The slave woman Hagar and the promise

[U.S. Grant]

Keeping in mind that Galatians is a contrast between "faith only" and "the law," and is addressed to believing Gentile Christians who were not "naturally born" under "the law."
Those under the law were not redeemed and were cast out because of unbelief, not because of natural birth under the law.
But is it?

"Faith" implies spiritual birth, and so they are the same. . .spiritual birth = faith.

"Natural birth" implies no spiritual birth; ergo, no belief, so they are the same. . .natural birth = unbelief.

"The law" refers neither to unbelief, nor to no spiritual birth, it relates to what the believer relies on: his faith or his works ("the law").
And that choice can apply only to the faith of spiritual birth; i.e., to Christians, as in Galatians 3:2-3, not to Jewish unbelievers of no spiritual birth.

So is the combination: natural birth = "the law,"
or is it: natural birth (i.e., no spiritual birth) = unbelief? . . .or both?
Does not "the law" = works, which the believer (not unbeliever) relies on for justification instead of his faith?

Would not the spiritual substance of Galatians 4 actually be: reliance by the Christian on his works, instead of only on his faith, does not justify?

But is that not a distinction between Christians only; i.e., those Christians relying on the law and those Christians relying on faith, and not a distinction between believing Christians and unbelieving Jews?

Would not the spiritual substance of Galatians 4 be:
1) when the people of God were "a child," the law was given as a tutor for the "child" to lead them to faith in Christ, when Christ would be revealed (4:1-3),
2) now that Christ has been revealed, the child is free from the tutor (the law), and enjoys the full rights and freedom of a Son (grace), no longer subject to a tutor (4:4-7),
3) justification is by grace/faith only, and not by faith's works; i.e., "the law" (4:8-20),
4) Christians are not slaves to the law, as in Hagar and the Old Covenant, rather they are free in grace for the sake of freedom (5:1), as in Sarah and the New Covenant (4:21-29),
5) "Get rid of the slave woman and her son;" i.e., put the Judaizers (professing Christians, Acts 15:5) out of the church (4:30-31).

Is not Romans 11 all we need in order to know that natural born Israel has been cut off because of unbelief? And can be restored by belief. . .just as the rest of mankind?

Those under the law were not redeemed and were cast out because of unbelief, not because of natural birth under the law.

We are saying the same thing. The point being that natural birth and outward circumcision no more matter in the promise of Abraham at the cross: faith and Spiritual birth are all that matter now.

Flesh no more has any profit with God, whether of birth or of circumcision.

Unbelieving Israel after the flesh still believe natural birth and outward circumcision matters to the God of Abraham, who is the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Does not "the law" = works, which the believer (not unbeliever) relies on for justification instead of his faith?

You have moved on to another topic. Gal 3-4 is about being born of the Spirit by faith vs being born of flesh and trusting in the law to save without faith.

You are now trying to equate keeping the law as always being works without faith, which is not true.

Many Christians have wrongly demonized the law and the works of the law: Paul was not condemning keeping the law of Christ by faith, but was rebuking doing works of any law without faith, which pleases not God.

Circumcision of the flesh is no longer the law of Christ: keeping any law and commandment of men that is not the law of Christ, cannot be by the faith of Jesus, and so it is vainly keeping a law or commandment without faith, which is to fall from grace.

Justification is still by works of faith. There is no justification with God by faith alone, which is dead. Christians are still obedient keepers of the law of God by the faith of Jesus, and not to be found transgressors.

Reliance by the Christian on his works, instead of only on his faith, does not justify?

'Only on faith' is faith alone without works, which is dead and not justified with God.

No one is preaching relying on 'our own works' of our own righteousness at all: there is a great difference between doing our own righteousness without faith and doing God's righteousness by faith. Trying to equate all works as the same, with or without faith of God, is false.

The unbelieving Jews proved they were not living by the faith of Abraham by rejecting the God of Abraham Jesus as the Christ, and so their own righteousness was not the righteousness of God that is only by the faith of God:

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Keeping the law of Christ by the faith of Jesus is not trusting in works of a law without faith.

Doing the works of God by His faith is not doing 'our works' of our own righteousness, but rather is doing the righteousness of God, even as He is righteous.

Paul rebuked works without faith which does not save, and James rebuked faith without works which does not justify.

