The Time of Abram's justification before God

You of all people should know better than making this accusation as I have repeatedly defined the law of God to be expressed in conscience or oral laws or in Mosaic legislation as the expression of God's righteousness and the instructor between "good" and "bad" works. What I have denied is that Paul is arguing against Judiac law in specific as necessary to be justified before God

As per the discussion in other thread, you are making a circular argument, presuming that the issue here is "good works" vs "bad works" and then finding errors in the views of others based on your unsubstantiated presumption.

It is not a circuluar argument when the very text furnishes you black and white evidence of what kind of works that are being discussed - the kind you can BRAG about IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD. Romans 4:1 explicitly defines this KIND of works to be those "PERTAINING TO THE FLESH" not pertaining to the Judai Law. Romans 4:4 provides a general principle that cannot be restricted to Judaic law. Only a fool would argue that such are "bad" works for boasting in the presence of God. There are only two kinds of works known in scripture - "good" verus "bad." If you have another classification then please give scripture text for it.

Your exposition of Romans 3:27-4:6 is false completely false. You ignore so many contextual truths in order to advance your false doctrine. First, Romans 4:1-2 reverts back to Romans 3:27 and the question "Where is boasting then" as Romans 4:1-2 is given to show that Abraham has no basis for "glorying" before God "PERTAINING TO THE THINGS OF THE FLESH."

Secondly, you completely ignore the contrast in Romans 3:27 that is between TWO opposing contrasting laws. You want to make "the law of works" to be restricted to the Judaic Mosaic law. However, that will not work because Paul has already talked about the Gentiles being condemned under the law of conscience. Hence, "the law of works" must be inclusive of all laws that dictate "good" and "bad" whether by CONSCIENCE or by Tradition or written in stone by God or written on other materials by man and thus anything and everything including "THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FLESH" (Rom. 4:1).

Hence, what Paul excludes in Romans 3:27 are ALL LAWS which dictate what is RIGHT versus what is WRONG as means for justification before God.

In so doing it naturally applies to the Judai Mosaic law that distinguished Gentiles from Jews (Rom. 3:29-30) as well as "THAT WHICH PERTAINETH TO THE FLESH" as grounds for boasting before God - all works without exception but not without distinction.


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.

The above interpretation is so bizzare and absurd it is really difficult for me to address it seriously. First of all Abraham is not a Jew or an Israelite but a CHALDEAN (Gen. 11:28,31) and so any attempt to reason that Abraham was not justified under Mosaic legislation is stupid as no Jew would argue that Abraham was an ethnic Jew - HE WAS A GENTILE.

Second, you apparently have not looked up the meaning and/or usage of "metaphor." Metaphors use linking verbs ("are, is, was") and make a direct application saying one thing IS another thing. This is no metaphor so your whole basis for your argument vanishes with your eisgesis.

Your whole exposition is flawed with errors, misinterpretations, failure to observe contextual factors and is wrong!

 

Regeneration and indwelling are not one and the same. True, you cannot be regenerated without being indwelt or vice versa but our power is not derived from the inward man but from the Holy Spirit. The inward man gives us the inclination toward righteousness "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man". The Law can no more sanctify us than it can justify us. The inward man gives us the inclination toward righteousness but it is the Spirit of God that gives us the power to live righteously and that is precisely why the regenerate man is further commanded to be "filled with the Spirit" and to "walk in the Spirit" as the regenerate man is perfectly capable of walking "AFTER the flesh" even though he is not "IN the flesh."

Yes that is correct.

 

Moreover it would make Abraham stutter as he deals specifically with the "the law" in Romans 4:14-15 but he deals with "works" in Romans 4:1-6. However, he does not associate "the law" with Abraham in Romans 4:14-16 ("they which are of") but argues on the basis that it is opposed to justification by faith in principle.

Romans 4:1-2 explicitly defines the "works" relating to Moses as those "THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FLESH" of Abraham. Since he was CHALDEAN by birth they cannot be works associated with Judaism or with being a Jew by birth. Since Judaism did not even exist it would indeed be foolish for Abraham to "GLORY" about Judaic law before God as well as IMPOSSIBLE. However, verse 2 does allow Abraham to glory in the works under consideration (pertaining to the flesh) but just not "before God." Therefore the works were real and actual but clearly no Judaic in nature.

