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

[FreeGrace]

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

Salvation nor eternal life are mentioned in Romans 11:29.

Because Paul already defined them as God's gifts back in 3:24, 5:15,16,17, and 6:23.

Just a few verse's back Paul warns of being broken off through unbelief.

And there is no mention of gifts there.

Jesus clearly states that those branches in Him can indeed be cast out, and burned in the fire.

He used an agricultural metaphor and used in the sense of service. God will cast off those who are of no service to Him. That was a huge shock to Jews, who because they were chosen, thought they were better than everyone else and that God would never cast them off.

Pretty much just completely trashes OSAS, in one clear irrefutable sentence spoken by Jesus Christ Himself.

In Christ, then removed from Christ!

Not even close. Because Paul was clear about eternal life being an irrevocable gift.

Since eternal life (A) is (equals) a gift of God (B),
and,
the gifts of God (B) are irrevocable {C},
then,
A = C,
or eternal life is irrevocable.

The logic is solid and undebatable.

Your defense has no evidence to back it up.

 

[FreeGrace]

LOL.

You taken several scriptures and tried to put them all together to come up with your man made doctrine, like Frankenstein.

Please explain how an opinion creates fact.

One verse of scripture from Jesus puts the matter to rest.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6

The people were "in Christ", then they were "cast out".

Case Closed.JLB

Amazing that one who claims Christ as Savior would even attempt to pit Scripture against Scripture.

Because Rom 11:29 refutes the idea that one can lose salvation.

 

[FreeGrace]

Rom 5:2 is not a man made fallacy...."By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

Are you ASSUMING one can lose his faith yet still maintain access to God's grace?

No, of course not. But losing access to God's grace does not equate to loss of salvation. Being out of the sphere of God's grace is where disobedient believers are. They lose out on His blessings, etc. They lose the joy of their salvation.

It is the GROUP called "CHRISTIAN" that is sealed unto the day of redemption. No individual is unconditionally sealed apart from the GROUP. So as long as one CONDITIONALLY remains in the GROUP he will remain sealed but if he falls from the GROUP he no longer is sealed.

I don't find anything in Scripture that teaches about "one conditionally remaining in the group". What passage does that?

The prodigal is an example of one becoming lost but then alive again. Why would the prodigal need to be made alive AGAIN if it were not possible for him to lose spiritual life to begin with?

This parable isn't about loss and gaining of salvation, as popularly taught. It's about fellowship with the father. When the son left, there was NO fellowship. That's what "dead" refers to in that parable. And when he returned, fellowship was restored again, which is what "alive" refers to.

Keep in mind that the son was ALWAYS a son. That never changed, even though he was willing to be a 'hired hand', but the father didn't even let him ask for that.

It's not about the Christian becoming "unborn" but about the Christian spiritually dying.

I haven't found any verses that teach that a person with ETERNAL life can spiritually die. Wouldn't that contradict the very meaning of ETERNAL?

The idea of one becoming "unborn" is not natural or logical but it is natural, logical in thinking of one going from being born (spiritually) to dying (spiritually).

Good luck trying to explain how ETERNAL life can die. Apparently it isn't really eternal then, huh.

What you call "unborn" I call spiritually dying.

I don't use the word "unborn", since it is IMPOSSIBLE to become unborn. One who exists HAS BEEN BORN, whether physically or spiritually. And with spiritual birth comes the gift of ETERNAL life, which CANNOT die.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This would mean righteousness (justification) was imputed to Abraham when he believed in Gen. 17 (during the covenant of circumcision) also, bolstering my case that justification is a process. It would be possible to say that the obedient faith that Abraham shows in Gen. 17 did, indeed justify him, but the action of circumcision did not. That way Paul does not contradict himself here. Is this how you see it?