The saints being saved by grace are the doers of the word and righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus: this is the sanctification from the sins of the world that is justified with God:

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

But is that not a distinction between Christians only; i.e., those Christians relying on the law and those Christians relying on faith, and not a distinction between believing Christians and unbelieving Jews?

It's the Scriptural distinction between children of the flesh only, and children of the faith of Abraham: those born of water and the Spirit.

There are three distinctive Christians today:

1. Those, like the unbelieving Jews, seeking to be justified by works without faith, to establish and do their own righteousness: to be saved by their own works.

2. Those seeking to be justified by faith alone without works, and are not doers of the righteousness of God: to be saved only by faith.

3. The elect saints seeking the righteousness of God first by faith and so doing His righteousness, even as He is righteous: to be saved by faith in obedience to the faith from the heart.

Eternal salvation is only for them that obey Him, not for them who only believe in Him, nor for them who only obey a law of commandments of men.

the child is free from the tutor (the law), and enjoys the full rights and freedom of a Son (grace).

Christians have been made free from bondage to a law they do not love: O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. (Ps 119)

Christians have graduated and grown up from unwilling obeyers to them that love the law and loving keeping the law by faith: Christians are not 'freed' from doing the law and word of Christ (Rom 2:12-13)(James 1), which is false liberty ending in corruption.

Once again, the law of Christ is not the problem, but seeking to keep the law without faith is: God has no pleasure in it.

justification is by grace/faith only, and not by faith's works

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

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

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

It always amazes me when someone proposing to teach the doctrine of Christ will sooner or later move from flowery speeches to open rejection of Scripture.

You should at least be honest like some, who simply say they believe James is wrong in justification by works, and so is his epistle is not all to be counted for Scripture of truth.

OSAS is a strong delusion for the last days: unconditionally secured eternal salvation by faith alone, and no need of works to be justified with God, unlike Abraham and all the children of His faith.

Is not Romans 11 all we need in order to know that natural born Israel has been cut off because of unbelief? And can be restored by belief. . .just as the rest of mankind?

True. By unbelief they were all cut off at the cross, and by unbelief so shall we. (Rom 11)

They were judged of unbelief, because they did not obey Him, though they claimed the faith of Abraham.

Willful disobedience and unrepented sins is the proof of not being justified with God, and so not being saved by faith alone, which is lip-service faith only.

 

[ralliann]

Those under the law were not redeemed and were cast out because of unbelief, not because of natural birth under the law.

We are saying the same thing. The point being that natural birth and outward circumcision no more matter in the promise of Abraham at the cross: faith and Spiritual birth are all that matter now.

Flesh no more has any profit with God, whether of birth or of circumcision.

Unbelieving Israel after the flesh still believe natural birth and outward circumcision matters to the God of Abraham, who is the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Does not "the law" = works, which the believer (not unbeliever) relies on for justification instead of his faith?

You have moved on to another topic. Gal 3-4 is about being born of the Spirit by faith vs being born of flesh and trusting in the law to save without faith.

You are now trying to equate keeping the law as always being works without faith, which is not true.

Many Christians have wrongly demonized the law and the works of the law: Paul was not condemning keeping the law of Christ by faith, but was rebuking doing works of any law without faith, which pleases not God.

Circumcision of the flesh is no longer the law of Christ: keeping any law and commandment of men that is not the law of Christ, cannot be by the faith of Jesus, and so it is vainly keeping a law or commandment without faith, which is to fall from grace.

Justification is still by works of faith. There is no justification with God by faith alone, which is dead. Christians are still obedient keepers of the law of God by the faith of Jesus, and not to be found transgressors.

Reliance by the Christian on his works, instead of only on his faith, does not justify?

'Only on faith' is faith alone without works, which is dead and not justified with God.

No one is preaching relying on 'our own works' of our own righteousness at all: there is a great difference between doing our own righteousness without faith and doing God's righteousness by faith. Trying to equate all works as the same, with or without faith of God, is false.

The unbelieving Jews proved they were not living by the faith of Abraham by rejecting the God of Abraham Jesus as the Christ, and so their own righteousness was not the righteousness of God that is only by the faith of God:

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Keeping the law of Christ by the faith of Jesus is not trusting in works of a law without faith.

Doing the works of God by His faith is not doing 'our works' of our own righteousness, but rather is doing the righteousness of God, even as He is righteous.

