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

[Jethro Bodine]

Now that you know what's driving my questions, go back with a new set of eyes to how you replied... and tell me if you would have answered any different.

No different. I'd answer the exact same way (except for the 'theoretical' of course):

I'm not the Judge. The real Judge knows how to dole out this horrible, but just, judgement on former believers in truth and knowledge. I refuse to pass judgment on the theoretical person you presented in your argument. I just know what will happen to him if God judges him/her responsible for their failure of faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Now, if I understand you properly, you in particular have not fallen victim to the "let's sweep Romans 2:6-7 under the rug" movement that clearly some here have adopted. However, the fact (if my view is right, of course; I would never suggest I am above being mistaken) that you have not "stumbled" even though, in my view, you misunderstand the nature of Paul's critique of "justification by works", this doesn't mean that others have not stumbled. And it's an important issue - I have encountered believers who clearly believe that once they have their "ticket to heaven", they can go on living as they did before.

And I suggest we both agree that this a huge problem.

It is a problem. They are deceived. They think grace is a license to sin in that grace allows them to be unrighteous and justified/saved at the same time, not knowing that their willful unrighteous lifestyle is actually showing they simply do not have the righteousness of Christ. A righteous lifestyle, if they had it, would indicate that they have received the righteous nature of Christ and are justified/saved:

"make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous" (1 John 3:7 NASB)

The additional error for the deceived person would be to think that struggling real hard to be righteous would somehow now make them righteous. But only the forgiveness of God in Christ can do that. The righteous life as a result of that forgiveness would then be the sign of them having been made righteous through faith in the power of Christ's blood to forgive. That is the answer for the deceived person--find justification through a heartfelt and genuine sorrow for sin and a receiving of God's gracious gift of the forgiveness of that sin.

"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:13-14 NASB)

 

[dadof10]

I think what you're confused about is the gentiles were not in the first covenant. But they were certainly condemned by the same law as the Jew and required to 'keep' it to be right with God.

Then what does this mean:

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom. 2:15-16 ESV)

This tells me that the Gentiles are judged ("to be right with God") by their consciences, not by the law of Moses, since Paul says they do not have it.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (Rom. 2:14 RSV)

It couldn't be any more clear.

The gentile church to this day has gentile unbelievers 'under' the law. We use it to evangelize them. We don't explain to them how they are not 'under' it's condemnation. We never tell them the law is utterly and completely about and for the Jew, not you gentiles. We certainly are not being true to the doctrine you and Drew are pushing. How do you explain this duplicity? I see it often among us gentiles.

I'm lost here. What is the "gentile church"? Is "we" the non-gentile church, meaning the Jewish church? Is it your view that there were two churches back then, that carried through to today, and still operate?

Look, here's Paul telling us that we actually (gasp!) fulfill the law of Moses--this law that is not for us:

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”" (Galatians 5:14 NASB bold mine)

Why is he making the point to the gentiles at Galatia that they fulfill the ENTIRE law of Moses if, as you say, we gentiles were not given the law? He didn't say to the Galatians, "Oh, you don't have to keep the law that you are keeping. Let it go," and then stops there. No, he goes on to explain to them what fulfills the law and how to do it--this law that you are so sure was/is not for the gentiles.

Because he tells the Gentiles (and Jews) what "fulfills the entire law", doesn't mean he is insinuating that the Gentiles were required to keep it. You might as well just do a word search for "law" and post all those verses that come up as "proof texts" that the Gentiles are "under it". What makes this verse any more relevant than any other that explains what the law is or does? Here is his point:

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (Gal. 5:13-15 ESV)

If you really think that in Gal. 5 Paul was telling the early Church the Gentiles were under the law, then he contradicts himself. In Romans he clearly says the Gentiles didn't have the law and weren't judged by it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you really think that in Gal. 5 Paul was telling the early Church the Gentiles were under the law, then he contradicts himself.

The indoctrination about the law which started very early in church history is a knot not very easily undone (from the indoctrinated point of view). But if you want to talk about it, we can.

