of law", viz. legal(istic) efforts), but Paul is swift to give the disclaimer "but mark well (strong adversative in Gr., ALLA), absolutely-not (objective negation OUK) in relation to the God". And here in context "the God" (Gr. ton Theon) is seen to be YHWH (cp. 4:3) as seen if checking the Genesis account.
Another fact which corroborates that this Abraham's being justified out of works was not (at least not primarily) "before men" is seen when Paul says Abraham has "an occasion of proudly rejoicing" ("glorying"). In Gal. 6 Paul speaks words to the import that each man is to "keep on proving his own work", and then he will have occasion to proudly rejoice ("glory") but not in relation to another (human being). To use Romans 4 in Paul, the account of Abraham's believing YHWH and it being counted/attributed/ascribed ("imputed") to him as righteousness, to teach Justification Before God is to use the Scriptures deceitfully. Abraham's believing YHWH did ABSOLUTELY NOT lead to his being savingly justifed (by God, the Judge of all men) before YHWH. To believe it did is to believe contrary to Paul and the Scripture as respects Justification Before God. To believe it did is to believe "another gospel". To believe it did is to evidence oneself an unbeliever, unconverted still. Because Paul previously, in Romans 3:19-26, has clearly shown Justification Before God to be by means of the redemption act that is in Christ Jesus. To in addition to this scheme of Justification Before God through Christ and His redemptive act add the Solafideite notion of being justified before God "through faith alone in Christ alone" is to be utterly confused in the mind, to be ignorant of Paul's gospel.

To this Solafideite scheme belong such unscriptural sayings as that "righteousness is imputed through faith". Utter hogwash in light of Paul's glorious gospel. To believe that justifying righteousness (in God's sight) is "imputed through faith" is to DENY Justification Before God of God's elect, including "the Body of the Christ", at the point of Christ's sacrificial death on Calvary's tree. So, you folks professing "sovereign grace" and "Sola Scriptura" and what more, make no mistake about it, God is absolutely not being mocked. What a many may be sowing (including false belief and teaching) that shall he also reap.


Harald <<<<<<<

END OF QUOTE


Then. I suggest going to the Greek text of Rom. 4:1. Translations which say something like KJV says, that Abraham was a father of the Romans as pertaining to the flesh, such versions get it all wrong. Abraham was not a father to the Romans as pertaining to the flesh, but in a spiritual sense. The Romans were "Gentiles", not Jews. Therefore the words as they stand written in KJV are setting forth error. The answer to this seeming dilemma is that KJV unwarrantedly changes the word order of the Greek, creating nonsense out of it. Darby, Douay-Rheims, ESV, HCSB, ISV, follow KJV in this error. Following the Greek word order of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text in a literal rendering one gets something like this:

1 Precisely what, in light of this, shall we assert Abraham the father of us to have found as pertaining to flesh?

We see that the key is what Abraham has found "as pertaining to flesh". "Flesh" here is used by Paul in the sense of "personal character and conduct". This is not the only verse in the Pauline corpus where Paul uses the anarthrous "flesh" like this. Paul continues in v. 2

2 For if in fact Abraham was justified out of works he is having occasion of glorying, but mark well, absolutely not in relation to *GOD,

Now. Here we have a so-called 1st class condition, EI ("if in fact") followed by an indicative mood verb ("was justified"). So what Paul essentially says is "...if in fact Abraham was justified (and he was) out of works etc.". It is, as a matter of fact, a fact that Abraham was justified out of works. The Greek construct is simply such. So Paul maintains Abraham "was justified out of works". ["out of" here is EK, the sense is that "works" showed or proved or testified to the fact that Abraham was "righteous" or that he had some sort of "righteousness"]. And furthermore Paul uses the indicative mood when saying Abraham "is having" occasion of glorying (proudly rejoicing). So, two things were true of Abraham, he was in fact "justified" or "vindicated as just" or "shown to be just" out of works, and he does in fact have occasion of proudly rejoicing. But then comes Paul's important disclaimer which religiously minded men have ignored or missed - "but mark well (ALLA, the strongest single adversative used in the GNT), absolutely not (OU, the stronger/"objective" Greek negation) in relation to (PROS) the God". Here we moreover see that "the God" (ton Theon) of vv. 2 and 3 is defined as YHWH in the Genesis 15 account in the Hebr. text.
So, so far we have seen that Abraham was in fact (somehow) "justified" out of works, but absolutely not in relation to YHWH. So it must be in relation to someone else. Either it is himself or other humans. But inasmuch as the context does not say any other men were present at the moment when "Abraham believed God" it is reasonable to conclude that he was "justified" in relation to himself, his own conscience.
Here is vv. 1-3 as one unit

1 Precisely what, in light of this, shall we assert Abraham the father of us to have found as pertaining to flesh?
2 For if in fact Abraham was justified out of works he is having occasion of glorying, but mark well, absolutely not in relation to *GOD,
3 For precisely what is the Scripture asserting? ”And Abraham he believed *GOD, and it was attributed to him as righteousness.”

So, when it comes to personal character and conduct Paul testifies that Abraham, the spiritual father of the Romans, was indeed justified (vindicated as being just/righteous) out of works, and "works" here Paul specifies as Abraham's believing YHWH. According to v. 3 the Scripture asserts that Abraham's one-time-act (aorist tense) of believing YHWH, the "it", "was attributed to him as righteousness". This Attributing was an Attributing on God's part towards Abraham, and it was a thing which some have called "real imputation" (theologically). Meaning that God attributed or ascribed, "imputed", to Abraham something (here "righteousness") that he already was in possession of. So this was not what on the other hand has been called "legal imputation", which is an Imputation where something is charged to the account of someone which (the "something") was not previously in that account. So, God/YHWH was not here charging something positive to Abraham, as though Abraham was having a negative account and now God charges righteousness onto his account and makes the balance look Positive. But this is most apparently how many understand this passage in their ignorance, as though Abraham's believing GOD resulted in GOD charging to his account a justifying (Positive) Righteousness, a Righteousness which purportedly then savingly justified him before God. But this cannot possibly be, cp. v. 2, "absolutely not in relation to God". The only logical possibility here is that Paul has a "real imputation" in mind. That God, at the point of Abrahams believing Him, attributed, ascribed, to him, NOT justifying Righteousness before God as Judge, BUT RATHER that he ascribed/attributed to him character righteousness, as though God was telling Abraham

"Abraham, you believed my saying, my solemn promise, it was righteousness on your part, a good work on your part, it shows and proves that you are a just character. And this is a fact with you because I have long ago given you a righteous spirit in regeneration, based on the Atoning Work and Resurrection of the promised Messias (in whom you have come to hope) who is yet to come and work out a Justifying Righteosuness for you."