Paul rebuked works without faith which does not save, and James rebuked faith without works which does not justify.

The saints being saved by grace are the doers of the word and righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus: this is the sanctification from the sins of the world that is justified with God:

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

But is that not a distinction between Christians only; i.e., those Christians relying on the law and those Christians relying on faith, and not a distinction between believing Christians and unbelieving Jews?

It's the Scriptural distinction between children of the flesh only, and children of the faith of Abraham: those born of water and the Spirit.

There are three distinctive Christians today:

1. Those, like the unbelieving Jews, seeking to be justified by works without faith, to establish and do their own righteousness: to be saved by their own works.

2. Those seeking to be justified by faith alone without works, and are not doers of the righteousness of God: to be saved only by faith.

3. The elect saints seeking the righteousness of God first by faith and so doing His righteousness, even as He is righteous: to be saved by faith in obedience to the faith from the heart.

Eternal salvation is only for them that obey Him, not for them who only believe in Him, nor for them who only obey a law of commandments of men.

the child is free from the tutor (the law), and enjoys the full rights and freedom of a Son (grace).

Christians have been made free from bondage to a law they do not love: O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. (Ps 119)

Christians have graduated and grown up from unwilling obeyers to them that love the law and loving keeping the law by faith: Christians are not 'freed' from doing the law and word of Christ (Rom 2:12-13)(James 1), which is false liberty ending in corruption.

Once again, the law of Christ is not the problem, but seeking to keep the law without faith is: God has no pleasure in it.

justification is by grace/faith only, and not by faith's works

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

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

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

It always amazes me when someone proposing to teach the doctrine of Christ will sooner or later move from flowery speeches to open rejection of Scripture.

You should at least be honest like some, who simply say they believe James is wrong in justification by works, and so is his epistle is not all to be counted for Scripture of truth.

OSAS is a strong delusion for the last days: unconditionally secured eternal salvation by faith alone, and no need of works to be justified with God, unlike Abraham and all the children of His faith.

Is not Romans 11 all we need in order to know that natural born Israel has been cut off because of unbelief? And can be restored by belief. . .just as the rest of mankind?

True. By unbelief they were all cut off at the cross, and by unbelief so shall we. (Rom 11)

They were judged of unbelief, because they did not obey Him, though they claimed the faith of Abraham.

Willful disobedience and unrepented sins is the proof of not being justified with God, and so not being saved by faith alone, which is lip-service faith only.

What I am not seeing from either of you, is the oath which both the children of Israel/Jacob (not Gentiles) bound themselves by being an aspect of this. Christ became a curse for them. The curcumcision (Jews) were bound with an oath Deuteronomy 29:12-14 (indebted to keep the whole of the law). They were therefore under a curse. Does this have any place in your reasonings? why or why not?

 

[Clare73]

Those under the law were not redeemed and were cast out because of unbelief, not because of natural birth under the law.

We are saying the same thing. The point being that natural birth and outward circumcision no more matter in the promise of Abraham

Specifically to what promise are you referring?

In terms of the eternal destiny of the Israelite, all that ever mattered
was true (obedient) faith in the promise (Jesus Christ), not natural birth, not circumcision.

at the cross: faith and Spiritual birth are all that matter now.
Flesh no more has any profit with God, whether of birth or of circumcision.
Unbelieving Israel after the flesh still believe natural birth and outward circumcision matters to the God of Abraham, who is the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Oh, wow. . .they think law-keeping = sonship?

Does not "the law" = works, which the believer (not unbeliever) relies on for justification instead of his faith?
You have moved on to another topic. Gal 3-4 is about being born of the Spirit by faith vs being born of flesh and trusting in the law to save without faith.
You are now trying to equate keeping the law as always being works without faith, which is not true.
Many Christians have wrongly demonized the law and the works of the law: Paul was not condemning keeping the law of Christ by faith, but was rebuking doing works of any law without faith, which pleases not God.
Circumcision of the flesh is no longer the law of Christ: keeping any law and commandment of men that is not the law of Christ, cannot be by the faith of Jesus, and so it is vainly keeping a law or commandment without faith, which is to fall from grace.