 

Rom. 4:1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

The works of Abraham are regarded by Paul as actual and real so that Abraham could glory in them "HE HATH whereof to glory." HE HATH such works but clearly they could not be JUDAIC works as those works did not exist at the time of Abraham.

Therefore, the works that "HE HATH" must be the common variety type that are "pertaining to the flesh" or the deeds performed by Abraham. The only type of deeds any sane man would "glory" about are what he regarded as "GOOD" enough to glory about!

This is fatal to both Andre's and Thinkingstuff's interpretation of Romans 4:1-6.

 

Abraham was justified by faith when he was "ungodly" and "without" good works (Rom. 4:5-6) and so he had no "good" works AT ALL. He was an idoltrous gentile (Gen. 11:28; Josh. 24:15; Gen. 31:30) when he was justified by faith in the gospel. DHK is not talking about "salvation" as that is a very wide term inclusive of past, present and future tense salvation, but he is talking about "justification' before God. The grounds of justification is the SUBSTITUIONARY person and work of Christ ALONE. The conditions of justificaiton is simple "faith" IN the "good news" of the gospel ALONE.

Romans 4:5-6 repudiates your error thoroughly when Paul says:

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,

This is directed "to him that worketh not" or him that is without "works"! Why? Because "believeth" is in direct contrast to justification by works. That is why the little word "but" stands between the phrase "to him that worketh not BUT beleiveth on him that justifieth the UNGODLY." Faith and works are incompatable in regard to justification before God (Gal. 3:12a). He would NOT be called "UNGODLY" if he had any works God considered to be "good." So much for your interpretation which says God justifies by non-meritorious "good" works.

If he had any works that God regarded as "good" he would not have to have righteousness "IMPUTED" to him. So much for your theory that we are justified by unmerited good works.

Notice he says it is "his faith that is counted for righteousness." How so? It is Faith IN him or "believeth ON Him." What does that mean? It means that Abraham was given the promise of the Gospel by God (Gal. 3:8) and this promise had to do with the promised "seed" singular as in Christ (not Isaac) as Galatians 3 says:

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
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.

It means that Abraham's faith was in this promised OBJECT - Jesus Christ as the sufficient provision for Abraham's personal salvation:

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


It means he believed on him as Romans 3:24-26 defines it. He believed "IN his blood" and "IN Jesus" as the "propitiation" or satisfaction for the violated righteousness of God in His behalf! What righteousness was imputed to him? The righteousness revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17) - the righteousness of Christ proclaimed as His "propitiation" or satisfaction for sin.

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 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;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


I have tried to break this down in simple terms for you. But in case you still miss the point:

1. Abraham was "UNGODLY" when God justified him - heathen idoltrous gentile without "unmerited good works" and without "good" works at all.

2. His righteousness was NOT in "unmerited good" works which he did but the righteousness "imputed" to him due to his faith "in Christ" or the righteousness revealed in the gospel provided by Christ in his behalf.

 

1. Paul's word in the very context of justification of Abraham that it is "the ungodly" that God justifies. Did God justify Abraham? If so, he was "ungodly" as that is the only kind of man Paul says God justifies:

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


2. Moses points out that he was a Gentile or Chaldean by birth:

And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees......31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

There were no "children of Israel" until after God changed Jacob's name to "Israel" and his 12 sons were called the "children of Israel." There were no "Jews" until Judah was born and his name became synonymous with "Israelites."

3. Joshua 24:15 tells us that "the fathers" of Israel were idoltrous and Moses tells us that the house of Laban, the nephew of Abraham was still worshipping idols when Jacob obtained Rebecah (Gen. 31:30). Laban was the Son of Abraham's brother "Nahor" and Isaac married Nahor's granddaughter. Abraham came out of a family of idolaters who still practiced idolatry long after his death.

However, Romans 4:5 should be plenty proof as the ONLY KIND OF MAN God justifies is "the ungodly" and since God justified Abraham by faith INSTEAD OF by works he must have been "UNGODLY"