"he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law (not destroyed it)." (Romans 13:8 NASB parenthesis mine).

 

[dadof10]

The indoctrination about the law which started very early in church history is a knot not very easily undone (from the indoctrinated point of view). But if you want to talk about it, we can.

"he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law (not destroyed it)." (Romans 13:8 NASB parenthesis mine).

That's OK. I'll let you off the hook on this one . I would like your take on Abraham and Gen.12 instead, from an earlier post.

It's not, but faith in God is, if you define "works of the law" as everything written in the OT . Isn't obedient faith in the One True God what justified Abraham?...Twice?


Your turn. Where is this taught anywhere in Scripture? I see faith being contrasted with works of the law, as the verse you posted says, but I don't see faith being contrasted with "everything else".


I didn't have a lot of time when I last responded, so I'll try to be more clear now. This is your main point here:
"He's [James] including the law of Moses in what he says justifies a man." If you can prove this contention, then Paul and James will be truly contradicting unless the word "justified" in James is "shown to be righteous". I agree that if this contention were proved, the word "Justified" would have to be changed to avoid contradiction, however it's not proved. The verses you posted from James do not fit into the category of "works of the law", just because they are mentioned in Lev. and Deut. If they did fit, faith in God would be a "work of the law" also, because it is taught in the Commandments. "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have false gods before me", faith in the One True God and only in Him, would certainly not be considered a "work" but "visit orphans and widows in their distress" is? Your exegesis proves too much. The "works" Paul is contrasting with faith are properly the Jewish ceremonial law, specifically circumcision. The actions they perform that make a Jew a Jew. The acts that separate the Jews from the Gentiles. This was the first heresy within the Church (Acts 15) and Paul's letters were written in reaction to the teaching of these "Judaizers". James, on the other hand, is not even considering "works of the law", but only good deeds.

"If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?" (2:15-16 RSV)

Let me ask you a question, Jethro. We have been going over this topic for a while and I'll readily admit that if "works" in James and Paul mean the same thing, the only way to logically reconcile the two (that I know of) would be to interpret "justified" as "shown to be righteous". Will you admit that if the word "works" in Paul means "works of the law" and in James "good deeds", this would settle the "contradiction problem"?


Our views of righteousness are different and to keep from talking by each other, we should discuss whether justification is an ongoing process or a one time event. If it is a process, then it could be rightfully said that ongoing faith and ongoing growth in holiness are both necessary for ongoing justification and ongoing forgiveness of sins. If it is a one time event, then only one thing is needed, whether that be faith or works or whatever. This is why I keep bringing up Abraham and how he was justified (at least) twice. The question probably got lost in the three different threads on this same subject, so I'll ask again. Abraham had "obedient faith" in Gen. 12. Isn't obedient faith the only thing that justifies?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

if you define "works of the law" as everything written in the OT . Isn't obedient faith in the One True God what justified Abraham?...Twice?

Did obedient faith in the One True God justifiy Abe? If you mean faith, that was then obedient, yes. The point of contention here is Paul says the faith all by itself did the justifying. Paul bases his whole argument about the grace of God, not what we do, being the thing that justifies us. But the faith that justifies all by itself will surely be accompanied by some kind of obedience commensurate with the faith that produced it, or else it wasn't the faith that justifies all by itself to begin with. That's James' argument.

Was he justified twice? I only know of the one place where Paul speaks of him being justified by his believing (Romans 4:3 NASB). And another place where James talks about him being justified by his works (James 2:21 NASB). That's the two very different justifications that the Bible says Abraham received. So I agree with the twice part, but not the way you are interpreting those.

Your turn. Where is this taught anywhere in Scripture? I see faith being contrasted with works of the law, as the verse you posted says, but I don't see faith being contrasted with "everything else".

By virtue of faith being faith in the blood of Christ to forgive sin, that automatically distinguishes being justified by the blood of Christ in the forgiveness of sins (Romans 3:24 NASB) from anything you can do to have your unrighteousness removed and Christ's righteousness put in it's place.

