If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)

[FreeGrace]

Well, how about this version:

1. FreeGrace declares that Mr. X killed his (Mr. X's) wife;
2. FreeGrace supports this by pointing out that the fingerprints of Mr. X are all over the murder weapon;
3. Drew de that Mr. X is innocent;
4. Drew provides video footage of Mr X in a mall at the time his wife was killed.

.....and now here is the problem:

5. FreeGrace does not try to show that there is a problem with the video evidence. Instead, FreeGrace simply claims that the evidence of the fingerprints is enough to make the case.

Do you see the problem?

Yes. Your "new and improved" version isn't what I've done at all. If the video evidence is bogus, that is up to experts to determine.

Here's the better question: why should anyone believe that no context for the Law of Moses conclude that Eph 2:9 refers to "works of the Law of Moses"?

 

[FreeGrace]

They "knew" God, past tense. As Paul shows they distressed into ungodly and unrighteous behavior, until God gave them to there lusts.

Everyone is free to understand the passage any way they want to. But my explanation is logical, reasonable and rational. There is nothing in the passage to assume that those in ch 1 had been believers. In fact, v.19-20 should be clear enough evidence that they weren't.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, how about this version:

1. FreeGrace declares that Mr. X killed his (Mr. X's) wife;
2. FreeGrace supports this by pointing out that the fingerprints of Mr. X are all over the murder weapon;
3. Drew de that Mr. X is innocent;
4. Drew provides video footage of Mr X in a mall at the time his wife was killed.

.....and now here is the problem:

5. FreeGrace does not try to show that there is a problem with the video evidence. Instead, FreeGrace simply claims that the evidence of the fingerprints is enough to make the case.

Do you see the problem?

Yes, I see a problem here. And I see it all the time in his doctrine. All it takes is one piece of more detailed information to make what one is sure a scripture means now false. When two pieces of information can't be true at the same time you have to look at which one can't possibly be true in the way it is being understood when the other one is true. Example:

1. 'All of God's gifts and calling are irrevocable' (the understanding of Romans 11:29 being argued)

2. 'Jesus said forgiveness can and will be rescinded in the kingdom' (Matthew 18:23-35)

Obviously, #2 can't be true if #1 includes the free gift the forgiveness. But that doesn't make #1 wrong. It means #1 simply does not include the gift of forgiveness. This is just simple, rational logic.

But if we try to make #1 true in that it does include forgiveness truth #2 can now no longer be true, which is impossible. Therefore, it's impossible that #1 includes the free gift of forgiveness.

Just plain, simple logic. And folding one's arms in resistance and saying, 'no, you're wrong', isn't going to change that logic.

 

[stovebolts]

I don't have to show it. You readily admit that what justifies is obedient faith that trusts God. You have said it many times. What you won't admit is that the sentence "By faith Abraham obeyed..." is an example of obedient faith.

I think this is key..
By faith, Abraham obeyed. Faith in what?
If we recall, in Genesis 15, we see a covenant where God himself takes full responsibility and offers this gift to Abram.
Genesis 15:18 In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Again, God says to Abram,
Genesis 17:2-9 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.

And Abraham believed these things. And because he believed these things, he acted in accordance looking forward to the promise. His obedience wasn't driven out of fear, but out of hope. Hope is a great motivator, because it moves you forward. Hope does not bind or restrict you. It releases you.

Can one loose his salvation? We can even ask, "Can one loose his hope".

But wasn't it God alone who made the promise?
Genesis 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces.

And does God loose his hope?
Genesis 17:2-9 And I will make my covenant...

 

[stovebolts]

This is a good point. The author of Hebrews seems to be saying that once a justified person "falls away", he can never be forgiven or re-justified. By the same token, there is no doubt that Abraham was justified (by obedient, trusting faith in God) twice. So, to resolve this seeming contradiction you choose to minimize Abraham's faith in Gen. 12 to keep your "justification is a one time event" theology. These two are easily reconciled by simply realizing that the person who can't be renewed "again to repentance" is an apostate, a person who falls away from the faith. Abraham wasn't, so can lose his justification through lack of faith or doubt or sin or whatever, as long as it doesn't rise to the level of "fall[ing] away (from the true faith): from worship of Jehovah" (parapíptō). Hebrews doesn't say "...and then have sinned" or "...and then have lost faith", it uses the word "parapíptō", which has a specific meaning. Curiously, it's only used this on time in the entire NT. I think (I could be wrong) that might be why some versions translate it "apostatize", maybe because it assumes a total rejection of "the true faith"?