I don't see it like that at all because Paul plainly said in Romans 4:11 that Abraham already had the righteousness of faith when he got circumcised in Genesis 17:24. But we already knew that. Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 several verses earlier to establish that truth (Romans 4:3). So, again, he is not being re-justified here--he's already been justified. Paul makes this exact point. He does not say Abraham was re-justified. He makes MY argument, that he is already justified, and that his obedience is simply the sign of that righteousness, not an obedience of his faith that re-justifies him:

"For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised" (Romans 4:9-11 NASB capitals in original)

 

[FreeGrace]

When the jailer asked what must I do Paul did not tell him "do no works lest you try to earn your salvation" but instead gave him the work of believing to do (as Jesus calls believing a work in Jn 6:27-29). Again, coming away from that context claiming the jailer believed only is simply ignoring the context where it says was baptized.

I believe that Jesus was speaking "tongue-in-cheek" there. He was speaking to Jews who believed that one must work for heaven. When one compares this with Rom 4:4, it should be obvious that Paul contrasted works, which creates a debt owed with faith, which doesn't. iow, faith is non-meritorious. God grants salvation on the condition of believing in Christ. But that faith in Christ doesn't create a debt owed by God to the believer. He gifts salvation on the basis of grace, not works.

Because of what Paul wrote, and the many verses on salvation based on faith in Christ, there is no other way to understand John 6:27-29 that Jesus was speaking tongue-in-cheek. If He wasn't, then Scripture contains contradictions. And I reject that notion.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think this is incorrect reasoning. A lot of other posters have provided a range of texts that show that one can indeed fall away.

I am fully aware of such texts. But the ASSUMPTION that falling away refers to loss of salvation is in error. To fall away means to leave the faith. To live outside the parameters of how Christians should live. To no longer believe, as Jesus clearly noted in Luke 8:13. But with all the clear verses and passages on eternal security, there is no reason to ASSUME that falling away refers to salvation.

You seem to believe that you can "define" those texts away by arguing that salvation is a gift and the Bible never says a gift can be tossed aside.

That is a very powerful argument.

Well, by the very meaning of the concept of "irrevocable gift" you are only entitled to assume that such a gift will never be taken back. But the concept does not allow you to conclude that the gift cannot be discarded by the recipient.

This has been thoroughly explained. Your view is nothing more than an assumption, without any evidence. Those who debate would never argue from a position of lack of evidence. That is FATAL to their argument. Effective debate demands that the debater has evidence.

In fact, it is likely precisely because the "irrevocability" of a gift does indeed allow the recipient to discard it that the writers of scripture don't need to say it - it is true by virtue of the meaning of the concept.

Your argument is defeated by your total lack of evidence from Scripture. Assumption does not create truth.

I will try to think of an analogy and post it tomorrow.

Looking forward to it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This would mean righteousness (justification) was imputed to Abraham when he believed in Gen. 17 (during the covenant of circumcision) also, bolstering my case that justification is a process. It would be possible to say that the obedient faith that Abraham shows in Gen. 17 did, indeed justify him, but the action of circumcision did not. That way Paul does not contradict himself here. Is this how you see it?

I don't see it like that at all because Paul plainly said in Romans 4:11 that Abraham already had the righteousness of faith when he got circumcised in Genesis 17:24. Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 several verses earlier in Romans 4:3 to establish that truth.

So, he is not being re-justified here in Genesis 17:24--he's already been justified. His obedience is only a sign of the righteousness he got back in Genesis 15:6. Paul makes this exact point. He does not say Abraham was re-justified. He makes MY argument, that he is already justified, back in Genesis 15:6 (not Genesis 12:6) and that his obedience is simply the sign of that righteousness, not another instance of faith that re-justifies him:

"3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
9 For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised" (Romans 4:3,9-11 NASB capitals in original)

See? No process of justification. Just the outward showing of the one-time justification he already had and which Paul says he got in Genesis 15:6, not Genesis 12:4.

 

[FreeGrace]

I see you added words, but if that is quoting from the scripture then you should show what version you are using by doing like I do and typing (NIV) or whatever translation you want, after the verse. The verse you show and the words your type do NOT agree.

I quote from the NASB most of the time. I don't know what is meant by the verses I show and the words I types not agreeing. How so?

Well if you would have answered I would have shown you how they relate. Now all you've done is avoided answering. The POINT is Paul indicated different gifts, and HOW they are different. Why avoid the questions?