That doesn't mean there won't be, or won't have to be, works attached to that faith. For there surely will be, if the faith is genuine and did actually justify the person. What it means is the forgiveness of sin, all by itself, does the MAKING one righteous. Paul says that here:

"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5 NASB)

"God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Timothy 1:8-9 NASB)

By 'saved', he obviously is referring to the entire picture of justification/ salvation, because he's talking about the cleansing of forgiveness--the justifying gift of mercy and grace he spoke about in the Romans 3:24 NASB passage.

And again, this does not mean that faith can then go unaccompanied by works commensurate with that faith. A person who has been genuinely justified by faith all by itself must also be justified (shown to be righteous) by the works that faith produces in that those works will validate that faith as the kind that justifies (makes righteous) on the basis of forgiveness alone.

 

[JLB]

Look, here's Paul telling us that we actually (gasp!) fulfill the law of Moses--this law that is not for us:

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”" (Galatians 5:14 NASB bold mine)

Which tells us that this was true before the law of Moses was added, and continues to be true after the law of Moses was declared obsolete, and abolished in His flesh.

For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 5:13



JLB

 

[Drew]

As I showed, Paul says the whole world is made accountable by the law. How? Because "they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:15 NASB). THAT'S how the gentile is 'under' the law along with the Jew and held accountable to God.

First of all, I think its really very clear from a range of texts from both Testaments that only Israel is under the Law of Moses.

These are the statutes and ordinances and laws which the Lord established between Himself and the sons of Israel [a]through Moses at Mount Sinai. [Leviticus 26:46, NASB]

I have already posted other texts and, quite frankly, to assert that the Law of Moses was given to the whole world is a position that I believe almost no Biblical scholars would support. That does not prove your view is wrong, but it is compelling.

Of course, perhaps we simply misunderstand each other: Perhaps you are not saying that the Gentile is under the written Law of Moses, but is saying the Gentile is under a related "law of the heart". In that case, we are in violent agreement.

However, and it's a huge however, we obviously have this statement from Romans 2:15, as you point out:

"they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:15 NASB).

....and, in the very same treatment Paul writes something that surely shows that he sees at least a sense in which Jew and Gentile are in different positions re the Law:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves [Romans 2:12-14,NASB]

In short, I think that Paul sees the Law of Moses as a written code for Jews only. But he also discerns a 'second law', a "spirit of the Law of Moses", if you will. It is this law - and not the written code of the Law of Moses - that the Gentile is "under". I think you would need to concede that the phrase "........not having the Law, are a law to themselves " strongly suggests that Paul does not see the Gentile as under the Law of Moses even though, as you perceptively point out, there is this mysterious "law written on the heart" of the Gentile. But I think (1) the case for the written code being for Israel only is extremely strong; and (2) Paul bends over backwards here in Romans 2 to make it clear that this "law" the Gentile obeys, while certainly related to the Law of Moses, is definitely not the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

If it's only a justification for the Jews argument, why does he make the point about what DOES justify--faith in the blood of Christ?

I am surprised you ask me this question. Paul is simply telling the Jew this: "you are not justified by mere ethnicity, as expressed through doing the works of the Law of Moses, you are justified like everyone else is, by the blood of Christ".

The argument for the blood of Christ received through believing instantly and utterly nullifies any debate about anything else being able to justify a person. What work, what obedience, what good deed in and of itself can wipe away sin guilt and replace it with the righteousness of Christ? There isn't one, of course.

Again, I am surprised you are making this argument - it seems that you do not understand what I am saying (that may be my fault).

All I am saying about Paul's repeated denial that one can be "justified by works" is that it is a statement directed at Jews who think that being ethnically a Jew guarantees their justification.

 

[dadof10]

Did obedient faith in the One True God justifiy Abe? If you mean faith, that was then obedient, yes.

