Regeneration/Born-Again

[itsjustdave1988]

I’d still like to know how we cannot be justified by “faith alone” as Abraham had in Gen 12. Or do you just give up on that one??

The problem is, your thesis explodes because now according to your implication “faith alone” only justifies, sometimes. It must be added to something else to be justifying faith, or else you would necessarily hold Abraham to have been justified when he had the obedience of faith in Gen 12.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Oh, so now your moving on to other polemics, seeing that you FAILED in your original claim? Do you really think that kind of dodging will help your credibility Sandusky? Go back and find me where it says that one can be saved without faith AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED. If you cannot, I will understand. However, jumping to other issues is a sign of defeat. You simply want to try another chess match as if nobody would notice that you were just trounced in the last match.

Dave, I am not trying to move onto another polemic, nor am I trying to dodge anything. The life of these threads goes where it does. I cannot change your thinking that my asking a question of you on an issue that is not another issue is a sign of defeat. I asked a question; if you don’t want to answer it, don’t answer it.

itsjustdave1988:

I deny nothing authentically taught as Catholic doctrine by the Catholic magisterium. I do reject your caricature of that teaching, however, as it is nothing more than an unconvincing strawman and everyone with common sense reading this thread will draw the same conclusion.

I know that you don’t deny anything authentically taught by the Catholic magisterium. Again, I asked whether or not you were changing your mind, as it seems to me that you are willing to let stand statements in the documents of your Church, that seem to contradict what you were saying before. If you don’t want to answer the question don’t answer it. If I have caricatured your teaching, forgive me; I simply cannot make sense of the teaching in light of scripture. I can make sense of it in light of its standing alone, but I cannot make sense of it in light of my position that scripture is the final authority.

itsjustdave1988:

I’d still like to know how we cannot be justified by “faith alone” as Abraham had in Gen 12. Or do you just give up on that one??

The problem is, your thesis explodes because now according to your implication “faith alone” only justifies, sometimes. It must be added to something else to be justifying faith, or else you would necessarily hold Abraham to have been justified when he had the obedience of faith in Gen 12.

Dave, give me the title of Spurgeon’s sermon, and I will look at my indices to see if I can find it.

As you know, I believe that the scripture is the sole source of authority. When Abraham went out in Gen 12, no mention is made of his doing it on faith; that said, I certainly do believe that he had faith when he went out; the writer of Hebrews does as well; so does Spurgeon.

But the statement as to Abraham’s justification is made by Moses in Gen 15, without question. And Paul uses that as well to lay out his theology on justification by faith alone (Rom 4; Gal 3).

With regard to that, what else can I say? Obviously nothing that will satisfy you.

IMO, that does not change, nor does it in anyway damage my position that justification is a one-time, never to be repeated event. That is what scripture presents.

That also conflicts with your position that justification and sanctification are, for lack of a better phrase, “one and the same.”

I know all of that, and forgive me, but I have nothing else to add to that.

 

[Sherlock]

sandusky:

Mohamdedans do not adore the same God. Their’s is one, the God of the Bible is 3 in 1. Or do you indeed think that they adore the same God as those who call themselves Christians?
.

Yes: properly understood, Islam can be seen as a heresy of Christianity. Like Protestantism, only more distorted and lethal.

 

[sandusky]

Sherlock:

Yes: properly understood, Islam can be seen as a heresy of Christianity. Like Protestantism, only more distorted and lethal.

Thank you, for the former, though I would state it more polemically than just a heresy; you know, of course, that I disagree with the latter.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…it seems to me that you are willing to let stand statements in the documents of your Church, that seem to contradict what you were saying before.

Like what? I’m thinking you neither exegeted my text nor the ecclesial texts properly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

But the statement as to Abraham’s justification is made by Moses in Gen 15, without question. And Paul uses that as well to lay out his theology on justification by faith alone (Rom 4; Gal 3).

Yes, but Moses and the Sacred Author of Hebrews cannot be in conflict, as their words are both inspired by the Holy Spirit. Abraham clearly had the faith which Hebrews provides as a witness to the faith Christians are to have. Thus, Abraham must have been justified by faith in Gen 12 by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodoxy soteriology.