Justification is still by works of faith. There is no justification with God by faith alone,

Are you aware that according to the rest of the NT, that is a misunderstanding of "apart from works," which means "apart from faith's works."
It is not faith's works which save/justify, it is only the faith which saves/justiries, apart from faith's works.
God takes this matter very seriously.

which is dead. Christians are still obedient keepers of the law of God by the faith of Jesus, and not to be found transgressors.
Reliance by the Christian on his works, instead of only on his faith, does not justify?
'Only on faith' is faith alone without works, which is dead and not justified with God.

Again, as seen in the rest of the NT, the meaning is: faith alone, apart from faith's works, justifies.
The faith itself justifies, not its works.

You aren't disagreeing with Paul, are you, in:

". . .a righteousness from God apart from (works of the) law (Romans 1:17) has been made known," (Romans 3:21)
". . .a man is justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from observing the law (works)"?
(Romans 3:28)

No one is preaching relying on 'our own works' of our own righteousness at all: there is a great difference between doing our own righteousness without faith

But can't one have faith in God and still do his own righteousness? The Jews do.
Is it about lack of faith, or is it about what your faith is in: your works or God's works?

and doing God's righteousness by faith. Trying to equate all works as the same, with or without faith of God, is false.

However, God's righteousness (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21) is not by faith's works, it is imputed (credited) because of faith, apart from faith's works, as with Abraham (Romans 4:2-3), "Abram believed, and it was imputed (credited) to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6), because of faith, not because of faith's works, or "he would have something to boast about" (Romans 4:2-3), which is the heart of the matter, and why God takes it so seriously.

The unbelieving Jews proved they were not living by the faith of Abraham by rejecting the God of Abraham Jesus as the Christ, and so their own righteousness was not the righteousness of God that is only by the faith of God:

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Keeping the law of Christ by the faith of Jesus is not trusting in works of a law without faith.

Doing the works of God by His faith is not doing 'our works' of our own righteousness, but rather is doing the righteousness of God, even as He is righteous.

Paul rebuked works without faith which does not save, and James rebuked faith without works which does not justify.

The saints being saved by grace are the doers of the word and righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus: this is the sanctification from the sins of the world that is justified with God:

Are you setting justification (imputed righteousness) against sanctification (imparted righteousness) here, in a confounding of
justification (declared righteous); i.e., imputed righteousness, as with Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3), and
sanctification; i.e., imparted righteousness, through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness, (Romans 6:16) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19); i.e., sanctification?

Righteousness (of Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30) imputed (Romans 3:21, 5:18-19) = justification.
Righteousness imparted (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19) = sanctification.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

But is that not a distinction between Christians only; i.e., those Christians relying on the law and those Christians relying on faith, and not a distinction between believing Christians and unbelieving Jews?

It's the Scriptural distinction between children of the flesh only, and children of the faith of Abraham: those born of water and the Spirit.

There are three distinctive Christians today:

1. Those, like the unbelieving Jews, seeking to be justified by works without faith, to establish and do their own righteousness: to be saved by their own works.

2. Those seeking to be justified by faith alone without works, and are not doers of the righteousness of God: to be saved only by faith.

3. The elect saints seeking the righteousness of God first by faith and so doing His righteousness, even as He is righteous: to be saved by faith in obedience to the faith from the heart.

Eternal salvation is only for them that obey Him, not for them who only believe in Him, nor for them who only obey a law of commandments of men.

However, the real distinction here is between true faith which saves, and counterfeit faith which does not,
rather than between works and faith.
Counterfeit faith has no works of faith, and does not save because it is counterfeit.
Whereas, true faith obeys, and true faith saves/justifies, apart from its obedience, for
"Salvation (and justification) is the Lord's! (Revelation 7:10) his and his alone (Revelation 19:1; Psalms 37:39), man contributes nothing, his works of faith contribute NOTHING.

And God takes this very seriously. . .he does not yield nor give is glory to another (Isaiah 48:11, Isaiah 42:8), which is why Paul is so emphatic on the subject (having been caught up to the third heaven and all, 2 Corinthians 12:1-8) that salvation/justification is apart from faith's works. I repeat:

"Salvation is the Lord's!" (Revelation 7:10, Revelation 19:1), his and his alone!
He does not yield nor give his glory to another! (Isaiah 48:11, Isaiah 42:8), including to faith's works.

the child is free from the tutor (the law), and enjoys the full rights and freedom of a Son (grace).