Yes, I believe you are on to something here.
Genesis 12:1-3 Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make they name great; and be thou a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Isn't it amazing? God tells Abram what he is going to do, and Abram packs his bags and his family and leaves. When the famine hit, he takes it upon himself to leave the land and go to Egypt. In essence, you could say that Abram lost his hope in the promise which prompts him to leave the land.

In the same way, the promise was through Isaac. Yet again, Abraham takes it upon himself, and through Hagar, the muslim faith is born.
Yet God's hope isn't diminished. Isaac is produced and through Judah, came our Savior.

I'm starting to think there's a bigger narrative going on here ;-)

 

[JLB]

Everyone is free to understand the passage any way they want to. But my explanation is logical, reasonable and rational. There is nothing in the passage to assume that those in ch 1 had been believers. In fact, v.19-20 should be clear enough evidence that they weren't.

Your explanation seems to disregard the fact that those whom Paul is describing in Romans 1, "knew God"
at one time, retained the knowledge of God, and turned to idolatry...




JLB

 

[dadof10]

Abraham's circumcision is exactly that--obedience prompted by faith in what was said, but which does not justify (Galatians 5:6 NASB)

This is not the same as the obedient, trusting faith showed by Abraham in Gen. 12 for two reasons.

First, Paul specifically tells us that it's not. That should be enough. But there is another reason. Abraham didn't show trusting faith when God gave him the covenant and told him again that he would have a son by Sarah.

And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her. ”Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” (Gen. 17:15-17 ESV)

He didn't trust in God like he had when he "believed God..." in Gen. 15:6. Not only did he laugh and doubt, but he doubled down on his distrust by telling God what to do.

And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” (V. 18 ESV)

While establishing the covenant of circumcision, God told Abraham again that he would be "father of many nations" and that he would have a son by Sarah, in just like in Gen. 15, where he believed. Abraham doubted this time (possibly because it took so long), right in the middle of the establishment of the covenant. He did not have the trusting faith that he had in Gen. 12 and Gen. 15. Abraham is a story of a person who has superhuman faith and trust sometimes (like when he was asked to sacrifice Isaac), yet has doubt and loses faith at other times. It is truly a story of the process of justification.

This is not the same obedient, trusting faith he showed in Gen. 12, Gen. 15 and Gen. 22, when he offered Isaac. Certainly, he obeyed and actually performed the "work" of circumcision, but it didn't justify him because he lacked the trusting faith that goes along with the actions. The trusting faith that is present in Gen. 12.

And so you have assumed wrong.
The evidence of justifying faith is not categorically and without exception going to church, scoping out a homeland, getting circumcised, etc. The New Testament explains that the obedience of 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Leviticus 19:18 NASB), specifically, is the signifying mark of the faith that justifies: "faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6 NASB)

I agree.

I think we've been introducing confusion into our discussion by not being careful to note that dead faith is not defined by whether or not it is justifying faith (I should have caught this earlier). Abraham's circumcision is an example of faith that is not dead, yet can not justify, illustrating that dead faith is not defined by whether it can justify or not. So let's put that premise to death right now and start distinguishing between the faith that is alive and can justify, and faith that is alive but can NOT justify.

Ok, but I still don't know why you think Gen. 12 is an example of this kind of faith. It seems to meet all your criteria for a true, saving faith.

I did that already.
Abraham's faithful obedience to be circumcised demonstrates how "a person can have an obedient, trusting faith that garners God's approval, yet doesn't justify" (dadof10).

As I showed above, Abraham didn't have a "trusting faith" and he doubted God could fulfill His promise in Gen. 17. Could this be why God "tested Abraham" by telling him to sacrifice Isaac? He doubted, God delivered anyway, and now God was "testing" Abraham to see if NOW he would trust. Would he kill his son, trusting that God would give him another? This is why James says that Abraham was justified "when he offered his son, Isaac". He showed by his actions a trusting faith, capable of justification. He trusted God again, instead of doubting like when the covenant was established.

 

[smaller]

I'm pretty sure that Abraham "heard" God Himself, engaging and speaking, directly to him.

Who of us wouldn't hear or obey? I'd suggest anyone and everyone would not only respond, but obey.

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The majority of us today read/hear these things retrospectively and try to figure out what was going on. And hence a multitude of endless divisions spring up.

Personally I might find little, if any benefit involved with a Savior who can not save. And is instead viewed as a potential eternal torturer of those who claim to have faith in same. Faith works through love. Gal. 5:6. And perfect love casts out fear.