Then he was “justified still” in Gen 15 and “justified still” in Gen 22. I understand what Moses says, and I also understand what Paul and James say, and they are all three in agreement with what Rev 22:11 says: the just can be justified still.

I gave the C.H. Spurgeon reference when I first cited him., but here ya go … complete with a web link this time.

The Obedience of Faith
A Sermon (No. 2195)
Delivered on Thursday Evening, August 21st, 1890, by
C. H. SPURGEON
spurgeon.org/sermons/2195.htm

He doesn’t appear to imply that Abraham was not justified by that “authentic faith” he had in Gen 12, as his whole sermon is presenting that same “genuine faith” as that which Christians ought to have. … “‘For by faith Abraham obeyed’ [Heb 11:8]. In every case where the father of the faithful obeyed, it was the result of his faith” [emphasis added]

I can only conclude that Calvinists (and whatever Bene’s denom is) think one can have “faith alone” for a time, “genuine faith” no less, yet not be justified. This is contrary to Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant soteriology.

The problem is that not everyone gets a Divine declaration like Moses gave for Abraham, so this destroys any notion of eternal security excepting for those folks who God himself confirms by special revelation to them that their “genuine faith” has “finally” and forever justified them.

 

[wpr]

As you know, I believe that the scripture is the sole source of authority. When Abraham went out in Gen 12, no mention is made of his doing it on faith; that said, I certainly do believe that he had faith when he went out; the writer of Hebrews does as well; so does Spurgeon.

Am I wrong, or was it Bene7 who insisted that Gn 15:6 was the actual point of imputation. I honestly thought Sandusky had not made his view crystal clear.

Sorry Sandusky, I think you don’t want to toss Bene under the bus. I admire it, but I think you were vague in your reply. (no pink elephants desired though)

I was seeking a more definite answer. Bene obliged.

But the statement as to Abraham’s justification is made by Moses in Gen 15, without question. And Paul uses that as well to lay out his theology on justification by faith alone (Rom 4; Gal 3).

You keep telling me Paul used Gn 15:6 in Rm 4 to show forensic imputed justification. But, I’m sorry, I don’t see that in the context of Rm 4.

The text does not lead me to believe Paul is refering exclusively to the “faith” Moses attributes to Abraham for beleiving God’s promise in Gn 15:6. Paul says in Rm 4:5 “But when one does not work, yet beleives in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as rightiousness.” It seems to me Paul is broadening the possibility, not limiting it. This brings Gn 12 back into the fold!

Thus, a Roman Jew would not object to Paul’s supposed assertion of forensic imputation at Gn 15 by pointing to Gn 12 (as the author in Hebrews did). He would think Abraham was justified in any Biblical example that fits Rm 4:5.

Plus, does Paul ever refer to Abraham’s faith in Gn 12 directly? I seem to recall some other reference but I can’t place it.

Finally, I see in Rm 4:12 “…but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked.” This is not the language of forensic imputation.

Can I make an appointment for you to see your local Preist? (Sorry, the saleman in me says I supposed to ask for the order! Force of habit. I beg your forgiveness!)

Ps Yes, my Grandfather was quite interesting. In fact a Navy Lt at age 39 in 1942! Not such a good year to be a swabby.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Like what? I’m thinking you neither exegeted my text nor the ecclesial texts properly.

Like those stated concerning the Dogmatic Constitution, specifically, that men do not have to know the Gospel, only but follow the dictates of conscience, and live a good life, and that to those who do that God does not deny helps. That puts mans’ movement toward God first, which I do not find in scripture, but rather God is always first to move to restore man. That is not faith alone, nor is it faith, but a movement of God toward good men who first move toward Him. That is contra scripture; that fact is seen in the garden, when God seeks out fallen Adam, and that act of God’s sets His demeanor for the rest of time.

There is some truth to your statement that I have not looked carefully enough at your posts concerning Trent’s Sixth Session; I need more time to review those; but, I have looked at Trent’s statements on justification over and over again.

