contrarily as I've shown both Paul and the writer of Hebrews support my position. What you ignore is Paul speak of the law after the establishment of faith and that faith was prieminant over the Law. It doesn't mean Abram had some wishy washy belief and didn't do anything with it. Abram believed God exemplified by "going". Those blessings are a consequence of Abram going else God would have given it before hand. but he says I "will" future tense.
The Time of Abram's justification before God
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Dr. Walter, Jul 18, 2010.
Page 2 of 4
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
James 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Romans 4:2 does not forbid that justification by works gives room for boasting before men, but it does forbid boasting before God. The justification James speaks of gives room for boasting before men (James 2:18).
Romans 4:5-6 places works in contrast to faith and demands justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS whereas James 2:17 denies that justification by faith is without works.
Paul allows for boasting about works before men but not before God whereas James is about boasting before men - James 2:15-16,18.
Paul says justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS whereas James denies justification by faith is without works.
The solution is very simple. Paul is talking about justification before God and James is talking about justification before men. Before God only the works of Christ justify the sinner and therefore there can be no boasting as it is Christ's works not the sinners whereas before men only justification by works provides any PROFIT for his profession to be justified by faith.
James 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
You pervert Paul's words in Romans 4:1-6 to refer to the Law when he never uses the word "law" but specifically refers to those "THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO THE FLESH" of Abraham in Romans 4:1 that he defines as the kind of "works" that promotes GLORYING! I have yet to hear of anyone coming "before God" and GLORYING in "bad" works.
The nature of these works fit the general rule in Romans 4:4 or works that indebt a boss to his laborer to be paid "according to his works" thus a denial of being justified by "grace."
Such works are EXCLUDED from justification by faith in Romans 4:5-6 and placed in direct contrast to faith in regard to justification before God.
The only thing you have proved is that you do not understand or interpret the scriptures correctly. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
The conjunction "and" does not demand conditions follow. Just look at a English grammar book. The conjunction "and" can be found dividing a series of promises. Even in the command there is a promise "the land I will shew thee."
It is true that Abram did not fully act upon the command until he left Haran and that is why the promise was repeated in Genesis 15:1-6. -
He received the promise "in faith" when he was 75 and NEVER received it actually at all but died still looking for its fulfillment in the Messiah, in the promised city for the saints as he understood the promise was not in the physical land or in the birth of Isaac but "in Christ"
Gal. 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Heb. 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God....These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
So your statement that Abraham could act before he received the promise "in faith" is silly. One must receive the promise "in faith" before they can act upon it. -
The SBC has split some years ago from liberal heretic churches that were once in it. It sounds as if they need to separate themselves a little bit more if your church represents what you beleive. Does your church have a statement of faith??? If so, would you be so brave to post what it believes in regard to justification by faith???? Does your church subscribe to the SBC "Baptist faith and Message"???? -
>What's a Calim?
This is a joke, right? Anyone who can't recognize and doesn't have the sense to ignore a typo in this format . . . . -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
I'll post our belief statement here. Bolding and highlighting mine. So you don't accuse of Sacramentalism.
-
I do not believe in "easy believism" and I know what it means! Just because I make a distinction between justification by faith without works does not mean that I disassociate justification from regeneration and progressive sanctification. Distinguishing them is not a denial of them. Where there is justification by faith there is regeneration and progressive sanctification as well. However, what you are doing is failing to distinguish between things that differ. Justification by faith has to do with the OBJECT of faith not with any ACTIONS produced by faith. As long as you do not make that distinction you do not believe in the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith and you are a legalist. -
Do you interpret "commitment to Christ as Lord" to mean "obedience to Christ as Lord"????? If so, then your church has departed from the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith "WITHOUT WORKS." On the other hand, if the phrase "commitment to Christ as Lord" simply means that faith in the sufficiency of Christ is surrender to Christ as Lord" then that is another matter altogether as that is the basis for obedience without including your obedience within the doctrine of justification. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (is one. 31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we (establish the Law. 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, ….
A vital point is to note that context clearly shows that the “works” in 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses. In 3:28, Paul talks about how men are not justified by the works of the Law. It should be clear that this is a reference to the Law of Moses, not to “good works” generally. But even if this were not clear from 3:28, 3:29 seals the deal – Paul is talking about the works of the Law of Moses since the Jew who believes that the works of the Law of Moses justifies could claim that the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, would be excluded from justification. And Paul clearly wants to argue that the Gentile is also a candidate for justification.
So there is really no doubt – Paul is making an argument about the Law of Moses, not good works in general. So why anybody thinks 4:2 is about “good works” is a mystery to me – Paul does not arbitrarily change topics without notice. No - in 4:2 Paul says Abraham was not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses.
So now we come to the workman. I trust we all understand that this is a metaphor. As such, it cannot be taken literally in all its details – it is a comparison, like all metaphors. Paul has just finished arguing that Abraham, like any other Jew, cannot claim that God “owes” justification to the Jew, and only the Jew, in virtue of the cultural marker of the Law of Moses. The issue to this point is not “does someone who does good works have a claim on God”, it is “does the Jew – the one who is under the Law of Moses – have a claim on God”.
The workman expects to be paid because he has done something. Fine. What is the parallel to Abraham? The parallel is that Abraham might think he has claim on justification because of ethnic membership in the nation of Israel, marked out by the Law of Moses, not because he has done “good works”. Paul is no doubt spinning in his grave, wondering how people have ignored the flow of the argument and instead impose their own “Paul must be denying justification by good works” scheme onto his text. -
Regeneration does not convey any power to live Godly! Regeneration merely conveys the WILLINGNESS to live God for it is the indwelling Spirit alone that conveys POWER to live godly and this is the lesson of Romans 7:18-8:13. Lot is an example of a justified and regenerate person who did not live godly as defined by any pious definition as the last words that God's word have of him in the Old Testament is drunk and in incest and miserable as any child of God will be in that condition.
God is not your helper in salvation but He is first your Savior and then your helper in life.
Page 2 of 4