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.
The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

No one is going to escape the conclusion of being a sinner.

Every person who believes that salvation can be lost abides in fear. They do not believe that God in Christ is capable of directing them or being their genuine Savior. And instead, put salvation in their own hands. No wonder why such fear.

 

[dadof10]

Yes, his faith is 'dead' in Genesis 15:6, because by pure definition "faith if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (James 2:17 NASB italics in original). And we know his work that came later in Genesis 22, and which made his faith 'alive', did not make his faith in Genesis 15:6 a justifying faith because it plainly says his faith there in Genesis 15:6 was a justifying faith.



If dead faith by definition is 'faith without works', as it surely is (James 2:17 NASB), then, yes, before Abraham's faith came to completion (that is, was fulfilled) it was dead, not having works.

I know that's probably a scary thing to say, but it's only scary because we've been conditioned to automatically think that dead faith is categorically and without exception, all of the time, a false faith. But that's simply not true. Dead faith is simply faith that hasn't acted. Whether or not the faith is genuine determines if it really can, or will act or not. James calls it 'useless' faith (James 2:16,20 NASB). In the example he gives, it's no use to the brother or sister in need (James 2:16 NASB). That hardly means it can't be genuine. It means it's no use for anything, even salvation (I didn't say justification) until it finds fulfillment in some kind of manifest obedience to validate it as genuine.



Work proves the existence of faith. The work produced can determine whether the faith that produced it is a justifying faith or not. For example, love exposes justifying faith in a person, while simply going to church, or getting circumcised, or giving money to the church does not--but it doesn't mean those things can't ever be motivated by a genuine justifying faith in Christ. In Abraham's example, by the nature of what it meant to put Isaac on the altar, believing he would die yet live again, that work did expose his faith as the faith that justifies. This in no way defeats the truth that faith is dead until it does something. Even Abraham's faith was dead, being useless to show him as having the righteousness that comes by faith, until it did something commensurate with what it believed when the opportunity arose.



No question about it. If someone's faith can't produce a change of nature, that faith can not save that person on the Day of Wrath because it can't produce the expected obedience by which God measures justifying faith. It was either never the faith that justifies to begin with, or, the faith that justifies ceased somewhere along the line. That 'faith' is useless. It can not save a person. It can't justify the person who has it, nor can it produce the required works that validate it as able to justify. And it sure doesn't help the people around us live better lives.



It's really quite simple: Faith does the justifying--the making righteous--all by itself, apart from what it does. And we know that faith is able to justify by what it does. What it does is what God will use on the Day of Judgment to determine if you do indeed have the righteousness of Christ and, therefore, eligible to enter the kingdom, because that is how justifying faith (the faith that makes you righteous in God's sight) is recognized and identified. It's that "faith working through love" being the only thing that means anything toward justification thing that Paul talks about (Galatians 5:6 NASB).



Yes. That is true. Faith that doesn't justify is dead faith because by what it means to be justified (made righteous) it can't produce the work of the new nature. The problem with what you're saying is, we can't turn 'faith that doesn't justify is dead faith' around and say 'faith that is dead doesn't justify'. We know that can't possibly be true because Abraham's faith was dead (being without works) when he had it in Genesis 15:6 NASB. ALL faith starts out that way. What is important is that it not remain dead (absent of work) so that faith can then save us.


You are making the erroneous inference that work completed points back and makes the faith that produced it now able to justify. And I think you're doing that because you and a lot of other people, me included, have erroneously defined 'dead' faith as the faith that can not justify. But actually James' definition of 'dead faith' is 'faith that has not acted' and is, therefore, useless in actually accomplishing something. That doesn't mean it can't, or never will act, accomplishing something. And it doesn't mean it's not a justifying faith. We know that because Abraham did not 'complete' his justifying faith in Genesis 15:6 until much later when he sacrificed Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22:9-10, yet his then 'dead' faith in Genesis 15 justified him, nonetheless.

Ok, that's pretty thorough. I see what you mean by "dead faith" now, and I agree with a lot of this. You have to realize, though that not everyone shares your definition of "dead faith", so it's still a matter of interpretation. For instance, how can Abraham's faith be "dead" when Paul says that the faith he had in Gen. 15:6 was "credited to him as righteousness"? Doesn't that assume either, that the faith he had at the time, without "works" attached, was a faith that justified and therefore is not "dead", or that a "dead faith" (as opposed to "false faith") can and did justify, before "works" were attached? You seem to be saying Abraham had "dead faith" in Gen 15 then the faith was "made alive" by works and able to justify in Gen. 22. In this, you seem to be in agreement with how an old member here, francisdesales put it. He said faith is faith, there are no "kinds" of faith, only alive faith or dead faith. "Faith working in love" or faith that disobeys, and so does not work. I agree with him, and you, if this is what you are saying.