Since I see no relevance in such questions, I see no reason why I should answer them. How would different gifts have anything to do with the possibility of loss of salvation? If that can be explained, then I'll answer.

The issue seems to be about you wanting to stick to a certain vernacular to prove some point you are not proving? You may think your posts are cohesive, but my questions show they are not, and you can answer or not, but NOT, will show you can't support your assertions. The issue is not what the Bible says in regards to the word "irrevocable", it is what does the word have to do with how you use it?
In the Greek, ἀμεταμέλητος (ametamelētos) connotes "not to be repented of", which implies two things in English. Irrevocable and enduring. The English word irrevocable has more than one connotation; not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final. IMO, it is therefore necessary that we focus on the intent of the Greek and not add connotations to the word used. Given this scenario and how it is rendered in the Greek, what does it mean to you? Do you not think people can change theirs minds after they make a decision?

Seems to me you've just made my point.

Now, per the last sentence/question, yes, people DO change their minds after believing in Christ for salvation. Jesus clearly made that point in Luke 8:13 with the second soil.

But, to equate loss of faith with loss of salvation is in error because the Bible never equates the 2. Given all the warning passages, why didn't any of the authors clearly state that loss of salvation was the issue? They certainly had a great opportunity to do so. Yet, none of the warning passages mention salvation as what can be lost. It's just an assumption that many make when they cite these passages.

Have you considered all the passages that have been used to prove eternal security? Or have you dismissed them?

 

[FreeGrace]

So you don't believe in a triune God, or His Omni attributes?

This question was uncalled for. Of course I do, because the Bible describes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all as God. That's clear evidence of the Trinity. And all of His omni attributes are described in Scripture, again, evidence of them. Your question is stunning, to say the least.

[QUTOE] Do you believe we go to heaven when we die, and why if you do seeing as the Bible doesn't teach that either?[/QUOTE]
Another stunning question. Of course the Bible teaches that believers go to heaven after death. David noted that though his 7 day old son would not come back to him, he would be going to him, meaning that when David would die, he would be where his son went.

And Paul said this: "absent from the body (death) face to face with the Lord". How can that not be a reference to going to heaven?

 

[FreeGrace]

When I read Romans 11:29 in context, it seems clear to me it is about God's gifts to, and calling of, the Jewish people/faith as being a permanent part of God's plan, though somehow distinct from Christianity.

Please show from anywhere in ch 11 where Paul defined any of this as a gift of God then. Otherwise, we have to go to where he actually DID define what he meant by gifts of God.

 

[dadof10]

No, because dogma is NOT something properly exegeted, as the word itself connotes.

Which is why I put quotation marks around it. My authority is a Church, yours is "Scripture", which breaks down to your personal interpretation of Scripture, or "properly exegeted scripture". "Properly" is a subjective term, hence my comment. The Church "properly" engages in exegesis also. So when there is a discrepancy in doctrine, who is right and why?

TRUTH is absolute, just as God and Jesus are.

Right, but it's how this Truth is transmitted to the faithful that's the issue here. I think it's through an authoritative, Holy Spirit guided Church, who's mission includes interpreting and teaching "properly exegeted" Scripture. You think it's ONLY through Holy Spirit written Scripture, which needs personal interpretation.

I'm not sure what you refer to here as I was dealing with grammatical rules of theology, wasn't I?

I don't know. You tell me

 

[FreeGrace]

Do believers have to continue to believe as they go through life?

They are supposed to if they want His blessings because that is what He promises. Jesus noted some who ceased to believe, so it is certainly possible. Lu 8:13

Does it matter to their salvation if they do not live their lives "in obedience"?

Nope. But it matter a great deal about eternity. Such believers will LOSE OUT on all eternal blessings and reward. And those who believe in loss of salvation generally dismiss this as immaterial. Which it is not.

 

[Drew]

This has been thoroughly explained. Your view is nothing more than an assumption, without any evidence. Those who debate would never argue from a position of lack of evidence. That is FATAL to their argument. Effective debate demands that the debater has evidence.