Then. Verse 4 is NOT standing in contrast to v. 3. KJV (at least) makes it look like this by rendering the DE as "But". Rather it has the sense of "Now", and in v. 4 Paul is briefly outlining the principles of "reckoning". "The one working" of v. 4 is depicted in a negative light. This character is one "working" (present participle, a habitual "worker" in a spiritual sense), one whose working aims at a reward, one who knows nothing about "undeserved favour" ("grace"). He is one who habitually works law-works, not faith-works. He is characterized by a legalistic mindset. And this negative character of v. 4 Paul sets against another character altogether, seen in v. 5 - "the non-working one". Look at vv. 1-5 as a unity and hopefully you will begin grasping Paul's train of thought:

1 Precisely what, in light of this, shall we assert Abraham the father of us to have found as pertaining to flesh?
2 For if in fact Abraham was justified out of works he is having occasion of glorying, but mark well, absolutely not in relation to *GOD,
3 For precisely what is the Scripture asserting? ”And Abraham he believed *GOD, and it was attributed to him as righteousness.”
4 Now, to the one working the reward is absolutely not being counted according to undeserved favour, but on the contrary, in accordance with that which is owed.
5 On the other hand, to the non-working one, namely to one believing on him
justifying the ungodly one, the faith of him is being attributed as righteousness,

Now, you see that the character depicted by Paul in v. 5, "the non-working one", whose faith "is being attributed as righteousness", it is in fact Abraham. But but, you may perhaps reason, how come Paul says Abraham was justified out of "works" ? The only answer is that Abraham, who "was justified out of works", and who is depicted as "the non-working one", as a "believing one", is one whose believing was a "work of faith" a "work of righteousness", as diametrically distinct from "the working one", who had but "works of law", viz. legal(istic) efforts, who had but an eye towards a reward. Abraham's believing was a "work" but not a legal effort, but a good work, free from legalistic and conditional and mercenary motives. Abraham did not believe IN ORDER TO gain or procure or secure some blessing with God, but all the rather he believed YHWH because he already was blessed by Him. God's having blessed Abraham spiritually led to Abraham's faith-response. Not the other way around, as though Abraham were believing in order to secure or procure some blessing at God's hand. These two are diametrically opposite. The first is "of faith", the second is "of law".

In light of this it is no wonder that Paul repeatedly warned such as were "of law", i.e. legalistically minded professors, ones who were doing things ("believing", "repenting" etc.) in order to secure/procure blessings at God's hand. Such are, according to God, debtors to perform the whole Law.



Harald

[seer]

Harald, that was worse! Could you boil your main points down to a few sentences...

[Ormly]

A threefold answer:

Abraham was blessed and justified before the foundation of the world,for he was known by God and created in Christ. (Ephesians 1:3-10)

Abraham was justified in his lifetime by God gifting him with faith to believe the Covenant promises of the Messiah to come.

Abraham was justified (forgiven) his sins when Jesus Christ died in his behalf on the cross.

The same can be said for all of God's elect.

Their justification is eternal and Covenantal in nature, realized by God's grace in their lifetimes, based strictly upon the sacrifical and vicarious cross work of Jesus Christ in the fullness of chronological time.

IOW's, justification is valid for all saints despite the era in which they lived or when in time they were granted knowledge of the justification of their souls.

O.T. saints realized justification by being given faith in the Messiah promised to come into this world. N.T. saints realize justification by being given faith in the Savior who has come into this world.



Nang

He was justified before the cross per Romans 5.1 then reconcilation was made complete at the cross by the Blood of Christ.

Acts 10:35 (KJV)
"......in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. [that means, justified] And since the cross it means complete salvation... not to be confused with regeneration.

[Kevin Wayne]

as though God was telling Abraham

"Abraham, you believed my saying, my solemn promise, it was righteousness on your part, a good work on your part, it shows and proves that you are a just character. And this is a fact with you because I have long ago given you a righteous spirit in regeneration, based on the Atoning Work and Resurrection of the promised Messias (in whom you have come to hope) who is yet to come and work out a Justifying


Personally I think this adds more to the text than the Scripture itself is saying. I do agree with you, however, that it was more of a justification of Abraham's general characther than a justification before God.

[Chytraeus]

Abraham was saved by his faith from the first time he heard that there was a God who forgave the sins of those who trusted in Him and believed it. It is very likely, although we do not know this, that he first heard this from his father. However, what it was that Abraham believed that was accounted to him as righteousness was that God would bless all nations through his descendant, which was the promised Messiah first spoken of by God at the Garden of Eden. This is the Son of Eve who would crush the head of the Serpent. He would bless all nations by undoing the curse of the fall and bringing many to righteousness. Through him we are all sons of Abraham if we have the faith of Abraham. And that faith will manifest itself in good works which will show to all that our faith is the perfect faith that saves and justifies. Amen.


This is the Problem with James, Chytraeus. For according to him even Abraham was not justified by faith alone. And we both assume that Abraham had the genuine you spoke of:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Did you read my whole statement before you wrote that? I clearly addressed the statement in James. In fact, that was what the first two paragraphs were about. James is speaking of both faith and justification in different ways than Paul was. By faith he meant the historical facts about the work of God, that Jesus was the Son of God, and that he died on the cross and rose on the third day. Anyone can believe the historical facts stated in the Apostle's Creed but not truly trust God for his salvation.

