Abraham was justified in Genesis TWELVE.

[mattlock73]

True, however, in agreeing with Reformationist you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Not contradicting. Our faith is not a work unto ourselves that leads to righteousness. Faith by itself without the blood of Christ would still not yield salvation. That is what I read into his comment anyway. If I am wrong, Reformationist, please correct me.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

interesting .... showing verses where two sides come from .. well done...

now my disagreement

Since my last thread went so off track without really discussing the main issue I decided to repost my main argument again and hopefully people will stay on topic.


The Bible clearly teaches Abraham heard the Gospel, had faith, and was justified as early as Genesis 12.

Gen 12 is were Abraham was offered promises but Abraham did not believe or faith .... yet he listened

Heb 11:8-9 states when He obeyed by leaving his land and for his inheritance that did not happen in Gen 12 but in Gen 15 where He was promise children as many as the stars thus God made a blood contract with Abraham

Reading Gn 12 alone is sufficient proof Abraham was a believer in God and obeyed him, though further evidence like Gal 3:8 and Heb 11:8 drive the point home (those verses reference Gen 12).

Gen 22:17-18 this is a covant according to luke 1:68-74 which connect this covenant to the church with Gal 3:15-16,29 not to the Jews as the other three covenants were to the Jews

Given that Protestants believe that Abraham was justified in Gen 15:6 (Rom 4:3), and that they believe justification is by imputation as a one time legal decree means there is a problem here. Abraham cannot have been justified at two different times if the above definition/understanding holds.

where does od say he was justified in romans 4:3... 9 imputed /reckoned for righteousness

This is precisely why Protestants say James 2:21 (Gen 22) cannot be using "justification" in the same sense as St Paul in Rom 4:3.

Baby believer to a mature believer

The only way around this "problem" is to realize that the Protestant understanding of justification is incorrect, while the Catholic understanding is orthodox.

Yet I am not a protestant but a grace baptist

I believe the Catholic argument here is so strong that it is the decisive "silver bullet" on the issue of Justification by Faith Alone. Faith Alone was the doctrine by which the Reformation stood or fell, if it was wrong the Reformation was wrong.

liked where you used verse but went away from it here in you conclusion

A lot of this debate hinges on what Gen 15:6 means, especially the phrase "credited as righteousness". This phrase is unique and only appears one other time, Ps 106:30-31.

romans 4:9,16-17

 

[Ormly]

Not contradicting. Our faith is not a work unto ourselves that leads to righteousness. Faith by itself without the blood of Christ would still not yield salvation. That is what I read into his comment anyway. If I am wrong, Reformationist, please correct me.

But it is, lest anyone was righteous before the cross. Keep in mind here that I do not infer righteousness unto salvation but unto justification to await peace with God by the Blood. Many were. (Rom.5:1)

 

[mattlock73]

But it is, lest anyone was righteous before the cross. Keep in mind here that I do not infer righteousness unto salvation but unto justification to await peace with God by the Blood. Many were. (Rom.5:1)

OK, I think I see where you are going, but I still don't see the contradiction. Abraham was justified by faith through the sacrifice of Christ, but could not actually be called justified until that sacrifice had been made 4000 years later? Is that the gist? Sorry, been a long night with work (on call last night) and I am a little fuzzier than usual.

Gonna catch some sleep now so maybe I will be a little clearer when I check back later.

 

[Ormly]

OK, I think I see where you are going, but I still don't see the contradiction. Abraham was justified by faith through the sacrifice of Christ, but could not actually be called justified until that sacrifice had been made 4000 years later? Is that the gist? Sorry, been a long night with work (on call last night) and I am a little fuzzier than usual.

Gonna catch some sleep now so maybe I will be a little clearer when I check back later.

Abraham was justified by his faith milliea before Jesus. I.e., No sacrifice as yet available. When he died he went to paradise, sometimes called "Abraham's Bosom", to await Jesus to set him and other righteous/justified folk, free.