Great. So, Abraham was justified in Gen. 12, (”By faith Abraham obeyed...") and again in Gen. 15. Whether justification is by faith or works or both or neither or law or conscience or... really doesn't matter to my point. Justification is a process. If you want to say it's by faith alone, fine. Abraham had "saving faith" in Gen.12, somehow lost it (through unbelief?), then was re-justified in Gen. 15. Glad we finally agree...or do we? I feel a "but wait" coming.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I am surprised you ask me this question. Paul is simply telling the Jew this: "you are not justified by mere ethnicity, as expressed through doing the works of the Law of Moses, you are justified like everyone else is, by the blood of Christ".


Again, I am surprised you are making this argument - it seems that you do not understand what I am saying (that may be my fault).

All I am saying about Paul's repeated denial that one can be "justified by works" is that it is a statement directed at Jews who think that being ethnically a Jew guarantees their justification.

I'm fully aware of the Jews' argument about being good with God by virtue of simply being born Jewish. It's what John 3:3 NASB ("unless one is born again") is about. But that hardly means the law was not also given for gentiles to follow when they seek the God of Isreal--and are condemned by if they don't.

Paul did not tell the Galatians who were keeping the law in order to be justified that they were not 'under' the law of Moses to begin with. No, he explains to them what really does justify......AND explains to them how they fulfill the law of Moses through love, not escape it as if they were never subject to it in the first place.

"For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”" (Galatians 5:14 NASB caps and italics in original, bold mine)

You're really arguing a side point about who was subject to the law of Moses and who was not. The point we're addressing is Paul is in fact talking about ANY AND ALL THINGS you can do to be justified as opposed to that which does justify--the forgiveness of God received by faith. Your argument has no bearing on Paul's point that the forgiveness of God stands all alone as that which can justify a person (make them righteous in God's sight).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Great. So, Abraham was justified in Gen. 12, (”By faith Abraham obeyed...") and again in Gen. 15. Whether justification is by faith or works or both or neither or law or conscience or... really doesn't matter to my point. Justification is a process. If you want to say it's by faith alone, fine. Abraham had "saving faith" in Gen.12, somehow lost it (through unbelief?), then was re-justified in Gen. 15. Glad we finally agree...or do we? I feel a "but wait" coming.

You know my argument.
The Bible does not say he was justified by faith when he left his homeland (Genesis 12:4 NASB). He did something by faith and it was commendable, that we do know.

If I go with your argument about justification then I was justified by all the things I did by faith before I was actually born again--like going to church to learn about the gospel. Of course that's not true at all. I wasn't made righteous--born again--until I had a very specific moment of faith in a very specific object of faith.

The main problem with your doctrine is that it is impossible to be made righteous again after one has lost that justification. A person can not come back to repentance if they walk away from it:

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

First of all, I think its really very clear from a range of texts from both Testaments that only Israel is under the Law of Moses.

Do you know what 'under' the law of Moses means? Can you cite some passages?

And just so you understand, gentile Christians are NOT under the law of Moses. Neither are believing Jews. But you have to know what being 'under' the law means to know that.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13 NASB italics mine)


.

 

[dadof10]

You know my argument.
The Bible does not say he was justified by faith when he left his homeland (Genesis 12:4 NASB). He did something by faith and it was commendable, that we do know.

If I go with your argument about justification then I was justified by all the things I did by faith before I was actually born again--like going to church to learn about the gospel. Of course that's not true at all. I wasn't made righteous--born again--until I had a very specific moment of faith in a very specific object of faith.

The main problem with your doctrine is that it is impossible to be made righteous again after one has lost that justification. A person can not come back to repentance if they walk away from it:

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB)

So, the bible has to say a person was "declared righteous" before you will believe a person is "justified"? Was Cornelius Justified? Was Peter? Paul? This really is splitting hairs. Hebrews says: "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Heb. 11:8 RSV) You say obedient faith justifies. Abraham has obedient faith in Gen. 12, therefore he is justified in Gen. 12. What am I missing here? Wait, maybe by "obeyed" the author of Hebrews meant "shown to be obedient" not actually was obedient...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So, the bible has to say a person was "declared righteous" before you will believe a person is "justified"?

No. Read the answer/question I give to your next question.

Was Cornelius Justified? Was Peter? Paul?