When James spoke of Abraham being justified, he meant that his justification before God was made clearly visible to man. If Abraham had not had real faith, he could never had done what he did in preparing to offer his son as a burnt offering to God. See Hebrews cp. 11.

James was distinguishing between people who have real faith, whose faith will be made evident during times of trials and temptations, and those who have an empty faith.

The story is told of an underground church in China. While they were in a meeting two soldiers entered the building and threatened to kill anyone who did not deny God immediately and leave. More than half of those present got up and left, saying they did not really believe in God. Once those had left the soldiers put their weapons down and said, "Now that we have gotten all the unbelievers out of here, lets worship." Those who stayed in the building after having their lives threatened showed that they had living faith, the kind the justifies, saves and redemes man before God. But God did not save them because they stayed, but because they believed. There is no problem when you read all of what James said, and not just that one verse. James clearly states that he is talking about belief in God, not trust that God has forgiven all their sins for the sake of Christ Jesus.

[Chytraeus]

Harald, that was worse! Could you boil your main points down to a few sentences...
Seer, he cannot put it any more simply, because he is talking in circles and claiming to use the original Greek structure to claim that Paul is saying something that Paul never meant to say. Paul never once calls belife, faith, trust a work by which we become justified in any way. In fact, he contrasts faith to work, basically saying that the two words are totally contratrary to one another. Paul's plain argument is that if we are justified by works, then we are not justified by faith, but if it is by faith, then it cannot be by works. Faith is not a work. If faith were considered by Paul to be a work, then nothing he said would make any sense, which is why nothing Harold says makes any sense.

Harold wants to put all the emphasis on salvation on Grace, as though justification being by grace were somehow contrary to justification by faith. If one insists that faith is a work that we can do in the faith, then this would be true, but faith is not. Faith, trust in God for salvation soley because of the sufficient work of Christ on the cross, is not something that an unconverted person can ever do. It is totally contrary to his nature. It is only possible once a person has been converted by God through the effective work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does this work through the Word, that is, the proclamation of the gospel of Christ Jesus.

Another misconception by Harold is that no one was ever justified before the death of Jesus on the cross. This is a human perspective. Paul tells us that Christ Jesus was "crucified from the foundation of the earth." So, even though the act had not occurred yet, from our perspective, God is not limited by our perspective. He announced the gospel message first in Genesis chapter 3, when He told the serpent that his head would be crushed by the Seed of the woman. From that moment on, all who placed their trust in that promise, that their sin and all that resulted from the fall would be undone by that promised Seed, they were justified, saved, made righteous, gained eternal life. They were believing God concerning a future act, a promise that they had not yet seen fulfilled. We are now justified, saved, made righteous, gain eternal life, by trusting God for an act that was accomplished many years ago.

So, from the perspective of election, one could go further than to say that we were actually justified on the day the Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Although that was the day in history when this great act was accomplished on earth, it was already a done deed in God's eyes before He spoke those word, "Let there be light." So, Abraham, from the perspective of election, was justified before the world was created. His justification was accomplished on the cross of Christ Jesus. But his justification became effective and noticeable in Abraham's life the moment he first believed and trusted in the promise of God.

As far as I know, no one has ever taught that we are saved by faith, and not by grace, as Harold seems to imply in his rather lengthy post. The full statement by those fathers of the reformation and those who share the same faith, is that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, from scripture alone, for the sake of Christ alone; to God alone be the glory. This was rendered in Latin as, "sola gracia, sola fide, sola scriptura, solus Christus; soli Deo gloria."

The death of Christ in our place for the punishement of our sins is the cause of our justification. Grace is the attribute of God that caused Him to act in this way, that is, that salvation, ie. justification is given to us as a free gift. Faith is simply that passive act of receiving that gift. Since the gift was given to all (For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son), never-the-less, not all are saved (many are called, but few are chosen), there is something that receives the gift in those who are actually saved, and that something is faith. It is nothing more than a trust that God has and will continue to do all that He has promised to do, which is to save us by grace. That faith is not a natural quality of man, but it comes to us from God, and Scripture, or the proclamation of the Gospel, is the method through which God gives us that faith (How can they believe unless they have heard?) That faith saves is made clear by the end of that verse quoted earlier from John (that whosoever believes in Him may not perish, but have eternal life.) Faith is in the Gospel, which is the proclamation that Christ took away our sins by taking them upon himself and receiving the punishment for them on the cross. This entire work was done by God alone, so He alone receives the glory.

Harold, do you actually know Greek, or do you just get these things from others and quote them to look more educated than you are. I know that this sounds insulting, but you made some statements that cause me to ask this. You imply that the noun DIKAIÔ-SIS is always used for justification before God, while dikaioô is always the word used for justification before oneself or others. Dikaiosis is just the noun form of dikaio. The first means justification and the second means to justify. They are not used so differently as you imply. Paul went back and forth between justification and the verb "was justified" without changing the meaning any more drastically than that one is the noun form while the other is the verb form. If Paul was using the words as you imply then no one in his day would have understood a word he said.

[Harald]

Paul never once calls belife, faith, trust a work by which we become justified in any way. (Chytraeus)

