Abraham and Salvation

[heymikey80]

A response in "Ask a Calvinist" gave me some interesting thoughts about the covenant with Abraham, and I hope the discussion can continue here. I know this is kind of long and involved -- I'm trying to figure out how to make it more clear.

And it could be based on a misunderstanding of what was stated -- that "no guarantee" isn't the same as "no promise".

Salvation was dependent upon their obedience, where the promise of the land was Gods covenant promise that would be kept without regard to their obedience as a nation .

I don't particularly think this is true. If salvation were ever dependent on works, then Israel should have been pursuing righteousness by works. But Paul says this righteousness by obedience was not intended by God:

Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.
I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Rom 9:31-32, 10:2-4
​

Read genesis 15 to see what the promise was to the seed of Abraham ...it was land not eternal salvation

All that was promised in regard to his posterity was that would have the land .

I think maybe your words have simply overstepped what you actually think, here?

Were Abraham not a covenant about salvation, if it were about obedience and land, but not a promise of salvation, then there is no prior precedent in the Old Covenant for salvation by faith. That'd be a critical failure in Paul's argument in Galatians 3.

Yet Paul says differently: "even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified." (Gal 3:15) He's been talking about a promise of righteousness through faith, by the Spirit -- a promise made to Abraham that this would be delivered to the Gentiles ("in your offspring shall all the Gentiles of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." Gen 22:18).

What if that were not in the covenant with Abraham? If it were not in the covenant with Abraham, would this covenant promise precede Moses?

Well, no. Paul's citing Abraham as preceding Moses. If Abe doesn't precede Moses, then there's no promise to base Christ's salvation on.

And if the covenant promise didn't precede Moses, could Paul argue the righteousness of faith the way he does immediately before?

Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith--just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Gal 3:5-9
​

Could he argue that this descendancy from Abraham has precedence over Moses, and thus over the Judaizers?

I don't think so.

It seems to me as if everything in chapter 3 clusters around this connection with Abraham. I mean, if Abraham is strictly a covenant with Abe's offspring, then it'd be with the Gentiles too:

if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise Gal 3:29
​

But that doesn't make sense, if Abraham is strictly a covenant about land and obedience.

So I don't think it's limited to land and obedience, no. Land was indeed promised to Abe's offspring. But more was promised than land.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.
These all died ... having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. Heb 11:8-10, 13-16
​

Of course to me the real prize is -- not the signs of land and commitment -- but the promise to be the God of Abraham's offspring, and to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring. To me that's what Paul is arguing when he includes uncircumcised Gentiles into Christ.

Of that number some were to be elect and some not.
There is not word one about the seed all being made righteous or justified.

Quite true. Entering a covenant with a people doesn't suddenly make that people all righteous and saved, either. We're both documented as being in agreement on the referenced thread.

We are called the children of Abraham BY FAITH not voodoo

I don't think Paul practiced voodoo either. But God has mercy and hardens, and thus the children of the promise made to Abraham -- the covenant promise -- are saved.

In Romans 4 we're called children of Abraham, and that by faith. But it would make no sense for Paul to argue that we're a son of Abraham ... if that only meant we inherited Judea's land ...

He meant something far more. He meant justification by faith -- through which we gain eternal life, as Paul describes in Romans 3 & 5.

 

[erin74]

Ok - not sure that this will add much, but this is one of my favourite topics! I love biblical theology, and this is what this is all about.

Gen 12 shows us 3 promises to Abraham. LOB.
Land
Offspring - that they will be more than the stars in the sky and sand on the seashore
Blessing - that they will be a blessing to other nations.

It is an unconditional covenant, which we see when God does the dividing the sacrifice thing. He is saying if this does not come true be it to him as has been done to these birds. Normally both would have walked through to say that it was two sided. In this case God passed through alone, signifying that it was a one sided covenant.

So from Gen 12 on in the OT we can keep asking, has this promise been fulfilled?

By the time we get to Moses we see that this covenant seems to have been fulfilled in part. There are many many Israelites.

When Joshua enters the promised land we see again it has been fulfilled in part. That he never actually takes the entirety of the land shows only partial fulfillment. There is a little of the Blessing to other nations, which we can see through people like Rahab being able to enter into Israel.

By the time of Solomon we are at the height of Israel's history.
Land - still haven't taken it completely
Offspring - many many Israelites
Blessing - partially. Signified through people like the Queen of Sheba. Still they are not really being a blessing to other nations in any real way.
But we start to see cracks. Things that have been directed for kings not to have, Solomon has - intermarriage with other nations, much gold (I think this was one of the three, but could have that wrong) and many horses. He has all of these.