 

[JLB]

Yes. Your "new and improved" version isn't what I've done at all. If the video evidence is bogus, that is up to experts to determine.

The problem you have is the "evidence" is scripture and not some "bogus" evidence.

Again you disregard the scriptural evidence that teaches us the full counsel of God.


JLB

 

[smaller]

The baseline behind the "you can lose your salvation" crowd is this:

Can we make ourselves good enough to be accepted by God in Christ?

My answer to that is a resounding no!

2 Cor. 10
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

Anytime "measures" are put forth to commend ourselves, the inevitable result is works muscle flexing and comparisons.

There is equal ground for all flesh at the cross, that being dead in the flesh. I might observe that the Apostles were particularly self deprecating, precisely for this reason. I doubt very much that God is going to be spending any time listening to anyone blow about how good they were.

Galatians 2:
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Galatians 6:
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.

From the stature of nothing, it is quite easy to see our need of a Savior, and where the capabilities really are and "with Whom" capabilities reside. Certainly not with ourselves. Does any believer claim to do a work, any work, apart from Christ? Who then is really being weighed in such quotients? You or Christ? Is there some kind of division there? I'd say that is pretty much impossible, for any believe to say "they" of themselves, did anything of themselves, if Christ is in them and with them.

 

[dadof10]

Great! I'm not much for penance anyway.


People really believe there is such a thing as a disobedient faith? Wow

Yeah, a lot of them. Fundamentalists who believe in "faith alone". If pressed, they will admit that even if they die committing a heinous sin, they will go directly to Heaven because they "accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" once in their lives. This is the definition of "disobedient faith that saves".

 

[dadof10]

I think this is key..
By faith, Abraham obeyed. Faith in what?
If we recall, in Genesis 15, we see a covenant where God himself takes full responsibility and offers this gift to Abram.
Genesis 15:18 In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Again, God says to Abram,
Genesis 17:2-9 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.

And Abraham believed these things. And because he believed these things, he acted in accordance looking forward to the promise. His obedience wasn't driven out of fear, but out of hope. Hope is a great motivator, because it moves you forward. Hope does not bind or restrict you. It releases you.

Well put. I would disagree that he had a trusting faith in Gen. 17, when the covenant was given. See my post above to Jethro. Would you agree that he had faith and hope in Gen. 12?

Can one loose his salvation? We can even ask, "Can one loose his hope".

But wasn't it God alone who made the promise?
Genesis 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces.

And does God loose his hope?
Genesis 17:2-9 And I will make my covenant...

If Abraham was justified in Gen. 12, then again in Gen. 15, that assumes he somehow lost that justification and had to be re-justified. My contention is that justification is a lifelong process and by disobedience we can lose it.

 

[smaller]

Yeah, a lot of them. Fundamentalists who believe in "faith alone". If pressed, they will admit that even if they die committing a heinous sin, they will go directly to Heaven because they "accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" once in their lives. This is the definition of "disobedient faith that saves".

Everyone dies as "a sinner," present tense.

Some sects however teach that it's only the external action of sin that is sin. Jesus did not say that. Evil thoughts defile everyone, and yes, everyone has them. But few care to observe this is what makes us sinners. Paul was exceptionally clear that through the law against lust, every manner of concupiscence transpired "within" him, and thusly, he was proven a sinner. Romans 7:7-13, Romans 7:17-21. Some prefer to 'act' good on the outside and neglect that sin is an internal matter of evil thoughts that do defile us, regardless of any external actions.

Romans 7:21, Matt. 15:18-20, Mark 7:21-23, Matt. 5:28

 

[WIP]

Every person who believes that salvation can be lost abides in fear. They do not believe that God in Christ is capable of directing them or being their genuine Savior. And instead, put salvation in their own hands. No wonder why such fear.

The baseline behind the "you can lose your salvation" crowd is this:

Can we make ourselves good enough to be accepted by God in Christ?

My answer to that is a resounding no!

I don't intend to get into this debate but I must say that your understanding of the non-OSAS position is not accurate. I haven't seen anyone make any statement even remotely close to either of these.