In Romans 4:1-3 he calls Abraham's believing YHWH "works". Paul does not deny that Abraham was justified "out of works". Rather he asserts that he was so, but with the disclaimer that it was absolutely not in relation to God. The Greek is very clear if you have ears and eyes. The first class condition in 4:2, EI plus indicative mood verb means that "was justified" was a fact. The "if" there does not mean "if so be", "if peradventure", but "since" -- "since Abraham was justified out of works he is having occasion of proud rejoicing, but mark well, absolutely not in relation to the God". The Greek does not say e.g. "if so be Abraham would have been justified out of works he is having occasion of proud rejoicing", in such case ALLA would not fit in at all, whether you render it the usual way, "but on the contrary", or as "but mark well". The Greek is too clear in its grammatical constuct, indicatives all the way. And verse 3 starts with a GAR, "for", "seeing that". So, by v. 3 Paul explains what he meant by "justified out of works" in v. 2. And Paul equals Abraham's believing YHWH with "works" here in context. But if you read what I said you know that this "works" is not "works of law". Meaning the "works"/believing on the part of Abraham was not a legal effort, not something which ultimately sprang from his own energy. The belief in YHWH, the "works", was "a gift of God", it was the Holy Spirit who empowered this belief in YHWH, therefore Abraham did not believe Him in the energy of the flesh, but by the power of God. Therefore it was not a work of law, but nonetheless a "work", i.e. a work of faith, a faith-work. Which should never be thought of as a negative thing like as a law-work is. But mark well, this belief in YHWH on the part of Abraham did not constitute him righteous in the sight of God as Judge. Abraham was not forensically justified, constituted righteous, before God the Judge until the Messias whom Abraham hoped in died on Calvary's stake. So, when Paul here uses DIKAIOÔ one must not understand it as "justify" in the sense of "forensically constitute righteous in the sight of God as Judge of all men". But rather DIKAIOÔ here must be understood as "justified" in the sense of "vindicated". DIKAIOÔ, "was justified", in 4:2 corresponds to "it was attributed to him as righteousness" of v. 3.

Paul's plain argument is that if we are justified by works, then we are not justified by faith, but if it is by faith, then it cannot be by works. Faith is not a work. If faith were considered by Paul to be a work, then nothing he said would make any sense, which is why nothing Harold says makes any sense.

It seems you have Romans 11 in mind here. Paul does there contrast undeserved favour ("grace") and "works", mark well, not faith and works. And the "works" of the Rom. 11 context are clearly seen to be legal efforts on the part of one who is destitute of God-given faith. Paul is not there contrasting faith-works and grace. So why you say I do not make sense is because you do not understand my reasoning.


Harold wants to put all the emphasis on salvation on Grace, as though justification being by grace were somehow contrary to justification by faith.

Precisely, but with some explanation. If Paul taught Justification Before God through the redemption-act in Christ Jesus, Romans 3:24, then it logically follows that Justification Before God cannot be "through faith in Christ" (God-given or not). But many have taught the un-Pauline and unscriptural falsehood that justification before God is "through faith in Christ" (a sinner's faith in/towards Christ, that is). Luther being one of them. So, what I am opposing is "Justification by/through faith" the way Luther propounded it. With this Lutherite scheme in mind I put all emphasis on Justification Before God onto the principle of God's undeserved favour and the redemption act in Christ Jesus. So in brief I repeat Paul - Justification Before God is on the principle of God's undeserved favour through the instrumentality of the redemption act in Christ Jesus. From this Pauline proposition logically follows that JBG cannot be through a sinner's believing in Christ Jesus. Therefore such as affirm JBG "by" or "through" a sinner's belief in Christ are teaching another gospel than Paul. In their scheme it is not Christ and His finished redemptive work on Calvary that is all in all in the business of Justification Before God, but rather it is seen to be

Christ and His work + the Holy Spirit who works faith in a man + this faith "exercised" towards Christ

So, if God the Father savingly justified His elect before Himself, by a forensic act of sovereignly charging the entire merit of Christ (and His finished satisfaction-work) to their persons, at Christ's sacrificial death on Golgotha, where does this leave room for "belief/trust in Jesus Christ" in the business of Justification Before God? There is no room for it at all. In fact justification before God by or through belief/trust/faith in Christ is seen to be a logically bankrupt NOTION. None of God's converted elect have ever been able to countenance such a NOTION, such a falsehood and absurdity. This scheme of Luther's the professing world has been deeming wisdom, but with God's converted elect it is but absurdity, plain illogical, devoid of spiritual and scriptural logic.

We are now justified, saved, made righteous, gain eternal life, by trusting God for an act that was accomplished many years ago.

This quote from you further corroborates that you do not know Paul's gospel, I mean look at it, "made righteous ... BY TRUSTING". Luther also used such language, so did also Calvin. I can supply quotes from both if needed. As for me this is my glorying, either I was justified (by God) before God when Christ died, for Christ's sake, and in Him, and by the instrumentality of His redemption-work, or not at all. I will have no other scheme and foundation when it comes to my justification before God the Almighty Judge. I strictly and persistently deny that faith/trust/belief in Christ on my part has had any part whatsoever to play when it comes to my justification before God. The Holy Spirit and the faith He gives had no involvement at all in my justification before God. It was all Christ in His Person, and His finished work of propitiation/satisfaction, His faith/faithfulness/obedience and His blood, all by the undeserved favour of God.


So, Abraham, from the perspective of election, was justified before the world was created.

Strictly speaking this is not what Paul teaches. Abraham's justification before God was immutably and infallibly decreed before the world came to be. There was this absolute certainty that he would be constituted righteous in time. But he was not "justified", i.e. forensically constituted righteous before God, before the world was, but this took place when Christ died for Abraham.


But his justification became effective and noticeable in Abraham's life the moment he first believed and trusted in the promise of God.

True and not true. His justification before God was a fact not until Messias died. But the effects of that future work (from Abraham's viewpoint) flowed to him in advance, evidenced by God the Spirit regenerating him quite some time before the Gen. 15 (Rom. 4:3) happening on the basis of Christ's resurrection-to-be. So the first tangible effect of Abraham's blessedness-to-be was God's regenerating him, and this then became noticeable in his life, primarily to himself, secondarily to others, when he initially believed YHWH and His promise.

As for the many "solas" of "the fathers of the reformation" I could not care less for their plausible words. I've seen some many heterodox statements flow from the pens of both Luther and Calvin that it sickens me, spiritually speaking. Luther, for example, in his German translation denies Jesus Christ's faith/faithfulness by rendering "faith in Jesus Christ" where Paul in the original tongue wrote PISTEÔS IÊSOU CHRISTOU. Thus Luther's German version contains a crippled and wrested Pauline gospel.


Grace is the attribute of God that caused

Strictly speaking undeserved favour, grace, on God's part is not an "attribute", but it is rather something of a principle of operation.


Faith is simply that passive act of receiving that gift.