Those statements were not made in a vacuum, nor were they made because it suddenly dawned on those making the statements that it was time to do so, but rather, those statements were made in reaction to, or as a response, if you will, to the statements of the reformers of justification by faith alone.

If the Church agreed with faith alone, all that was needed was to say so. But, as Trent’s statements show, the Church did not agree with faith alone. I know that your Church says that one is saved by faith, that is not an issue with me, and, that is not the same as faith alone. Therefore, in my mind, I wonder why you bother to try to show that Trent’s statements deal with faith alone. You do agree, that in the purest meaning of “faith alone,” Trent’s statements on justification do not bear that meaning, don’t you?

As I read the 16 chapters, they move steadily toward their conclusion in chapter 16, in which is found the statement that a man’s works have so satisfied the divine law as to have truly merited eternal life.

That is the stated conclusion, even though qualifications concerning one’s being in a state of grace precede and follow that very forceful statement.

Again, I understand that you believe that a man is saved by faith; but it also seems to me, that you believe that that faith is not sufficient to sustain one’s salvation; meritorious works must occur, and those meritorious works “finish” one’s justification, as it were, and those meritorious works, according to Trent, are said to truly merit eternal life.

This can all be resolved by answering one question: Do you believe in justification by faith alone, without qualifications?

That point is my curiosity.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, but Moses and the Sacred Author of Hebrews cannot be in conflict, as their words are both inspired by the Holy Spirit. Abraham clearly had the faith which Hebrews provides as a witness to the faith Christians are to have. Thus, Abraham must have been justified by faith in Gen 12 by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodoxy soteriology.

Dave, I don’t see a conflict. Perhaps Abraham was justified in Gen 12, I can only speculate. But, I know for certain, that in Gen 15, Abraham’s faith was accounted as righteousness—there, Abraham is definitely justified.

And Paul uses that as an illustration, and James uses it as a fulfillment of Abraham’s justification wherein Abraham demonstrates his justification by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

itsjustdave1988:

Then he was “justified still” in Gen 15 and “justified still” in Gen 22. I understand what Moses says, and I also understand what Paul and James say, and they are all three in agreement with what Rev 22:11 says: the just can be justified still.

Dave, you are leaving out the most important parts of that verse, IMHO. The statements are made, “let him…,” those are fiat statements. As bene and I both said, the behavior of the wicked becomes “fixed,” and more so, while the behavior of the godly becomes “fixed,” and more so. Perhaps, because of the seriousness of that time, the godly will not be sinning so much, as the tribulation will have them filled with awe and fear at the power and extent of God’s wrath, while the hard heart of the wicked will become more hard, as difficult as that is for the logical mind to grasp, the Lord says, “let it be so.”

itsjustdave1988:

I gave the C.H. Spurgeon reference when I first cited him., but here ya go … complete with a web link this time.

Sorry, I missed that.

itsjustdave1988:

I can only conclude that Calvinists (and whatever Bene’s denom is) think one can have “faith alone” for a time, “genuine faith” no less, yet not be justified. This is contrary to Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant soteriology.

In the parable of the seed and the sower (Lk 8), Jesus makes the point that many believe “for a time,” but in time, they fall away. That is a belief, but not a belief that justifies. Nor is the belief of demons a belief that justifies.

itsjustdave1988:

The problem is that not everyone gets a Divine declaration like Moses gave for Abraham, so this destroys any notion of eternal security excepting for those folks who God himself confirms by special revelation to them that their “genuine faith” has “finally” and forever justified them.

I respectfully disagree. See Rom 8:16; 1 Jn 5:9,10; Gal chs 4-6; Rev 12:17.

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

The text does not lead me to believe Paul is refering exclusively to the “faith” Moses attributes to Abraham for beleiving God’s promise in Gn 15:6. Paul says in Rm 4:5 “But when one does not work, yet beleives in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as rightiousness.” It seems to me Paul is broadening the possibility, not limiting it. This brings Gn 12 back into the fold!