I do not believe you have countered my argument. Here it is in painful detail. You tell me where the error in reasoning is:

1. I will, for the sake of this argument, concede that "salviation" is an irrevocable gift.
2. The word "irrevocable" describes the characteristic that the giver cannot "take the thing back". However the recipient can still discard the gift;
3. Therefore, one cannot conclude that salvation cannot be discarded by the recipient just because it is irrevocable.

Please tell me where the error in this argument lies.

You keep insisting that I prove from the Bible that the gift of salvation can be discarded. Well, that is not a legitimate request precisely because it is in the very nature of the concept of "irrevocable gift", at least as that concept works in English, that the gift can be discarded.

Asking me to "prove" from the Bible that salvation as an irrevocable gift cannot be discarded is like asking me to prove, in a context of a news report saying "everyone on the plane died in the crash", that the pilot was killed. Well to say everyone was killed means that the pilot, too, was killed. Back to the issue of salvation:

1. Irrevocable gifts, by the very definition of this concept, can be discarded;
2. Salvation is an irrevocable gift;
3. Therefore, since "salvation" has the properties of an irrevocable gift, it can be discarded, just like any irrevocable gift.

 

[smaller]

I do not believe you have countered my argument. Here it is in painful detail. You tell me where the error in reasoning is:

1. I will, for the sake of this argument, concede that "salviation" is an irrevocable gift.
2. The word "irrevocable" describes the characteristic that the giver cannot "take the thing back". However the recipient can still discard the gift;
3. Therefore, one cannot conclude that salvation cannot be discarded by the recipient just because it is irrevocable.

Please tell me where the error in this argument lies.

You keep insisting that I prove from the Bible that the gift of salvation can be discarded. Well, that is not a legitimate request precisely because it is in the very nature of the concept of "irrevocable gift", at least as that concept works in English, that the gift can be discarded.

Asking me to "prove" from the Bible that salvation as an irrevocable gift cannot be discarded is like asking me to prove, in a context of a news report saying "everyone on the plane died in the crash", that the pilot was killed. Well to say everyone was killed means that the pilot, too, was killed. Back to the issue of salvation:

1. Irrevocable gifts, by the very definition of this concept, can be discarded;
2. Salvation is an irrevocable gift;
3. Therefore, since "salvation" has the properties of an irrevocable gift, it can be discarded, just like any irrevocable gift.

Unlikely. Paul addresses that here:

2 Timothy 2:13
If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

If Jesus has promised to never leave us, which He has, He remains faithful to His Own Promise, even if we don't. If Jesus has promised that we will not come into condemnation, then that's the way it will be. If Jesus has promised to save all that have heard and believed, then that He will do, even if any believer is over ran by the enemy of our souls, and blinded again, in mind, by Satan.

It will always be problematic for anyone who believes they can be lost on the basis of sin because exactly zero of the proponents of "loss of salvation" ever made themselves sinless anyway. Unbelief is also a sin. Was that sin taken at the cross by Jesus? Yes, just as all sins were.

If any of you want to destroy believers on the basis of sins, you also condemn yourselves in the process. That is the sight of an unbeliever. Yet Jesus will save you anyway, on the basis of simple faith, once encountered, and Him, entering your own heart. It will be impossible for Jesus to lose a single person who has called on Him in faith because it is not about the person, but Him, within them.

 

[JLB]

Please explain how an opinion creates fact.


Amazing that one who claims Christ as Savior would even attempt to pit Scripture against Scripture.

Because Rom 11:29 refutes the idea that one can lose salvation.

Here is the foundational truth that any and all doctrine is to built built upon... The words of Jesus Christ.


Paul would never teach anything that would contradict any words of Jesus Christ.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
John 15:6


Just like the words of Jesus Christ, that were taught from the parable of the Sower, that you try to contradict, with OSAS.


12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:12-13

These were saved for a while, and then they departed from Christ... Just like the branches that were in Him, then were a part from Him.

Furthermore, Jethro showed you clearly the words of Jesus Christ, from His teaching about the King and His servants.