I've heard this notion many times. But I cannot find it taught in the Pauline gospel. Paul nowhere speaks about a person "receiving" justification before God, your "that gift" here.


Since the gift was given to all (For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son), never-the-less, not all are saved

So, you maintain "the gift", i.e. justification before God, was given to all men without exception, and then you state that not all are saved, nonetheless. This contradicts Paul in Rom. 8:28-30, where he says that whom God intimately knew beforehand, and whom He predetermined, these same ones He also "justified". Which is it? Your notion or Paul's TRUTH??


That faith saves is made clear by the end of that verse quoted earlier from John (that whosoever believes in Him may not perish, but have eternal life.)

Well, you asked whether I know Greek. This much I know it, that I can say that you do not know the Greek of this verse, at least not as you ought to know it. This wording you quoted does not state "faith saves". The "believes" there is PISTEUÔ in the present tense participle form, preceeded by an article, meaning the formula HO PISTEUÔN is descriptive, i.e. it gives a character description of the kind of person Christ came for. It is not prescriptive, i.e. it does not prescribe what a person must or ought to do in order to avoid perishing. In fact this verse, John 3:16, states that unless Christ actually had come to earth, and unless He had actually been lifted up on the stake, "every one believing" in Him would "perish of themselves" (middle voice).

Harold, do you actually know Greek, or do you just get these things from others and quote them to look more educated than you are. I know that this sounds insulting, but you made some statements that cause me to ask this.

No problem, I don't mind you asking. I know some, but not as much as I could and not as much as I want to know for myself. All that which I wrote was of myself, it was not from others. My habit is that if I borrow from others I give them credit for it. As for my education I have never received any formal theological education, like say some "seminary education/training". Nor will I ever involve myself with such. What knowledge I have I have attained to on my own, in private, by studying and observing and digging etc.

As for DIKAIÔSIS and DIKAIOÔ let me clarify. When Paul uses the noun it is quite obvious from the contexts that justification before God is treated of. When he uses the verb the contexts show which aspect is in view. Sometimes it is JBG, at other times it is justification before self or others, or both, but primarily before self/conscience/consciousness. Or fourthly justification before all other created beings (men elect and non-elect, angels elect and non-elect. The noun is not used when treating of justification before self (or before others). The noun occurs twice in the TR, Rom. 4:25 and 5:18. 4:25 clearly treats of God's elect's justification before God. In 5:18 it is the same, or, there is the possibility that the noun is used in the sense of "a state of justification", and not "an act of justification (on God's part)", in which case it is of course primarily related to God, but inasmuch as the object partakes of such a state it has also relation to self.


Harald

[Kevin Wayne]

Herald has his own website. :wink: You might be interested in checking it out:


http://uk.geocities.com/romans5_21/harald.html

[Chytraeus]

I hesitate to respond, because it is clear that you are quite wise in your own eyes and believe that you already know all these things, but in the spirit of the debate, I will try once again to make my point. What I have figured out it that it is not me or Luther that you oppose, but a straw man you have created because of your insistance that "faith" is a human work. I and many before me, including Luther, insist that it is not. But lets begin.

Paul never once calls belife, faith, trust a work by which we become justified in any way. (Chytraeus)

In Romans 4:1-3 he calls Abraham's believing YHWH "works". Paul does not deny that Abraham was justified "out of works". Rather he asserts that he was so, but with the disclaimer that it was absolutely not in relation to God. The Greek is very clear if you have ears and eyes. The first class condition in 4:2, EI plus indicative mood verb means that "was justified" was a fact. The "if" there does not mean "if so be", "if peradventure", but "since" -- "since Abraham was justified out of works he is having occasion of proud rejoicing, but mark well, absolutely not in relation to the God".

Well, I do know some Greek myself, but not well enough to be able to naturally deduce wheather your interpretation of this verse is correct or wheather that of ever English translation I could find was. You must be quite bold to stand before more than 400 years of biblical scholarship and insist that you alone have gained understanding of how the greek is to be understood, for not one of them translated this verse the way you did. I looked to Catholic translations, Reformed translations, Lutheran translations, and Dispensationalist translations, as well as several ecumenical translations. the all understand Paul to be saying "if so be" not "since." The only translation I know of that might agree with yours is the Czech translation, since they only have one word for "if" and "since" where the context must determine which is meant. If all of these translators are correct, and you are not, then Paul was saying the exact opposite of what you are saying he meant. He is clearly saying the Abraham was not justified by works.

It is not healthy to take this text apart and suppose that each sentance has its one meaning, seperate form the context. Romans 4:1-25 is a complete argument by Paul against those who supposed that justification or righteousness was based upon obeying the Jewish laws. Paul is saying that it is not, but that, "For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." (Rom. 4:16) Paul hear clearly says that justification by faith is in accordance with grace, not opposed to it.

If Paul taught Justification Before God through the redemption-act in Christ Jesus, Romans 3:24, then it logically follows that Justification Before God cannot be "through faith in Christ" (God-given or not). But many have taught the un-Pauline and unscriptural falsehood that justification before God is "through faith in Christ" (a sinner's faith in/towards Christ, that is). Luther being one of them. So, what I am opposing is "Justification by/through faith" the way Luther propounded it.

To oppose Justification by/through faith the way Luther propounded it would require that you understand the way he propounded it, which you have clearly shown that you do not, for you understand him to be saying that we are justified by a faith that is a work the sinner performs, which is exactly what Luther did not say. Therefore, what you oppose is your missunderstanding of what Luther said. Luther's understanding of faith is trusting only in the grace of God give to us through the finished work of Christ upon the cross. When Erasmus proposed that faith was an act by the sinner that, by his own choice, merited the grace of God, Luther opposed this as the oposite of what Scripture called faith.

However, because Luther would not supposed that Paul would ever contradict John, or even himself, for both state that Jesus died for the sins of all the world, not just for the elect as Calvin and his followers suppose, then Paul could not have understood that the difference between those who believed and those who did not was only in the choice of God, for that would make God the author of the unbelief of those not saved.