Christians have been made free from bondage to a law they do not love: O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. (Ps 119)

Christians have graduated and grown up from unwilling obeyers to them that love the law and loving keeping the law by faith: Christians are not 'freed' from doing the law and word of Christ (Rom 2:12-13)(James 1), which is false liberty ending in corruption.

Once again, the law of Christ is not the problem, but seeking to keep the law without faith is: God has no pleasure in it.

justification is by grace/faith only, and not by faith's works

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

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

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

It always amazes me when someone proposing to teach the doctrine of Christ will sooner or later move from flowery speeches to open rejection of Scripture.

You should at least be honest like some, who simply say they believe James is wrong in justification by works, and so is his epistle is not all to be counted for Scripture of truth.

The word "justify" has two very different meanings, one employed by Paul and the other by James.

Justify = to prove true: By his theft, she was justified (proven true) in her distrust of him. = James
(By his sacrifice, Abraham's faith was proven true).

Justify = to declare "not guilty," to pronounce righteous by imputed righteousness, due to faith = Paul, used in regard to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3) and believers (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28).

OSAS is a strong delusion for the last days: unconditionally secured eternal salvation by faith alone, and no need of works to be justified with God, unlike Abraham and all the children of His faith.

Is not Romans 11 all we need in order to know that natural born Israel has been cut off because of unbelief? And can be restored by belief. . .just as the rest of mankind?

True. By unbelief they were all cut off at the cross, and by unbelief so shall we. (Rom 11)

They were judged of unbelief, because they did not obey Him, though they claimed the faith of Abraham.

They were judged of unbelief because they did not believe him and murdered him (Acts 7:51-53, 2:22-23, 5:28, 3:13-15; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15).
Let's not sugar-coat what Scripture does not.

Willful disobedience and unrepented sins is the proof of not being justified with God, and so not being saved by faith alone, which is lip-service faith only.

This is a misunderstanding of the NT meaning of faith apart from faith's works, only the faith itself being operative in salvation and justification.

 

[ralliann]

Specifically to what promise are you referring?

In terms of the eternal destiny of the Israelite, all that ever mattered
was true (obedient) faith in the promise (Jesus Christ), not natural birth, not circumcision.

Oh, wow. . .they think law-keeping = sonship?
According to the rest of the NT, that would be a misunderstanding of "apart from works," which means "apart from faith's works."
It is not faith's works which save, it is only the faith which saves, apart from faith's works.
God takes this matter very seriously.

Again, as seen in the rest of the NT, the meaning is: faith alone, apart from faith's works, saves.
The faith itself saves, not its works.

You aren't disagreeing with Paul, are you, in:

". . .a righteousness from God apart from (works of the) law (Romans 1:17) has been made known," (Romans 3:21)
". . .a man is justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from observing the law (works)."
(Romans 3:28)
You are setting justification (imputed righteousness) against sanctification (imparted righteousness) here, in a confounding of
justification (declared righteous); i.e., imputed righteousness, as with Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3), and
sanctification; i.e., imparted righteousness, through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness, (Romans 6:16) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19); i.e., sanctification.

Righteousness (of Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30) imputed (Romans 3:21, 5:18-19) = justification.
Righteousness imparted (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19) = sanctification.

The real distinction here is between true faith and counterfeit faith, not between works and faith.
Counterfeit faith does not obey, it has no works of faith.
True faith obeys, and true faith saves/justifies, apart from its obedience, for "Salvation (and justification) is the Lord's! (Revelation 7:10) his and his alone (Revelation 19:1; Psalms 37:39), man contributes nothing.

God takes this very seriously. . .he does not yield nor give is glory to another (Isaiah 48:11, Isaiah 42:8), which is why Paul is so emphatic on the subject (having been caught up to the third heaven and all, 2 Corinthians 12:1-8) that salvation/justification is apart from faith's works. I repeat:

"Salvation is the Lord's!" (Revelation 7:10, Revelation 19:1), his and his alone!
He does not yield nor give his glory to another! (Isaiah 48:11, Isaiah 42:8).

They were judged of unbelief because they did not believe him and murdered him (Acts 7:51-53, 2:22-23, 5:28, 3:13-15; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15).
Let's not sugar-coat what Scripture does not.

This is some serious misunderstanding of faith apart from faith's works, only the faith itself being operative in salvation and justification.