 

[mattlock73]

Abraham was justified by his faith milliea before Jesus. I.e., No sacrifice as yet available. When he died he went to paradise, sometimes called "Abraham's Bosom", to await Jesus to set him and other righteous/justified folk, free.

OK, that's where I thought you were going, and yes, I agree with you. But I still don't see the contradiction, as far as I can tell, Reformationist said nothing to take away from that.

Originally Posted by Reformationist
True, but it is important to clarify that faith is the instrumental cause of our justification but not the meritorious grounds for it. We aren't justified because of faith. Faith is the means by which we appropriate the righteousness of Christ. Our justification is found in the propitiatory work of Christ alone.

Sorry if I am being a bit dense here.

 

[Ormly]

OK, that's where I thought you were going, and yes, I agree with you. But I still don't see the contradiction, as far as I can tell, Reformationist said nothing to take away from that.



Sorry if I am being a bit dense here.

He can't be thinking of Abraham because Abe's faith was meritoriuos. His having faith in a God he didn't know is what caused God to speak to him and choose him. God chose him because God 'heard' his faith. See Gal 3:5,6. Read it from the KJV or Youngs literal.

 

[AndOne]

Given that Protestants believe that Abraham was justified in Gen 15:6 (Rom 4:3), and that they believe justification is by imputation as a one time legal decree means there is a problem here. Abraham cannot have been justified at two different times if the above definition/understanding holds. This is precisely why Protestants say James 2:21 (Gen 22) cannot be using "justification" in the same sense as St Paul in Rom 4:3.

The only way around this "problem" is to realize that the Protestant understanding of justification is incorrect, while the Catholic understanding is orthodox.

Suggest you take a look at the actual Greek meanings for the word "justify" as used in Romans 4 and then in James 2.

In Greek two different words are used.

In Romans 4:3 the meaning of the word is: "to be declared righteous before God."

In James 2:21 the meaning is "shown to be righteous before people."

It's not a matter of "protestant" understanding as you suggest. Its simply an understanding of the language.

Given that - I suggest Rome has the "problem" not protestants.

 

[Catholic Dude]

While the difference between Luther and Calvin, that Luther and Melancthon allowed for both a one time declaration of forensic justification and a justification that brought a new reality in which we seek justice with our neighbour, there is not doubt scripturally that Justification is imputed.

There is not only doubt Scripturally, I maintain that imputation in the context of Justification is not Scriptural.

Romans 4 is being continually mentioned, more significant to the Lutheran reformers was Romans 3. Luther did not "make up" imputed righteousness, it most clearly expressed by Paul in Romans 3.

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.Righteousness Through Faith

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe​

I disagree and I have read through these chapters multiple times. The Protestant concept of "Righteousness of Christ" is not found in the Bible. The phrase "righteousness of/from God" is not a synonym for "Christ" or "Christ's Righteousness".

There is no way to be righteous in God's sight of our own accord. Paul is saying that even if a Jew could be righteous in the sight of the Law, he would not be counted righteous in the sight of God.

Catholics never said there was a way to be righteous of our own accord. I also agree about your comments of righteousness in the sight of the Law because Paul is clear the Law does not justify because it was never intended to justify. Justification is first and foremost about receiving adoption as children of God by receiving the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The only we receive this righteousness is by God declaring us so even when we are not.

A Catholic would say that is totally absurd and unBiblical because what you are saying in essence is that God must lie first in order to save us.

Paul speaks about justification using the analogy of a court of law. [1] The accused comes to stand before the bench, and there is no doubt about his guilt. But he is justified (pronounced not guilty in a legal verdict). [2] How can this be if God is just? Because the debt had been paid for by the propriation. Our account is cleared through the blood of Christ. [3] It is not through an infusion of grace over time, but once (and for all). The tab of sins which we racked up were bought and paid for on the cross. [4]


Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. rom 3:21-26

[1] Where does Paul mention a courtroom or judge? The only time I see him talk about judgment is in the context of the final judgment, not justification.