Col. 1:19ff "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

1 Tim 2:1-5 "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Does Paul argue with himself? It is Paul also who says that God is reconciling all things, not just the "elect" as Calvin understood it. For it is God's desire that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Therefore grace is not irresistable, as Calvin belives, an unscriptural doctrine if there ever was one, for if so, then all would be saved, for God desires it. But grace is resistable, and is resisted by all who do not have true faith.

Therefore, if justification is not through faith, it is not by grace, for neither one stands without the other. Take away the effective value of faith and grace becomes either universal or unatainable. But faith is not something natural to man, but it comes to those who hear the Gospel and do not resist. So, the only part of this done by man is that he resists the Gospel until the Holy Spirit breaks through and changes his resistant heart into a receptive one. As long as we are working, we are resisting, but when we do not work, like our father Abraham, then we receive grace through faith and are saved.

Christ and His work + the Holy Spirit who works faith in a man + this faith "exercised" towards Christ

No, it is Christ and His work, which must alone be trusted. Your sceme above would lead people to trust in their faith, which is the same as faith in faith, which makes no sense. I cannot trust in my own trust, but I must trust in something outside myself, the finished work of Christ. Which is why I insist that faith is not a work, and that it is your insistance that faith is a work which causes you to interpret Paul the way you do. Set aside that unbiblical understanding of faith and then read Paul again. Paul is contrasting faith to works, which is why he says is is to the "one unworking, who believes" that faith will be accounted to him as righteousness. Paul could not have said this in verse 5 if he had meant to say in verse 2 that faith was a work that justified. This can only make sense to one who has so disected the text that it no longer flows as one complete argument, the trap of looking too deeply at the Greek, of which neither of us are as familiar as Paul was.

As for me this is my glorying, either I was justified (by God) before God when Christ died, for Christ's sake, and in Him, and by the instrumentality of His redemption-work, or not at all.

Which is exactly what I mean when I agree with Paul that I am saved by grace through faith. In saying this, you say a good thing. As I said before, it is not really my doctrine you have a problem with, it is your misunderstanding of it, so you make arguments where there should be none. I fail to understand the purpose for this. We both are confident before God in this one thing, that Christ died for us, and therefore we are justified in Him, and not by anything that resides within us. Our salvation is an alien salvation, meaning that it comes to us from outside of us. Being such, we have great confidence, for it does not depend upon us, so our failings cannot steal from us that which was made sure by the death of the only begotten God.

So, Abraham, from the perspective of election, was justified before the world was created.

Strictly speaking this is not what Paul teaches. Abraham's justification before God was immutably and infallibly decreed before the world came to be. There was this absolute certainty that he would be constituted righteous in time. But he was not "justified", i.e. forensically constituted righteous before God, before the world was, but this took place when Christ died for Abraham.

But his justification became effective and noticeable in Abraham's life the moment he first believed and trusted in the promise of God.

True and not true. His justification before God was a fact not until Messias died. But the effects of that future work (from Abraham's viewpoint) flowed to him in advance, evidenced by God the Spirit regenerating him quite some time before the Gen. 15 (Rom. 4:3) happening on the basis of Christ's resurrection-to-be. So the first tangible effect of Abraham's blessedness-to-be was God's regenerating him, and this then became noticeable in his life, primarily to himself, secondarily to others, when he initially believed YHWH and His promise.

In this you assume that for God time exists as it does for us, and that when Christ is called the one "crucified before the foundations of the world," hyperbole must be in use, for Christ was not crucified until sometime after 30 AD. But God is timeless, and for Him Christ was crucified before Adam even ate the forbidden fruit. Jesus said that Abraham longed to see His day, and he saw it and was glad. How could Abraham see something that would not happen until thousands of years later? The answer is that he saw it with the eyes of faith, for he trusted in the One who promised that Messiah was coming. So for him, the future act of Christ became effective the moment he believed, and therefore he was justified, not in his own eyes, or in ours, but in God's. And this was because he believed it, that is, his faith did not cause his justification, but because Christ did the work, and that caused Abraham's justification.

Your dispute with me, Luther, and with Paul (or why else would you torture his words so) is not in doctrine, but in the definition of words. You have made that clear, because you hold to the same hope I have, the same hope Luther had, the same hope Paul had, the hope that we are justified by Christ. In those five "solas" only one is in the active tense, that is solus Christus. The reason for this is that He is the One causing the salvation that grace gives, scripture proclaims, and faith receives. This is the salvation that glorifies God alone, and never man.

I've seen some many heterodox statements flow from the pens of both Luther and Calvin that it sickens me, spiritually speaking. Luther, for example, in his German translation denies Jesus Christ's faith/faithfulness by rendering "faith in Jesus Christ" where Paul in the original tongue wrote PISTEÔS IÊSOU CHRISTOU. Thus Luther's German version contains a crippled and wrested Pauline gospel.

Since the genetive and the locative case have the same endings for masculine nouns, how can you be sure that this is translated as "the faith of Jesus Christ" as opposed to "the faith in Christ." Both would be PISTEÔS IÊSOU CHRISTOU is the Greek. So, this "crippled and wrested Pauline gospel" is once again just a matter of exactly how did Paul intend for that to be understood. The possiblity exists that Paul understood the ambiguity and chose not to clarify it. Not to confuse us, but because in a sense both are true, it is a faith in Jesus Christ and a faith that in reality belongs to Jesus Christ, not to us. Or even more, that it was the faithfulness, that is the faithful acts of Jesus. All of these translations are in harmony with the rest of Scripture, so it is not necessary to make it any more clear than that. But this seems to be exactly where you begin to have trouble. You don't deal well with ambiguity. You need crystal clear logic like Zwingly and Calvin. Human reason is a whore who sells out to the highest bidder and prefers what feels right to what God says is right. Always submit your reason and logic to the Word of God, and if that means embracing something that seems to be contradictory, remember that God's ways are higher than yours.

All that which I wrote was of myself, it was not from others. My habit is that if I borrow from others I give them credit for it. As for my education I have never received any formal theological education, like say some "seminary education/training". Nor will I ever involve myself with such. What knowledge I have I have attained to on my own, in private, by studying and observing and digging etc.