Of course they were. Surely you know how it is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were, don't you?

Hebrews says: "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Heb. 11:8 RSV)

So, when I got out of bed and went to church to find God months before I got saved I was actually made righteous (justified) then, not when I got born again months later?

You say obedient faith justifies.

I said the faith that justifies is the faith that obeys. This is to contrast that faith with the faith that doesn't obey, not make a statement that any and all obedient faith justifies.

What am I missing here?

What are you missing? You're missing the Biblical evidence that any and all faith resulting in obedience justifies. Is a name-it-and-claim it adherent justified by believing that God wants to give him a million dollars, and then sticks $100.00 in the offering plate because he believes that? No, of course not. But apparently in your theology he most certainly is made righteous (justified) by that faith and act of faith.

Wait, maybe by "obeyed" the author of Hebrews meant "shown to be obedient" not actually was obedient...

Hey, I got an idea. Why don't we just go with what the author himself says why he is citing Abraham's faith in leaving his homeland?

"for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God." (Hebrews 11:10 NASB)

Kind of like when I did the same thing and got out of bed to go to church to find out how to be saved. As admirable and commendable as that faith was, I didn't have the faith that justifies until months later when I believed so as to accept God's forgiveness in Christ.


Hey, dadof10. Since the following is also an example of having faith from Hebrews 11, does having this particular faith justify a person--that is, make them righteous?

"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. " (Hebrews 11:3 NASB)

Does it even show them to be righteous? No, of course, it does not do either. But you are insisting that any and all faith makes a person righteous. Right from Hebrews 11 itself we see that's not true at all.

 

[dadof10]

No. Read the answer/question I give to your next question.


Of course they were. Surely you know how it is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were, don't you?

Because they had an obedient faith and trusted in God, like Abraham?

So, when I got out of bed and went to church to find God months before I got saved I was actually made righteous (justified) then, not when I got born again months later?

I don't really feel comfortable commenting on someones personal story, so I have been ignoring this every time you post it. The one thing I will say is that you always have said something similar to "went to church to find God". You have used different words, but have never said anything close to "by faith I obeyed God and went to church, trusting in Him", which is what the author of Hebrews says Abraham did. I don't even pretend to know what you were feeling at the time, but it SEEMS to me that your pre-conversion story above and Abraham's are totally different. You were searching for God, Abraham had already found Him, obeyed Him and trusted Him. Anyway, that's my perception and I may be totally off base.

I said the faith that justifies is the faith that obeys. This is to contrast that faith with the faith that doesn't obey, not make a statement that any and all obedient faith justifies.

Then SOME obedient faith justifies, not all? What about obedient trusting, faith? I seem to recall you saying the exact words that "trusting in Christ and His Blood" is the only thing that justifies. Abraham definitely trusted God in Gen. 12. Does this make a difference to you?

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Heb. 11:8 RSV)

Isn't this an example of trust in God?

What are you missing? You're missing the Biblical evidence that any and all faith resulting in obedience justifies. Is a name-it-and-claim it adherent justified by believing that God wants to give him a million dollars, and then sticks $100.00 in the offering plate because he believes that? No, of course not. But apparently in your theology he most certainly is made righteous (justified) by that faith and act of faith.

Oh, c'mon now. You know I don't believe that. You really don't see a difference between the biblical example of Abraham's obedient, trusting faith in Gen. 12 and a person who only "trusts" for monetary gain?

Hey, I got an idea. Why don't we just go with what the author himself says why he is citing Abraham's faith in leaving his homeland?

"for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God." (Hebrews 11:10 NASB)

Kind of like when I did the same thing and got out of bed to go to church to find out how to be saved. As admirable and commendable as that faith was, I didn't have the faith that justifies until months later when I believed so as to accept God's forgiveness in Christ.

As I said before, what you are describing is not even close to what Hebrews is describing. Abraham already had obedient, trusting faith.

Hey, dadof10. Since the following is also an example of having faith from Hebrews 11, does having this particular faith justify a person--that is, make them righteous?