 

[dadof10]

Yes, I believe you are on to something here.
Genesis 12:1-3 Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make they name great; and be thou a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Isn't it amazing? God tells Abram what he is going to do, and Abram packs his bags and his family and leaves. When the famine hit, he takes it upon himself to leave the land and go to Egypt. In essence, you could say that Abram lost his hope in the promise which prompts him to leave the land.

In the same way, the promise was through Isaac. Yet again, Abraham takes it upon himself, and through Hagar, the muslim faith is born.
Yet God's hope isn't diminished. Isaac is produced and through Judah, came our Savior.

I'm starting to think there's a bigger narrative going on here ;-)

LOL...Me too. I think the same kind of thing happened in Gen. 17. If Abraham had his way, he would have given up on having a son through Sarah and the covenant would have been carried forward with Ishmael. Even though Abraham doubted, and possibly lost his justification, God delivered. Abraham's is a story of how justification is a process, not a one time event. We fall, lose it, then repent and obey, thereby being justified again.

 

[smaller]

I don't intend to get into this debate but I must say that your understanding of the non-OSAS position is not accurate. I haven't seen anyone make any statement even remotely close to either of these.

That's pretty much exactly what it is. Making ourselves good enough, or not. The you can lose your salvation crowd all have "or not" clearly on the table based on works.

My observation is that no amounts of works makes us non-sinners, regardless. It's only a pity that we seek to "cover up" this fact of being and remaining sinners by works. There are good works, all done by sinners. Romans 7:21 was a fact for Paul, and thusly a fact for all of us. Do sinners do good works? Yeah. Did it make them sinless or non-sinners? Uh, no. That doesn't happen. There is a notion in the "you can lose your salvation" crowd that things good and evil will be trotted out and placed in some kind of heavenly scale, wherein they are weighed and deemed worthy or not based solely on their individual merits. I say such individuality doesn't even exist, if Christ is within the believer.

To me that will remain a futile sight, since all have both good and evil in their conscience and in their works. And Christ is "supposedly" in us and with us. So where is the individuality? There is none.

 

[dadof10]

I'm pretty sure that Abraham "heard" God Himself, engaging and speaking, directly to him.

Who of us wouldn't hear or obey? I'd suggest anyone and everyone would not only respond, but obey.

He did obey, but he didn't trust that God could do what He said.

And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her. ”Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” (Gen. 17:15-18 ESV)

There is a difference between obedience and faithful obedience.

 

[smaller]

He did obey, but he didn't trust that God could do what He said.

And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her. ”Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” (Gen. 17:15-18 ESV)

There is a difference between obedience and faithful obedience.

I can't take any christian theological view seriously that tries to make Abraham a stand alone fellow.

Genesis 26:24
And the Lord appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.

The "essence" of having A Savior is having God in Christ "with us" and "within" us.

So, my question is, who is being judged? For such, by faith in Christ, Christ is in them and with them. There is no individual standing.

 

[stovebolts]

LOL...Me too. I think the same kind of thing happened in Gen. 17. If Abraham had his way, he would have given up on having a son through Sarah and the covenant would have been carried forward with Ishmael. Even though Abraham doubted, and possibly lost his justification, God delivered. Abraham's is a story of how justification is a process, not a one time event. We fall, lose it, then repent and obey, thereby being justified again.

I don't know that the covenant would have been carried forward with Ishmael. Perhaps it was the idea of Abram and Sari, but certainly not God. After all, it was God who made the covenant and Abram was simply an observer and recipient of the covenant as he did not participate in the covenant as was tradition for their culture.

Ishmael was the result of Abram taking matters into his own hands, which was also customary or his culture since Sari was barren. Sex with someone not your wife is not natural in the order of the creation of man and woman, nor is it natural for a woman to give her man to another woman. Thus, this was the attempt of Sari and Abram to pass on Abram's seed, and fulfill God's plan. In short, this may be considered a work, for it did not come naturally, but rather out of duress, obligation and the idea one is doing God's will to make the promise come about into a tangible reality.

However, it does do as did their first journey to Egpt, for we are strengthened through our failures. One may even describe this as the act of sanctification.

But as it is natural for a man and woman to lay together and the result is a child, so was it for Abram to believe in God's promise. Thus, the justification which occurred with Abram was a natural response, and not one out of duress or cohersion. Otherwise, similar to having sex with Hagar, it would simply be a work without true relationship. The motive may be right, but the means is slightly off. And when we discover our errors, we are sanctified... because we've already been justified, which is to say, we still believe, even when we don't understand how it will all play itself out.