And here I made the mistake of assuming that you were going off on the word of one teacher you deeply respected, and all the time you had the opposite problem, you have thrown off any need for those who proceeded you in the faith. You would do well to remember the words of Peter, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." God has given us teachers in the Church to aid in our interpretation, for private interpretation, which is what you have been doing, is dangerous. I am sure that you spritualize this verse to mean that Peter is suggesting that before we study the Word we pray for guidence of the Holy Spirit. While I would never discourage anyone for that noble practice, this is not what Peter is getting at. These holy men moved by the Spirit of God were part of the corperate kingdom of God, either Old Testament nation of Israel, or the New Testament Church. Just as it was within the context of the Church (taking in both of the above concepts in one word) that the Word of God was given, so it is within the Church that it must be interpreted. Those who would seperate from all the wisdom of thousands of years of Chruchly interpretation would soon become heretics. I am not saying you are there, but with your disputing with people who do not even disagree with you in principal, you show that you are in danger of getting there.

Because you clearly state that your only confidence and boast is in that Christ Jesus died for you, I consider you my brother in the faith, so the words that I speak to you I speak in love, as to a brother. I am sure that our dispute has been over misuderstanding, for our boast and confidence are the same. What we dissagree on is what Paul meant by that word "pisteou." I am convinced that he contrasts it to works, while you believe he calls it a work. In this, I cannot agree with you, for it makes Paul talk in circles, just as it seemed you were doing while trying to express your interpretation of him. That is why so few understand you and end up arguing with you. In part, I wonder if you do it for the sake of the argument. :wink:

[Chytraeus]

Herald has his own website. :wink: You might be interested in checking it out:


http://uk.geocities.com/romans5_21/harald.html
Thanks. I added it to my bookmarks. When I have more time I'll have to read all of that. Hopefully in a few weeks. Unfortunately, right now having more time means not being able to hook up my own computer to the internet, but that is what thumb drives are for.

BTW, this seems to be a very interesting topic, and I wonder why so few others have chimed in.

[Ormly]

I hesitate to respond, because it is clear that you are quite wise in your own eyes and believe that you already know all these things, but in the spirit of the debate, I will try once again to make my point. What I have figured out it that it is not me or Luther that you oppose, but a straw man you have created because of your insistance that "faith" is a human work. I and many before me, including Luther, insist that it is not. But lets begin.

Faith is a God bestowed human capability that is exhibited by the way man chooses for himself the things he deems important to him, with results following.

[Harald]

What I have figured out it that it is not me or Luther that you oppose, but a straw man you have created because of your insistance that "faith" is a human work. [Chytraeus]

Paul calls it ("Abraham believed God") so in Rom. 4:1-3. But don't you understand the difference between a "work" of faith and "work of law"? God in the NT Scriptures never reprimands a work of faith (e.g. "Abraham believed God") on the part of a man, but He constantly condemns works of law. But a work of faith, like believing YHWH, has never ever played any part in an elect sinner's being constituted righteous before God the Judge. Don't you understand this?

You must be quite bold to stand before more than 400 years of biblical scholarship and insist that you alone have gained understanding of how the greek is to be understood, for not one of them translated this verse the way you did.

In this I don't hesitate to be bold, because I know I am right. I have known that most English versions, and versions in other tongues as well, do not render this passage as accurately as they should have. Besides, I have not insisted I am the only one who has gained understanding of how the Greek is to be understood. This is something you impute to me unwarrantedly, it is but malignant imputation on your part. What this shows is that you have not met people yet who have a better grasp of Paul's soteriology than you and your favourite versions' translators.

I looked to Catholic translations, Reformed translations, Lutheran translations, and Dispensationalist translations, as well as several ecumenical translations. the all understand Paul to be saying "if so be" not "since."

Well, I am not at all surprised. The sects you listed are all contrary to Paul's sound teaching. I cannot believe how they twist a first class condition into "if so be". EAN would be "if so be", "if peradventure". Now we have Paul writing EI + indicative mood. If Paul had written a third class condition it would have meant that the assertion (Abraham's being justified out of works) was not a true one. In this case it would have been natural for Paul to continue with something like "but he was not". I.e., the whole sentence could have looked as follows: "if so be Abraham were justified out of works he would have occasion of proudly rejoicing, but he was absolutely not." The translators of the translations you have looked into who understand EI + Indicative as "if so be", what are they doing but ignoring plain Greek grammar rules!

If all of these translators are correct, and you are not, then Paul was saying the exact opposite of what you are saying he meant. He is clearly saying the Abraham was not justified by works.

Paul clearly says Abraham was in fact justified out of works, but with the disclaimer that it was absolutely not in relation to God. Meaning this "justified out of works" (defined here in context as "Abraham believed YHWH") could not have been, not in any sense, a forensically being constituted righteous in the sight of God the Judge.


Romans 4:1-25 is a complete argument by Paul against those who supposed that justification or righteousness was based upon obeying the Jewish laws.

Not so. Its primary theme is attribution of character righteousness to Abraham and to his "spiritual children". Only secondarily or tertiarily is Paul argumenting against law-religion, i.e. conditionalism (whether distinctly Torah-related or some other brand thereof).

Paul is saying that it is not, but that, "For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." (Rom. 4:16) Paul hear clearly says that justification by faith is in accordance with grace, not opposed to it.

In the verse quoted "faith" means the Object of Abraham's and his spiritual children's faith, namely Christ. To read "justification by faith alone in Christ alone" into the verse is eisegesis, and a wresting of Paul's authorial intent.

To oppose Justification by/through faith the way Luther propounded it would require that you understand the way he propounded it, which you have clearly shown that you do not, for you understand him to be saying that we are justified by a faith that is a work the sinner performs, which is exactly what Luther did not say. Therefore, what you oppose is your missunderstanding of what Luther said.

I know full well that Luther's view of faith was steeped in conditionalism. Here is what he comments on Gal. 2:16. If you do not discern how this is but conditionalism then I can only wail your blindness.