I don’t think Paul is limiting, or broadening anything, wpr. Paul says that everyone is justified in the same way Abraham was justified: Believe the Lord, and it will be reckoned to you as righteousness. Paul’s opening statement in Rom 4:5 excludes work. Obviously, the Jews thought that they had to do works, but Paul says no.

wpr:

Thus, a Roman Jew would not object to Paul’s supposed assertion of forensic imputation at Gn 15 by pointing to Gn 12 (as the author in Hebrews did). He would think Abraham was justified in any Biblical example that fits Rm 4:5.

Again, according to what Paul is saying in Rom 4:5, I would think that a Roman Jew was thinking that he had to do some kind of work to be justified, but Paul says no.

wpr:

Plus, does Paul ever refer to Abraham’s faith in Gn 12 directly? I seem to recall some other reference but I can’t place it.

Gal 3:8, and it is also mentioned in Acts 3:25.

wpr:

Finally, I see in Rm 4:12 “…but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked.” This is not the language of forensic imputation.

Yes, ethnically, Abraham is the father the Jews, spiritually, he is the father of Jews and Gentiles who believe as he did.

wpr:

Ps Yes, my Grandfather was quite interesting. In fact a Navy Lt at age 39 in 1942! Not such a good year to be a swabby.

I was a swabby myself, many years ago.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

… men do not have to know the Gospel, only but follow the dictates of conscience, and live a good life, and that to those who do that God does not deny helps.

If man through not fault of his own, does not know the Gospel, this is true. Yet, this is in no way God’s first help. And being given these further helps do not mean they are saved. They must also have been given the gift of “***faith *working through love” (Ga; 5:6) for them to be justified. Only those born again by the grace of Jesus Christ enter heaven.

sandusky:

That puts mans’ movement toward God first

I disagree.

God speaks to the unrighteous in many ways well before unrighteous man can respond in faith. He always makes the first move, and often many other moves before man turns toward Him.

For example, St. Paul tells us of the Roman Gentiles who were neither Jewish nor Christian, yet they could know God from what God has revealed to them, “perceived in the things that have been made.” Observe,

Romans 1:19ff

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although ***they knew God they did not honor him ***

Notice that it is God who makes the first move because it is He that “has shown it to them” such that they “have no excuse.” God has not denied his help to them, even though in this instance, “they did not honor Him.”

Furthermore, in ch. 2 of his Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul also speaks of how God speaks to men through their conscience:

Romans 2:15:

“what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them”

We have the witness of Scripture which is clearly among His supernatural revelation, and we have the witness of what God writes in our hearts or speaks in our conscience, and also what he shows to us from the things He had made, which is His natural revelation. Both are given by God and are examples of “God seeking man.”

An example of supernatural intevention by God (grace) is when God directly spoke to Cain and warned him that sin was crouching at his door, and that he needed to master sin. Cain was neither justified nor deserving of this supernatural intervention by God, but we have a God that intervenes in the lives of the unrighteous just the same.

Catholics call such interventions for the unjust, “grace.” It seems that Calvinists have a more restrictive usage of the word “grace,” yet even John Calvin taught " there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent” (3.2.11, Institutes).

What Calvin calls a “present sense of grace” Catholics simply call grace. It is not a grace that justifies, however, but a grace so-called because such enlightenment is undeserved and it therefore gratuitous. Those who respond to such enlightenment still do not merit the grace of justification, contrary to what might be supposed.

Instead, Catholicism teaches as MSgr Paul Glenn states in his book *Tour of the Summa, *commenting on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas:

… a man observing a miracle (wrought by the gratuitous grace of miracles in the person God uses and instruments to perform the miracle) may be stirred to repentance or to deeper piety, and so be moved to obtain sanctifying grace.

… By accepting cooperating grace, we enter into the disposition which prepares us for the receiving of sanctifying or habitual grace.