32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me.
33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?'
34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."
Matthew 18:32-35

So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."

Jesus teaches us that if we could in fact lose the forgiveness that we were freely given, if we don't forgive.

Forgiveness was granted to us, but forgiveness can be taken back, if we ourselves don't forgive.


Anything that contradicts these foundational truths, in the other scriptures, are being misunderstood by the one who has not first learned from the words of Jesus Christ, and firmly laid a sure foundation in their life.

as He said -

22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:
25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26 But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:
27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."
Matthew 7:22-27


JLB

 

[JLB]

Amazing that one who claims Christ as Savior would even attempt to pit Scripture against Scripture.

Because Rom 11:29 refutes the idea that one can lose salvation.

Your argument is defeated by your total lack of evidence from Scripture. Assumption does not create truth.

 

[Drew]

Yes, but God never promised or made eternal security a gift, therefore eternal security is not a promise/gift that can be revoked since eternal security was never made a promise/gift.

I agree,but I suspect you are aware of how FreeGrace is arguing this. I think his argument runs like this:

1. We have Bible texts that characterize salvation as a gift;
2. We have Bible texts that declare that we are "saved" at the point of belief;
3. Romans 11:29 declares that God's gifts are irrevocable;
4. Therefore, once you believe, your salvation is guaranteed.

As you know, I believe this is mistaken and I think there are texts like Romans 2:6-7 and Romans 8:12-13 that show that salvation depends on how we actually behave. And I know you believe this, too.

However, I think that FreeGrace could still make this 4 point argument above work; even though I have been arguing that an "irrevocable gift" can be discarded by the recipient, I suspect that one could at least argue that, in the case of salvation, this is not really possible.

Bottom line: I am highly suspicious of the general character of the 4 point argument above - it relies too much on "shuffling definitions around", and I suspect one could "prove" almost anything using this approach. I will try to think of an example that shows how flawed such an "argument from the dictionary definition of words" approach is.

 

[Kidron]

Furthermore, we see it was through the obedience of faith that Noah and his household were saved.

7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Hebrews 11:7

JLB

You apparently didnt read the part of the verse that gave the context of Noah's salvation.
"he became heir of the righteousness which is according to FAITH".
FAITH.
FAITH.

NOT building an ark.
it does not say...."became heir of the righteousness which is according to JAMES, or HEBREWS, or WORKS", as you keep trying to rewrite the Gospel.

 

[smaller]

Here is the foundational truth that any and all doctrine is to built built upon... The words of Jesus Christ.

Paul would never teach anything that would contradict any words of Jesus Christ.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
John 15:6

The fact that unbelieving Israel, even though they may have presumably believed in some vague notions of God, have not been abandoned by God in Christ, even in unbelief.

Paul shows this quite explicitly in Romans 11, showing that:

A. Unbelieving Israel was never abandoned.
B. That they were blinded in unbelief on purpose, in our behalves
C. That God can restore them anytime He feels like it
D. That we should be mindful of God's GOODNESS to remain in "good graces"
E. That anyone who doesn't believe in God's GOODNESS will be placed in adversity themselves (vs. 22)

and finally, that even unbelieving Israel, enemies of the Gospel, shall all be saved, showing clearly that God in Christ NEVER abandoned them, but loves them and saves them on account of the fathers. For the uninitiated, that would be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the initial fathers of faith in God. Romans 11:25-32. This echoes Gods Same Word Promise here:

Deuteronomy 4:31
(For the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

IF you believe in God's Grace and Mercy, freely distributed to any of you on accounts of our needs for same, then it would seem important to remain firmly entrenched therein. The God you think you see will be the "god" you serve and are given over to. I'd call this the "amplification" effect that God delivers. To the unmerciful, yes, He will show Himself unmerciful to them.

God has promised that to the unmerciful, HE will prove Himself unmerciful. And obviously many here abide in conditional mercy, heaped on themselves, but not to others. That's commonly called double dealing the subject matter at best, hypocritical at worst.