>>We say, faith apprehends Jesus Christ. Christian faith is not an inactive quality in the heart. If it is true faith it will surely take Christ for its object. Christ, apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart, constitutes Christian righteousness, for which God gives eternal life.

Here let me say, that these three things, faith, Christ, and imputation of righteousness, are to be joined together. Faith takes hold of Christ. God accounts this faith for righteousness

A Christian is not somebody who has no sin, but somebody against whom God no longer chalks sin, because of his faith in Christ<<

END OF QUOTE



However, because Luther would not supposed that Paul would ever contradict John, or even himself, for both state that Jesus died for the sins of all the world, not just for the elect as Calvin and his followers suppose, then Paul could not have understood that the difference between those who believed and those who did not was only in the choice of God, for that would make God the author of the unbelief of those not saved.

By this you seem to say "faith" (in/toward God and/or Christ) is that very thing which is the ultimate deciding factor between heaven and the lake of fire. Is this what you believe?



No, it is Christ and His work, which must alone be trusted. Your sceme above would lead people to trust in their faith, which is the same as faith in faith, which makes no sense.

It was not my scheme. It was a scheme which exists, but which I hate. This is what I wrote in context:

>>Therefore such as affirm JBG "by" or "through" a sinner's belief in Christ are teaching another gospel than Paul. In their scheme it is not Christ and His finished redemptive work on Calvary that is all in all in the business of Justification Before God, but rather it is seen to be

Christ and His work + the Holy Spirit who works faith in a man + this faith "exercised" towards Christ<<




Which is exactly what I mean when I agree with Paul that I am saved by grace through faith.


Paul did not say he was justified before God through faith towards/in/on Christ.


In this you assume that for God time exists as it does for us, and that when Christ is called the one "crucified before the foundations of the world," hyperbole must be in use, for Christ was not crucified until sometime after 30 AD. But God is timeless, and for Him Christ was crucified before Adam even ate the forbidden fruit.

You impute an assumption to me, one based on your own conjecture. I happen to know God is Eternal. I fail to recall a scripture which says that Christ was nailed to the stake before the foundation of the world. I take it you mean that which says "the lamb slain before the foundation etc.". What matters is what God has put into writing for us humans to understand, as respects justification before God. When it comes to justification before God no one did expound upon it as clearly as Paul does. And he did not use language with the import that JBG is a timeless happening. He clearly shows that the JBG of God's elect took place when Christ hung on the tree on Calvary's hill, about 28 AD, or a few years later, depending on the manner of counting. God the Eternal One did condescend so as to let the all-important happening of Justification Before Himself take place IN TIME. Think about it. There is nothing spiritual in denying or downplaying it, like beginning to maintain some JBG outside of time.

So for him, the future act of Christ became effective the moment he believed, and therefore he was justified, not in his own eyes, or in ours, but in God's. And this was because he believed it, that is, his faith did not cause his justification, but because Christ did the work, and that caused Abraham's justification.

Now this looks like a confusing and contradictory statement. I mean, you say his faith did not cause his justification, and earlier above you said Christ's future act became effective the moment he believed. Let me then ask:

at the moment he believed, precisely what was it that made Christ's future act effective for him ?

And can you supply a verse which supports this saying of yours?


Your dispute with me, Luther, and with Paul (or why else would you torture his words so) is not in doctrine, but in the definition of words.

I am not disputing with Paul, nor am I torturing his words. My dispute with you and Luther, and whosoever else besides, is not merely in the definition of words, but also in concepts.


You have made that clear, because you hold to the same hope I have, the same hope Luther had, the same hope Paul had, the hope that we are justified by Christ.

I am not so sure at all about this. One of us has a false hope, or perhaps worse, both of us. It is impossible to truly believe justification before God in and through Christ and His finished work at Calvary alone, and to simultaneously believe justification before God "by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone". The first scheme of Justification before God pinpoints the timing as being at about 30 AD. The second scheme of JBG pinpoints the timing as being at the point of a sinner's initial believing on Christ.


Since the genetive and the locative case have the same endings for masculine nouns, how can you be sure that this is translated as "the faith of Jesus Christ" as opposed to "the faith in Christ."

May I suggest you refresh upon your Greek grammar skills. I was not talking about "locative" case, which would properly be the dative case. I was talking about genitive vs. accusative. The preposition EIS is followed by the accusative case, never by the dative/locative.

So, inasmuch as Paul in Acts 20 uses a formula which has PISTIS + EIS + Jesus Christ (in Acc.) in one and the same sentence he would no doubt have used the identical construction in Rom. 3:22 if he had meant "faith in Jesus Christ".

And here I made the mistake of assuming that you were going off on the word of one teacher you deeply respected, and all the time you had the opposite problem, you have thrown off any need for those who proceeded you in the faith.

Yet one more presumptuous imputation on your part, based on ignorant conjecture. I have had much need for learning from others. But Luther has not been one of them, nor Calvin. And I trust that I am still learning from others.



You would do well to remember the words of Peter, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." God has given us teachers in the Church to aid in our interpretation, for private interpretation, which is what you have been doing, is dangerous.


And you would do well to check the God-breathed Greek text before quoting erroneous translations. The Greek does not say "private interpretation". Go check for yourself. As for "the Church" you talk about, could you name those teachers you have in mind?


These holy men moved by the Spirit of God were part of the corperate kingdom of God, either Old Testament nation of Israel, or the New Testament Church.

What do you mean by "the New Testament Church"?

Those who would seperate from all the wisdom of thousands of years of Chruchly interpretation would soon become heretics.

Are you a member of the Roman Catholic Church?


Because you clearly state that your only confidence and boast is in that Christ Jesus died for you, I consider you my brother in the faith, so the words that I speak to you I speak in love, as to a brother.

These seemingly mollifying words do not convince me of your professed love. You have contradicted this professed brotherly love too many times in this same post with unfounded conjectures and faulty and far-fetched imputations. I perceive your professed love is but a loving with words, not in deed and in truth. But you have given it your best shot, and are no doubt sincere.


Harald