Paul talks about no righteousness by works of the law. James talks about works of faith. James is not "sugar coating" anything. He is talking about rightousness being imputed to Abraham apart from works of the law of Moses.
Could you please provide the biblical term for imparted rightousness, as distinct to imputed righteousness?

 

[Clare73]

What I am not seeing from either of you, is the oath which both the children of Israel/Jacob (not Gentiles) bound themselves by being an aspect of this. Christ became a curse for them. The curcumcision (Jews) were bound with an oath Deuteronomy 29:12-14 (indebted to keep the whole of the law). They were therefore under a curse. Does this have any place in your reasonings? why or why not?

Please give the location of the Scripture that I may examine its context.

 

[ralliann]

Please give the location of the Scripture that I may examine its context.

It is in the post. Deuteronomy 29:1-21. Specifically 12 and 14

 

[Clare73]

Paul talks about no righteousness by works of the law. James talks about works of faith. James is not "sugar coating" anything. He is talking about rightousness being imputed to Abraham apart from works of the law of Moses.

You thought I was talking about James?

Could you please provide the biblical term for imparted rightousness, as distinct to imputed righteousness?

Abraham's righteousness was imputed (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3) because of faith.
To distinguish between that imputed righteousness by declaration only (justification) of Genesis 15:6,
and the righteousness leading to actual holiness (sanctification) of Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19,
we use the word "imparted," to mean actually acquired (sanctification), as distinct from a declaration thereof (justification), as with Abraham.

 

[Clare73]

It is in the post. Deuteronomy 29:1-21. Specifically 12 and 14

I see nothing about Christ becoming a curse there.

I am not understanding your question.

 

[ralliann]

I see nothing about Christ becoming a curse there.

I am not understanding your question.

oh ok, I an sorry, I did not understand yours either.
Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

 

[ralliann]

You thought I was talking about James?

Not overtly, but James speaks of works of Abraham in faith. Faith has works. Paul is talking about works of the law which was 400 years after. which Paul in speaking of Abraham, speaks of the law of faith in distinction.

Abraham's righteousness was imputed (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3) because of faith.
To distinguish between that imputed righteousness by declaration only (justification) of Genesis 15:6,
and the righteousness leading to actual holiness (sanctification) of Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19,
we use the word "imparted," to mean actually acquired (sanctification), as distinct from a declaration thereof (justification), as with Abraham.

James speaks of Imputed righteousness being fulfilled by his works of faith.
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

 

[Clare73]

Not overtly, but James speaks of works of Abraham in faith. Faith has works. Paul is talking about works of the law which was 400 years after. which Paul in speaking of Abraham, speaks of the law of faith in distinction.

James speaks of Imputed righteousness being fulfilled by his works of faith.
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Relevance to imputed vs. imparted righteousness?

 

[Clare73]

oh ok, I an sorry, I did not understand yours either.
Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So that takes us back to your post #42.

I don't understand your question there.

 

[ralliann]

Relevance to imputed vs. imparted righteousness?

That is what I am asking you. What is the distinction? I don't think there is a difference between imputed faith and what you are calling imparted.

 

[Clare73]

That is what I am asking you. What is the distinction? I don't think there is a difference between imputed faith and what you are calling imparted.

It's imputed righteousness, not imputed faith. See post #47, as explained there:

imputed righteousness = justification (declared "not guilty," righteous) by faith, apart from faith's works (Abraham, Romans 4:3, Genesis 15:6)

imparted righteousness = sanctification (obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness (Romans 6:16) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19).

James speaks of Imputed righteousness being fulfilled by his works of faith.
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Relevance to imputed righteousness vs. imparted righteousness?

 

[ralliann]

It's imputed righteousness, not imputed faith. See post #47, as explained there:

imputed righteousness = justification (declared "not guilty," righteous) by faith, apart from faith's works (Abraham, Romans 4:3, Genesis 15:6)

imparted righteousness = sanctification (obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness (Romans 6:16) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19).

Relevance to imputed righteousness vs. imparted righteousness?

That is what I was asking you about? I do not see the term imparted righteousness in the scripture. I see imputation but not imparted. Especially in James. Sorry bout imputed faith, I made a boo boo.