… In so far as the human will can thus (by accepting cooperating grace and using it) make preparation for grace, it can set up no necessity or demand that grace should actually follow upon the preparation (pg. 180-181)

Acting in accord with God’s grace, STILL does not oblige God to justify man. This justifying grace is still a gratuitous gift. But it is unlikely that God will justify any man who rejects it prevenient interventions as Cain did. Man places a barrier to the reception of grace, but does nothing to oblige God to give him grace.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Another example is the magos or sorcerers from the East who although they did not know the true Gospel, God brought good from their errors and guided the sorcerers to bow down before the true Christ. It was certainly not the practice of their magic that brought them to Christ, but God revealing to the magi in ways suited to their condition, ways often known only to God. In this example, how did God first seek them? Through a “star in the East.”

God certainly is the first to move to restore man.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

This can all be resolved by answering one question: Do you believe in justification by faith alone, without qualifications?
That point is my curiosity.

What is faith alone as opposed to faith?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

In the parable of the seed and the sower (Lk 8), Jesus makes the point that many believe “for a time,” but in time, they fall away. That is a belief, but not a belief that justifies. Nor is the belief of demons a belief that justifies.

I understand Calvinists think that kind of belief does not justifiy. However, what I don’t know is how a Calvinist can know when they’ve finally come to the ch. 15 of their life when they are still in ch. 12, having faith in God and the prompt obedience tp Him, yet not knowing if they are justified.

Furthermore, Abraham’s genuine faith in Gen 12 was surely not the “belief of demons” as it was clearly, according to Hebrews, one of many examples of that faith which is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Heb 11:2) Demons do not have that kind of faith, do they? They do not have that faith C.H. Spurgeon calls the genuine faith that produces obedience, do they?

Where’s the “eternal security” in a soteriology that asserts one can have a temporary faith so similar to the elect that even in the recipient’s own judgement there is no difference between their “perceived” salvation and the “real” justification of the elect?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

This can all be resolved by answering one question: Do you believe in justification by faith alone, without qualifications?

That point is my curiosity.

It is way too ambiguous a formula I think, as it has bred many various and often contradictory understandings of what “faith alone” means. Furthermore, it is neither exlicit nor implicit in Sacred Scripture, and is contrary to the sermons and other explicit teachings of the early Church Fathers, and contrary to the councilar decrees of the Church since the advent of Christianity.

Instead, I believe we are justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. I believe that if one is not born again in Christ, they would never be justified. I believe that no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who are justified and inheres in them. I believe that man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.

 

[wpr]

Again, according to what Paul is saying in Rom 4:5, I would think that a Roman Jew was thinking that he had to do some kind of work to be justified, but Paul says no.

Clarification. I meant Roman Jewish Christians. My bad.

And that they would know the story of Abraham (like the author of Hebrews) and object if Paul tried to tell them the specific faith in Gn 15:6 is what justified him. They would have said hey, wait a minute, he had faith in Gn 12 already.

The distinction I beleive Paul makes in “works of the law” is that if they are done with a mind to obligate God then they are useless. He is telling the Jews they cannot depend on work for justification. Gal 3:10. The same is true in the diatribe in Rm 3. True?

Obviously, works done in the Spirit have worth even to a Protestant for sanctification. Yet even these are not done with the mind to obligate God to even a higher reward in heaven. True?

It’s strange, but I find the Catholic beleif more biblical. I say strange, because I grew up Lutheran and I was always told Catholics were non-biblical. (its over simplified I know)

By the way. I do think you position is more honest than Bene’s. Given that, if I understand you, you do not rule out for ensic imputation before Gn 15. However, the discrepancy in the interpretation of James remains.

The Catholic beleif has no hole that I can see.

 

[sandusky]

Dave,

Thank you for your response in posts ##330, 331, 333, 334.

You have very clearly stated your position on justification.

We agree then, that God moves first, and that what may be known of God, God has made evident to all men, and that men do instinctively the things of the law, because God has written the law in their hearts, and that there is a grace (a common grace) that does not justify.

As I read your statement as to how a Catholic is justified (and I understand that there is more to it with respect to baptism, etc.), I am stymied. The question arises: why are we divided on this issue? It is almost as if your statement is saying that the last 500+ years have been nothing but a mistake, and a misunderstanding. But I don’t believe that.

Clearly we have distinct doctrinal differences, and those differences having to do with truth.