[2] The passage you cite, nor the rest of the NT, say anything about declaring someone "not guilty" despite the fact they are still guilty.

[3] I would agree with these comments, but not your Protestant presuppositions about them.

[4] I disagree. An "infusion of grace" is essentially sanctification, and that is a very Biblical doctrine and possible through Christ's Merits. Catholics reject the Protestant idea of how Jesus "paid" for our sins on the cross, Protestants teach Jesus was punished in our place.

Then what was Abraham doing in Gen 15:6 if he was already justified in Gen 12?

Abraham was justified (by faith) before God already, James speaks of his justification before men (obedience).

That isnt what I asked. For some reason every time I ask this question most of the responses I get focus on what James said when that isnt even the primary issue. The issue is that Abraham was already justified in Gen 12....given this, what happened at Gen 15:6?

Gen 12 is were Abraham was offered promises but Abraham did not believe or faith .... yet he listened

Heb 11:8-9 states when He obeyed by leaving his land and for his inheritance that did not happen in Gen 12 but in Gen 15 where He was promise children as many as the stars thus God made a blood contract with Abraham

Your comments are simply unBiblical. Abraham certainly did believe and have faith in Gen 12. What you are essentially saying is that Abraham believe in and pleased God all that time since Gen 12, but was never saved until Gen 15:6?

Reading Gn 12 alone is sufficient proof Abraham was a believer in God and obeyed him, though further evidence like Gal 3:8 and Heb 11:8 drive the point home (those verses reference Gen 12).

Gen 22:17-18 this is a covant according to luke 1:68-74 which connect this covenant to the church with Gal 3:15-16,29 not to the Jews as the other three covenants were to the Jews

What does this have to do with what I said above?

where does od say he was justified in romans 4:3... 9 imputed /reckoned for righteousness

I cant even read what you just said. Are you saying Abraham was not justified in Gen 15:6 despite the fact Paul and James both quote Gen 15:6 in the context of justification? Such a conclusion is not based upon the Biblical evidence/testimony.

Baby believer to a mature believer

This concept in no way conflicts with my position, in fact it supports it (Abraham was justified multiple times).

Yet I am not a protestant but a grace baptist liked where you used verse but went away from it here in you conclusion

romans 4:9,16-17

I cant really respond to these broken sentences and half thoughts because I cant figure out what you are saying and you dont even appear to be interacting with what I even said.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Suggest you take a look at the actual Greek meanings for the word "justify" as used in Romans 4 and then in James 2.

In Greek two different words are used.

In Romans 4:3 the meaning of the word is: "to be declared righteous before God."

In James 2:21 the meaning is "shown to be righteous before people."

It's not a matter of "protestant" understanding as you suggest. Its simply an understanding of the language.

Given that - I suggest Rome has the "problem" not protestants.

Here it is again, many Protestants are "responding" to my Opening Post, but they are not addressing what the OP actually is getting at. You leave off my comments about Abraham being justified in Gen 12 and with that the discussion cant stay on track.


As for "two different Greek words are used", that is simply false. I have looked it up in Protestant Lexicons myself multiple times and the same word, "dikaioo" is used by Paul and James.

As for "shown to be righteous before people" that is a weak claim considering it was God who told Abraham to sacrifice and it was God who stopped Abraham:

Gen 22: 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied. 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." ... ... 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.
​

The fact is this was NOT about proving himself before men (there werent even witnesses around!), but first and foremost to God Himself!

Lets stay on topic! Gen 12 --> Gen 15 --> Gen 22!
​

 

[Ormly]

The fact is this was NOT about proving himself before men (there werent even witnesses around!), but first and foremost to God Himself!