 

[U.S. Grant]

What I am not seeing from either of you, is the oath which both the children of Israel/Jacob (not Gentiles) bound themselves by being an aspect of this. Christ became a curse for them. The curcumcision (Jews) were bound with an oath Deuteronomy 29:12-14 (indebted to keep the whole of the law). They were therefore under a curse. Does this have any place in your reasonings? why or why not?

is a true point. How exactly does it add to the proof of Gal 4, and what is the result?

Aren't Christians bound to our own 'oath' to be doers of the law and word of Christ?

 

[Clare73]

That is what I was asking you about? I do not see the term imparted righteousness in the scripture. I see imputation but not imparted. Especially in James. Sorry bout imputed faith, I made a boo boo.

Addressed and answered in post #47, and repeated in post #54.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Specifically to what promise are you referring?

In terms of the eternal destiny of the Israelite, all that ever mattered
was true (obedient) faith in the promise (Jesus Christ), not natural birth, not circumcision.

Oh, wow. . .they think law-keeping = sonship?
Are you aware that according to the rest of the NT, that is a misunderstanding of "apart from works," which means "apart from faith's works."
It is not faith's works which save, it is only the faith which saves, apart from faith's works.
God takes this matter very seriously.

Again, as seen in the rest of the NT, the meaning is: faith alone, apart from faith's works, saves.
The faith itself saves, not its works.

You aren't disagreeing with Paul, are you, in:

". . .a righteousness from God apart from (works of the) law (Romans 1:17) has been made known," (Romans 3:21)
". . .a man is justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from observing the law (works)."
(Romans 3:28)

But can't one have faith in God and still do his own righteousness?
Is it about lack of faith, of is it about what your faith is in: your works or God's works?

However, God's righteousness (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21) is not by faith's works, it is imputed (credited) because of faith, apart from faith's works, as with Abraham (Romans 4:2-3), "Abram believed, and it was imputed (credited) to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6), because of faith, not because of faith's works, or "he would have something to boast about" (Romans 4:2-3).
Are you setting justification (imputed righteousness) against sanctification (imparted righteousness) here, in a confounding of
justification (declared righteous); i.e., imputed righteousness, as with Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3), and
sanctification; i.e., imparted righteousness, through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness, (Romans 6:16) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19); i.e., sanctification?

Righteousness (of Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30) imputed (Romans 3:21, 5:18-19) = justification.
Righteousness imparted (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19) = sanctification.

However, the real distinction here is between true faith which saves, and counterfeit faith which does not,
rather than between works and faith.
Counterfeit faith has no works of faith, and does not save because it is counterfeit.
Whereas, true faith obeys, and true faith saves/justifies, apart from its obedience, for
"Salvation (and justification) is the Lord's! (Revelation 7:10) his and his alone (Revelation 19:1; Psalms 37:39), man contributes nothing, his works of faith contribute NOTHING.

And God takes this very seriously. . .he does not yield nor give is glory to another (Isaiah 48:11, Isaiah 42:8), which is why Paul is so emphatic on the subject (having been caught up to the third heaven and all, 2 Corinthians 12:1-8) that salvation/justification is apart from faith's works. I repeat:

"Salvation is the Lord's!" (Revelation 7:10, Revelation 19:1), his and his alone!
He does not yield nor give his glory to another! (Isaiah 48:11, Isaiah 42:8), including to faith's works.

The word "justify" has two very different meanings, one employed by Paul and the other by James.
Justify = to prove true: She was justified in her distrust of him. = James (Abraham was justified in his sacrifice).
Justify = to declare "not guilty," to pronounce righteous by imputed righteousness, due to faith = Paul, used in regard to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3) and believers.

They were judged of unbelief because they did not believe him and murdered him (Acts 7:51-53, 2:22-23, 5:28, 3:13-15; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15).
Let's not sugar-coat what Scripture does not.

This is a misunderstanding of the NT meaning of faith apart from faith's works, only the faith itself being operative in salvation and justification.

Specifically to what promise are you referring?
Specifically, the promise of his seed of blessing: Christ.

The spiritual blessing through faith no more has anything to do with the flesh, whether birth or circumcision or keeping the law of Moses.

The promise of land on this earth won't be fulfilled until the generation following His return.

David's achievements never reached the full border of promised land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Oh, wow. . .they think law-keeping = sonship?

Yes, they think natural birth, circumcision, and law keeping alone apart from faith = children of Abraham and of the God of Abraham with promise of land.

Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Their error was rejecting faith as necessary to inherit the blessing: whether they believed it or not was not necessary to inherit it, but only works of the flesh mattered.

So long as they obeyed outwardly, they would inherit the promise made to Abraham, whether they believed as Abraham or not.

They obey for the inheritance of the promise, not for love of the God who made the promise.

 

[U.S. Grant]

It is not faith's works which save/justify, it is only the faith which saves/justiries, apart from faith's works.
.

It is not faith's works which save/justify, it is only the faith which saves/justifies, apart from faith's works.

So long as any Christian says only faith justifies, and justification is apart from works, then they are rejecting three Scriptures:

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

'Faith only' must say no, because that would be boasting.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

'Faith only' must say no, because only by faith are we justified.

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works.

'Faith only' must say she justified by works, because we are only justified by faith.

The doctrine of justification of Christ is neither by faith only nor by works only: Christians are imputed righteousness by faith inwardly and justified by works of faith outwardly.

Scripture speaks of imputed righteousness of faith, not of imputed justification by faith.

Trying to equate imputed righteousness of God by faith and justification of God without works is false.

The fundamental error of trusting in Scriptures of Paul but not in Scriptures of James, is because they see a faith-only doctrine of Paul the apostle, who was formerly Saul of Tarsus who excelled in the Jews religion and was blameless in their law, and was wholeheartedly consenting unto the death of Jesus and of Stephen: he did all without the faith of God.

And so Paul the apostle was the perfect instrument of correction to rebuke all works without faith, whether of the law or of righteousness.

The fundamental error of the Jews was trusting in the flesh only, and rejecting faith as necessary to inherit the promises made to the fathers: so long as the matters of the flesh in birth, circumcision, and the law were kept, then they would inherit the promises of God, whether they believed in it from the heart or not.

Paul was correcting Israel after the flesh, and James was correcting Christians of faith only.

The opposing extremism of trusting in the works of the flesh only, without need of faith, is trusting in faith only without need of works in the flesh.

And so, when reading all the Scriptures of Paul pertaining to justification and works, it is necessary to understand He is only speaking of justification by works apart from faith, not of justification by faith apart from works.

Otherwise, Scriptures of Paul and of James are in fact contradicting one another, as some have concluded and believe:

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

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

Therefore, to avoid contradiction of Scripture, we must read all of Paul's doctrine of justification being by faith and not by works only without faith. Even as we read James' doctrine of justification being by works of faith and not by faith only without works.

We are not justified apart from works, because we are justified by works.

 

[Clare73]

Specifically to what promise are you referring?
Specifically, the promise of his seed of blessing: Christ.

So that promise has been fulfilled. . .2,000 years ago.

The spiritual blessing through faith no more has anything to do with the flesh, whether birth or circumcision or keeping the law of Moses.
The promise of land on this earth won't be fulfilled until the generation following His return.

According to 1 Kings 4:21, 1 Kings 4:24-25, it has been completely fulfilled under Solomon, to the borders given in the covenant of Genesis 15:18-21.

Likewise, the promise of the return to the land was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah, when the walls were rebuilt, the temple was rebuilt, the law was discovered, the entire law was read to the people and they re-dedicated themselves to God with such rejoicing that it could be heard afar.

Keeping in mind, that just as the irrevocable gifts and call (Romans 11:25) are being fulfilled in a remnant today (Romans 11:1-5), so likewise was promise in the OT.

David's achievements never reached the full border of promised land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

They were fulfilled under Solomon, not David.

See 2 Samuel 8:3, 6 for David's achievements and control to the Euphrates River border.

Oh, wow. . .they think law-keeping = sonship?
Yes, they think natural birth, circumcision, and law keeping alone apart from faith = children of Abraham and of the God of Abraham with promise of land.
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Their error was rejecting faith as necessary to inherit the blessing: whether they believed it or not was not necessary to inherit it, but only works of the flesh mattered.
So long as they obeyed outwardly, they would inherit the promise made to Abraham, whether they believed as Abraham or not.
They obey for the inheritance of the promise, not for love of the God who made the promise.

According to the Scriptures, the land promise was fulfilled under Solomon,
the promise of return to the land was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah, and
the promised seed, Christ was fulfilled 2,000 years ago.

The only seed ever of the promise are Christ and those in Christ (Galatians 3:16)
by faith in Christ (the Promise).