Again, I still have difficulty with your explanation as I read the documents from Trent, as those documents are written against the reformers, and your explanation, as offered, agrees with the reformers. I believe that is more than a mistake, or misunderstanding. I believe much in those chapters speak against your explanation, and in saying that, I do not intend any criticism of you; perhaps changes in Catholic doctrine have occurred since Trent, but that leaves me with another question: why haven’t Trent’s statements been amended, or dismissed, or declared null and void?

itsjustdave1988:

I understand Calvinists think that kind of belief does not justifiy. However, what I don’t know is how a Calvinist can know when they’ve finally come to the ch. 15 of their life when they are still in ch. 12, having faith in God and the prompt obedience tp Him, yet not knowing if they are justified.

I answer that by saying that when I placed my faith in the world and sought it, I came to a point of futility and sought death; but, when by God’s grace, I believed, and objectively put my faith eis, into Christ, I truly became a new creation. Who and what I was before belief, are not who and what I am now, in belief. Many dismiss that as subjective, but that is the single-most important witness that I have. All who knew me then, marvel at how they know me now, and, as predicted by the Lord, unbelieving friends, for the most part, have deserted me. But God has given me, even more than new friends, a new family in Christ. God’s Spirit testifies to my spirit that I am His child, and my faith is not in my ability to endure, but in his promise that I will endure because I have believed.

I have seen men leave the faith as well, and I am always saddened, and puzzled by that, but I can only pray to God for their restoration, and come alongside in an effort to help restore them, when they are willing to let me do that, but that is not finally up to me; and, I believe that if they continue in unbelief they did not have that saving faith to begin with.

How is that then, that you know that you will persevere? Surely you believe that you will, otherwise, what is the use of continuing, and what kind of hope is that when you will not say you are sure? I cannot imagine living another day without Christ’s strength, comfort, and promises, and simply because I have believed, does not mean that trouble in my life has vanished. On the contrary, sometimes trials come even harder, but as I am told to count it a joy, so I do, and so I am always blessed by God for that in the long run. All I possess in this world is temporary, and will one day pass to someone else, and so on, until at last it is destroyed.

All I can say, Dave, is that I am sure; not because of my ability, but because of God’s promise.

 

[bene7]

itsjustdave1988:

Bene, Your claim seems to be that we are not justified by “faith alone” if is the kind of faith Abraham had in Gen 12, what C.H. Spurgeon and Sandusky call “genuine faith.”

How much “content” must be added to “faith alone” to make “faith alone” that which justifies?? What precise content was missing from Abraham’s faith in Gen 12, but was present in Gen 15?

I was going to leave this thread alone for a while but your question bugged me so I was compelled to provide you with an answer (lucky you, eh?).

Dave, the Holy Spirit is the Author behind both the Old and New Testaments. Now, it is not by oversight that He did not record that Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness when he obediently, by faith, left his home in Ur in Gen. 12. But when you examine carefully the content of both chapters, you see 2 distinct differences in Abraham’s faith revealed in Gen. 15: (1) In Gen. 15 Abraham’s faith rested solely in what God Himself said He would do according to divine promise. (2) The Holy Spirit reveals something very personal concerning Abraham’s faith which is not recorded in Gen. 12 when he obediently left Ur, and which we could not know unless the Holy Spirit Himself, who is omniscient, revealed it to us. It’s revealed in verse six: “Then he believed in the Lord; Only in Gen. 15 does the Holy Spirit record that Abraham actually believed in the Lord,” and based on that personal faith in Him, God reckoned it (his personal faith in Him) to Him as righteousness.

This is the grounds on which God justifies anyone, ever.

But it also must be understood that Abraham’s personal faith “in the Lord” was in the context of what God promised to Abraham He Himself would do for Him, and not at all in connection with what Abraham did for God (like leave Ur). Also, the Holy Spirit did not have to record Abraham’s reckoned (past tense) justification in chapter 22 because there was no recorded change in his justified state since Gen. 15. As Sundusky poignantly remarked, "God is no “indian giver.”