2 Samuel 22:26
With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright.

Luke 6:36
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Do any of you who promote that a believer, even if a sinner, which we all are, or even those who have fallen victim to Satan in spiritual blindness think you are doing yourselves any favors by being unmerciful?

Uh, no. There is a real observation in play here that such have already been given over themselves to "un-mercifulness." And this is in fact a blinded state of affairs at best, hypocritical at worst.

We can be placed back under the enemy of our souls in this present life, til we learn what it's like to be merciful ourselves. So, say on and potentially damn others. Find out how much MERCY God amplifies to you in that process.

 

[dadof10]

I don't see it like that at all because Paul plainly said in Romans 4:11 that Abraham already had the righteousness of faith when he got circumcised in Genesis 17:24. Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 several verses earlier in Romans 4:3 to establish that truth.

I know you don't see it like that, it would make my whole case. I was trying to sneak one by ya

He already had righteousness before the act of circumcision, which happened in Gen 17:24ff. Isn't it possible that this "imputation of righteousness" could have happened right before circumcision, while God was talking to him? It happened that quickly in Gen. 15, and in the case of Cornelius. You made the point that Rom. 4:19-22 refers to Gen. 17, due to the fact that Paul says "And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb" (4:19 KJV). Both of these facts are given in Gen. 17, not Gen. 15. The problem is, verse 22 says "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness". That means that in Gen. 17 righteousness was imputed to Abraham because of his trusting faith...again. Afterward, he obeyed by circumcising himself and everyone else. We have another example of trusting, obedient faith, the faith that justifies. Where the "Judaizers" got it wrong was thinking that the act of circumcision was what made them righteous, implying that those who weren't circumcised (Gentiles) weren't justified. This is why they called the first council (Acts 15), and what prompted many sections of Paul's letters, including chapter 4. The trusting faith that lead to the circumcision did justify. The act of circumcision, even though it was obedient, didn't.

So, he is not being re-justified here in Genesis 17:24--he's already been justified. His obedience is only a sign of the righteousness he got back in Genesis 15:6. Paul makes this exact point.

Or a "sign of the righteousness" he had back in Gen. 17:1-23 after God had finished talking to him and before he actually performed the act of circumcision. That's the only way Rom. 4:22 makes sense, if it refers to Gen. 17, like you pointed out. And I think you're right. Even before verse 19 we read in verse 18:

Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. (KJV)

There is no mention of Abraham becoming the "father of many nations" in Gen. 15. This was from Gen. 17 also. In fact, Gen. 15 was all about inheriting the land, not about making him a "father of many nations". Gen. 17 was ALL about that, which is why Paul is referencing it in Rom. 4. Both Jew and Gentile are Abraham's heirs by faith, not nationality. That's his point, which was made using Gen. 17.

So, in Rom. 4:18-21, Paul mentions three facts that are found in Gen. 17, not Gen. 15. Abraham's age, Sarah's womb, and "the father of many nations". This definitely refers to Gen.17. I owe StoveBolts an apology. Abraham didn't doubt in Gen. 17 when he laughed. He was right and I was wrong.

He does not say Abraham was re-justified.

But he implies it by saying "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness" referring to Gen. 17.

He makes MY argument, that he is already justified, back in Genesis 15:6 (not Genesis 12:6) and that his obedience is simply the sign of that righteousness, not another instance of faith that re-justifies him:

Or the sign of righteousness he had right before the act of circumcision in Gen. 17. This is certainly plausible. If Rom 4:18-22 refers to Gen. 17 it absolutely proves another instance of Abraham's justification. Verse 22 directly ties "imputation of righteousness" to what Paul was just talking about, Gen. 17.

"3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
9 For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised" (Romans 4:3,9-11 NASB capitals in original)

See? No process of justification. Just the outward showing of the one-time justification he already had and which Paul says he got in Genesis 15:6, not Genesis 12:4.

Yes, he got a "seal of righteousness" in Gen. 15, but then goes on to talk about Gen. 17, where righteousness was imputed to him again. You can't have it both ways, my friend. Either Rom. 4:18-22 refers to Gen. 15 or Gen. 17, which adds another "imputation of righteousness" to Abraham.