Lets stay on topic! Gen 12 --> Gen 15 --> Gen 22!​

How interesting that God chose Abraham because He heard Abraham's faith and then had to prove himself after being chosen to father a nation.

 

[Catholic Dude]

How interesting that God chose Abraham because He heard Abraham's faith and then had to prove himself after being chosen to father a nation.

God has high demands for His servants:

Gen 26: 4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."​

 

[Ormly]

God has high demands for His servants:

Gen 26: 4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."​

High demands???

 

[Catholic Dude]

High demands???

God requires us to take up our cross and follow Him daily (Lk 9:23ff), if those arent high demands I dont know what are.

 

[Ormly]

God requires us to take up our cross and follow Him daily (Lk 9:23ff), if those arent high demands I dont know what are.

What does it mean to take up one's cross? I believe that is a good question to ask, don't you?

 

[A Brother In Christ]

interesting .... showing verses where two sides come from .. well done...

now my disagreement
Gen 12 is were Abraham was offered promises but Abraham did not believe or faith .... yet he listened

Heb 11:8-9 states when He obeyed by leaving his land and for his inheritance that did not happen in Gen 12 but in Gen 15 where He was promise children as many as the stars thus God made a blood contract with Abraham

Gen 22:17-18 this is a covant according to luke 1:68-74 which connect this covenant to the church with Gal 3:15-16,29 not to the Jews as the other three covenants were to the Jews

where does of say he was justified in romans 4:3... 9 imputed /reckoned for righteousness

Baby believer to a mature believer Yet I am not a protestant but a grace baptist liked where you used verse but went away from it here in you conclusion

romans 4:9,16-17

Your comments are simply unBiblical. Abraham certainly did believe and have faith in Gen 12. What you are essentially saying is that Abraham believe in and pleased God all that time since Gen 12, but was never saved until Gen 15:6?

what verse states he was counted for righteous in Gen

connect it with Romans 4:3-8 especially vs 5

What does this have to do with what I said above?

some people say there is one covenant with Abraham but by looking at scripture in Gal 3:15-16 there is four different covenants ... important distinction

you brought up Galation

I cant even read what you just said. Are you saying Abraham was not justified in Gen 15:6 despite the fact Paul and James both quote Gen 15:6 in the context of justification? Such a conclusion is not based upon the Biblical evidence/testimony.

Gen 15:6 And He believed the Lord; and He counted it to be righteousnes.

this is an indiviual experience of salvation

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

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

romans 4:5 Now to him that worketh not but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Here is where Paul states how Abraham believes but give a plural him in romans 4:5

romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness

romans 4:17c and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

This concept in no way conflicts with my position, in fact it supports it (Abraham was justified multiple times).

intial salvation happens once

I cant really respond to these broken sentences and half thoughts because I cant figure out what you are saying and you dont even appear to be interacting with what I even said.

... I thought you where different .. personal attacks

 

[Oye11]

Heb 11:8-9 states when He obeyed by leaving his land and for his inheritance that did not happen in Gen 12

Huh?

Genesis 12 KJV

1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. 4So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

 

[Ormly]

Huh?

Genesis 12 KJV

1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. 4So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

Hi OYE1! I believe Abe was justified by his faith before God gave him those instructions. I base it on Gal 3:5,6 (KJV)

 

[Oye11]

Hi OYE1! I believe Abe was justified by his faith before God gave him those instructions. I base it on Gal 3:5,6 (KJV)

Okay. But any way you slice it, Beloved57 or whatever name he has used in the case, has claimed that Abe didn`t leave his land for his inheritance in Genesis 12. This claim has been illustrated as false.

 

[Ormly]

Okay. But any way you slice it, Beloved57 or whatever name he has used in the case, has claimed that Abe didn`t leave his land for his inheritance in Genesis 12. This claim has been illustrated as false.

57 says alot of misconstrued, off the wall, 'wacky' stuff. Who can know what he believes. He says he belongs to an "other church". Makes sense, considering.