Paul also, inspired by the same Holy Spirit who authored the Book of Genesis, presents in the N.T. the same grounds on which God justifies "the ungodly, this side of the cross, in Romans 4:

“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness…” (vs. 5).

Justification, or being accounted righteous, is not a change wrought by God in us, but a change of our relationship to God. At that moment, in Gen. 15, Abraham’s relationship to God changed according to divine reckoning because, it is recorded, at that moment in time, he believed “in the Lord.” In Gen. 12 he obediently, by faith, left Ur of the Chaldeans, but it is not recorded that at that time His faith was “in” the Lord. That’s a distince difference which even a religious man may not comprehend, but a spiritual man (born again) readily perceives.

I hope this satisfies your question as to what *kind of faith * Abraham possessed in Gen. 15 that he did not possess in Gen. 12. It should, if you’re at all honest about it, since it is not based on my opinion but on what is revealed through the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[wpr]

I hope this satisfies your question as to what *kind of faith * Abraham possessed in Gen. 15 that he did not possess in Gen. 12. It should, if you’re at all honest about it, since it is not based on my opinion but on what is revealed through the Holy Spirit.

Bene, I love you. But, I’m still with Dave. I gotta say, it was a good try, but I just don’t buy that the Spirit was so subtle in Gn 12 and Gn 15, but left stuff so difficult to render elsewhere…

James 2 and the reconciliation with Romans , Galations, Hebrews and Gn 12,15,22 are not resolved. (if I’m petulant, please forgive)

Sandusky
I was touched by your story. I am so joyous that you found strength in our Lord. (even if I still think you can’t reconcile James ) And I hope you were not a swabby in 1942! My sincere thanks for your service to this country!

Dave, Bene, Sandusky, Red, Thank you for your patience with a newcomer. I see even now a few silly things I asserted earlier (I’ll just let them go). That y’all did not jumpo me for.

Finally, what good may come from this?

First, I learned alot. My thanks for your free wisdom.

Second, I devoured Hebrews again last night and then had a strange dream that brought to mind Christ on the cross and suffering (Mt 27:46).

Our neighbors lost a 9 year old son on Dec 20 to a car wreck. The mom pulled out onto a country road and was hit broadside. By her admission to close friends, it was her fault, she just did not see the pick-up truck coming. Needless to say, she suffers.

Now, this family are parishioners, but not attending mass regularly. I know not the strength of their faith. I pray that the Lord grants peace to this grieving mother. I pray that she may look to the cross and hear the words of Christ as he calls out in despair, to His Father. I hope this trial may bring her closer to knowing God.

Brothers, can we plead like the Jairus did for his daughter for God’s mercy for this woman and others who suffer? Our faith is weak, but his mercy immense.

What good is our debate if we cannot pray as one?

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

And that they would know the story of Abraham (like the author of Hebrews) and object if Paul tried to tell them the specific faith in Gn 15:6 is what justified him. They would have said hey, wait a minute, he had faith in Gn 12 already.

You are speculating. I know for certain from what Paul is saying that they thought they were justified by keeping the law, but Paul says law keeping, and works do not justify.

wpr:

The distinction I beleive Paul makes in “works of the law” is that if they are done with a mind to obligate God then they are useless. He is telling the Jews they cannot depend on work for justification. Gal 3:10. The same is true in the diatribe in Rm 3. True?

I don’t think so. Paul says works do not justify. Scripture is clear that God is not obligated to save anyone, neither is He obligated to provide for anyone, but He is merciful, so He does provide, and He is just, so He does justify.

wpr:

Obviously, works done in the Spirit have worth even to a Protestant for sanctification. Yet even these are not done with the mind to obligate God to even a higher reward in heaven. True?

I think that today, most of those who call themselves Christians believe believe that they will get to heaven because they are good people, who lead good lives.

wpr:

By the way. I do think you position is more honest than Bene’s. Given that, if I understand you, you do not rule out for ensic imputation before Gn 15. However, the discrepancy in the interpretation of James remains.

Bene is not dishonest, but sincere.

wpr:

The Catholic beleif has no hole that I can see.

How is that?