After this things seem to go downhill pretty rapidly, and continue to spiral downward.

Soon we see the Northern Kingdom exiled to Assyria and dispersed throughout.
Land - lost a fair bit
Offspring - going down
Blessing - nope

Then we see the Southern Kingdom exiled to Babylon
Land - nope
Offspring - some, but not as many as there were
Blessing - Daniel is somewhat, but still minimal

The return from exile was what many Israelites hoped would signify seeing these promises fulfilled, but it was a poor shadow of what was, and even poorer of what was to come.

By the beginning of the NT we really only have a faithful remnant of Israelites, looking for the Messiah. They naturally believe he would deliever on these promises. He does deliver on them, but not in any way they were prepared for.

So in Christ we see:
Land - an eternal kingdom
Offspring - we get down to one faithful man, Jesus, and then stretch out to many many people. Think of the crowds described in Revelation.
Blessing to other nations - the gift of salvation is offered not just to Israel, but to the Gentiles and all the world.

All that came about before was just a shadow of what is to come in Christ.

As for salvation. This wasn't a covenent of salvation as such.

But we can see from the NT that God left unpunshed the sins of the forefathers, so that they could receive salvation through Christ. Their salvation was through faith, just as ours is. Faith that God was able to save them, that the Messiah would return, that God would fulfill his promises. That is what Abraham is commended for - having faith that God had said he make a great nation out of Isaac, and that he would fulfil this even if Isaac was sacrificed. Faith that God would come through and fulfill his promises.

The sacrifices of Israel could not save. Only the blood of Christ saves. But where Israel put their faith in the sacrifices to save them, God fulfilled this by saving them through the blood of the one true sacrifice. But faith is what saved them.

Sorry for the longwinded reply, with probably way too much info, and way too much you know alread. Like I said though, I love this stuff. I know I missed out a fair bit too, but I was doing the shorter version!

 

[heymikey80]

All that came about before was just a shadow of what is to come in Christ.

As for salvation. This wasn't a covenent of salvation as such.

But we can see from the NT that God left unpunshed the sins of the forefathers, so that they could receive salvation through Christ. Their salvation was through faith, just as ours is. Faith that God was able to save them, that the Messiah would return, that God would fulfill his promises. That is what Abraham is commended for - having faith that God had said he make a great nation out of Isaac, and that he would fulfil this even if Isaac was sacrificed. Faith that God would come through and fulfill his promises.

The sacrifices of Israel could not save. Only the blood of Christ saves. But where Israel put their faith in the sacrifices to save them, God fulfilled this by saving them through the blood of the one true sacrifice. But faith is what saved them.

Sorry for the longwinded reply, with probably way too much info, and way too much you know alread. Like I said though, I love this stuff. I know I missed out a fair bit too, but I was doing the shorter version!

I like the way this is put.

I would think Abe's covenant must include salvation, though.

Given the Hebrews 11 comments about Abraham looking for something God was promising him -- a city of God, and I think by extension a kingdom not of this world -- I think this puts the physical land / kingdom / progeny promises in a radically different perspective.

And given the way Paul treats Abraham in Gal 3 and Rom 4, it seems to me that Abe's being declared righteous is identical in nature to our being declared righteous. Is there a "righteousness by faith in God" that's different from "righteousness by faith in Christ"?

 

[erin74]

I don't think there needs to be a difference. I think that the hope they had was a hope for the messiah to come. For sin to be dealt with. So even if they didn't know Christ, they could still have hope in him, as he was to come. I put that really badly - it's much clearer in my head - I just need to go and get a brain scan for you!

So even if they knew it as a righteousness by faith in God, it was fulfilled in Christ, so their hope was actually in the Christ that was to come. I think that's a little clearer.

 

[erin74]

I think this is the first time I have had the chance to discuss this sort of stuff since joining CF. And it is my favourite thing!

I'm not so up on all the books, theologians and church history some of you guys read. This is the stuff that gets me all excited. I just love reading and thinking about it!

 

[heymikey80]

I don't think there needs to be a difference. I think that the hope they had was a hope for the messiah to come. For sin to be dealt with. So even if they didn't know Christ, they could still have hope in him, as he was to come. I put that really badly - it's much clearer in my head - I just need to go and get a brain scan for you!

So even if they knew it as a righteousness by faith in God, it was fulfilled in Christ, so their hope was actually in the Christ that was to come. I think that's a little clearer.

Brain scan: oh, do I know that feeling! No prob'. Genesis itself doesn't say that -- but my Jewish friends say the Oral Law does.