G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
Well if this transition has been defined as justification, was Abraham justified?It did. However, Abraham’s justification predated this transition for him because the Gospel had not yet been brought to him.
Well if this transition has been defined as justification, was Abraham justified?It did. However, Abraham’s justification predated this transition for him because the Gospel had not yet been brought to him.
So Trent did not define what justification meant for old testament saints.Trent did qualify the statement. For those whom are subject to the qualification, it is binding. The rest are outside the qualification so the definition does not apply.
Abraham was justified in his lifetime, as stated by Sts. Paul and James. He was not subject to the definition of justification offered at Trent. When Abraham died, he went to a place of comfort (later called the “bosom of Abraham” or “Sheol”) to await the Promised One.Well if this transition has been defined as justification, was Abraham justified?
Correct.So Trent did not define what justification meant for old testament saints.
Perhaps according to the Christian meaning of faith in the Trinitarian G-d. But Abraham obviously did have faith in G-d, so much so that he obeyed and trusted G-d in being called to sacrifice his son, Isaac.So Abraham was justified by works alone?
Ultimately, it’s the same “thing”. Just the means of entering into justification are different.So when Paul used the word ‘‘justified’’ with a different definition for Abraham than for us?
Does parallel equal the same?But Paul says Abraham’s justification is parallel to ours…
I read through your Romans 4 citation a number of time and the only “same as” that I see is faith. Because of his faith, “it was credited to him as righteousness” (NAB 4:22). Likewise “it was also for us, to whom it will be credited, who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,25 who was handed over for our transgressions and was raised for our justification.” (Romans (NAB) 4)The word “parallel” is wrong. Paul says that the imputation of faith as righteousness is just the same as it was for Abraham as it is for us (Rom 4:22-25). In other words, we are justified just like Abraham. So if the Trent says we are justified by the co-crucifixion and co-resurrection of Christ and the inner man being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, it would seem as though they are saying this would have happened to Abraham , when he was justified in Genesis 15.
I still don’t understand. Why would you say he wasn’t? His faith was in the mercy of God. And his willingness to walk with Him. How does that differ from Trent? Abraham wasn’t sanctified?The word “parallel” is wrong. Paul says that the imputation of faith as righteousness is just the same as it was for Abraham as it is for us (Rom 4:22-25). In other words, we are justified just like Abraham. So if the Trent says we are justified by the co-crucifixion and co-resurrection of Christ and the inner man being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, it would seem as though they are saying this would have happened to Abraham , when he was justified in Genesis 15.
If you mean that Abraham received without baptism what we receive through baptism, yes.So are you saying that Abraham’s faith being reckoned for righteousness is not the paradigm for our faith being reckoned for righteousness, and thus justification?
Not in the same way as we are.But we are justified through our participation in the new creation, was Abraham somehow in the new creation? In the Spirit?
Abraham was involved in the new creation yes. In fact he was the father of Israel, which gave birth to the Messiah.But we are justified through our participation in the new creation, was Abraham somehow in the new creation? In the Spirit?