"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. " (Hebrews 11:3 NASB)

Does it even show them to be righteous? No, of course, it does not do either. But you are insisting that any and all faith makes a person righteous. Right from Hebrews 11 itself we see that's not true at all.

I'm insisting nothing of the sort. "By faith Abraham obeyed..." demonstrates what kind of faith Abraham has, obedient. "and he went out, not knowing where he was to go" demonstrates trust. "By faith we understand..." tells how someone understands certain facts. These aren't even in the same ballpark. What verse 8 describes is an obedient, trusting faith, a faith that justifies "...the assurance of things hoped for" (Heb. 11:1a) . Verse 3 describes that the author (and other Christians) understand certain facts without empirical "proof" but by "...the conviction of things not seen." (Heb. 11:1b) Both are in his definition of "faith" in Heb. 11:1. One trusts God and obeys (assurance of things hoped for), the other believes "things not seen". Not the same kind of faith. I take it on faith that the earth revolves around the sun, but this "faith" doesn't justify. I just "trust" the astronomers are telling me the truth, but this is far from trusting in God. Huge difference.

 

[JLB]

Does it even show them to be righteous? No, of course, it does not do either.

I find it truly unbelievable that you would say such a thing.

4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. Hebrews 11:4

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


Faith comes by hearing God.

Righteousness is obtained by doing what you hear God tell you to do.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because they had an obedient faith and trusted in God, like Abraham?

No.
Because they received the Holy Spirit!

I don't really feel comfortable commenting on someones personal story, so I have been ignoring this every time you post it.

Then why are you commenting on Abraham's personal story--you know the part where YOU are filling in the blanks.

The one thing I will say is that you always have said something similar to "went to church to find God". You have used different words, but have never said anything close to "by faith I obeyed God and went to church, trusting in Him", which is what the author of Hebrews says Abraham did. I don't even pretend to know what you were feeling at the time, but it SEEMS to me that your pre-conversion story above and Abraham's are totally different. You were searching for God, Abraham had already found Him, obeyed Him and trusted Him. Anyway, that's my perception and I may be totally off base.

I did not know where I was going either. I knew very little about the gospel. I knew what the end was--salvation, but I stepped out in faith and trust to find out more. That faith did not make me righteous. You are claiming that Abraham's example is categorically how one gets justified, yet when I have that experience you refuse to pass judgment on it. And that you shouldn't. And neither should you in regard to Abraham's experience. You don't know. The Bible doesn't tell us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You couldn't be anymore wrong.


4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
Hebrews 11:4


JLB

Now go back and actually read what I posted.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Oh, c'mon now. You know I don't believe that. You really don't see a difference between the biblical example of Abraham's obedient, trusting faith in Gen. 12 and a person who only "trusts" for monetary gain?

Okay, so you do see the necessity to distinguish between specific moments of faith as to whether they can justify or not. You were pretty insistent that just the fact a person had faith that acted that means they were justified by that action, and were using that to claim Abraham was justified in Genesis 12:4 NASB. But now we know you really do distinguish between acts of faith. Good.

And let's get this straight right now. Remember I told you Abraham getting justified in Genesis 12:4 NASB--if he did--has no bearing on the argument that what you do makes you righteous. You can't prove from that passage that what he did justified him (made him righteous) and not his faith all by itself any more than you can from Genesis 15:6 NASB). Actually, since Abraham did not do anything in Genesis 15:6 NASB , but was still justified (re-justified to you), that indicates very clearly that justification/ re-justification occurs APART from anything you do. Even you have to admit that. But we know that already because Paul plainly said justification is by having your sins forgiven. That automatically rules out anything a person can do to be made righteous.

Oh, c'mon now. You know I don't believe that. You really don't see a difference between the biblical example of Abraham's obedient, trusting faith in Gen. 12 and a person who only "trusts" for monetary gain?

You're honestly going to argue that the person who gives $100.00, or $1000.00, so God will bless them back is not a genuine trust in God? Really? Of course it is. And it plainly demonstrates how that trust/faith hardly is what makes a person righteous.

As I said before, what you are describing is not even close to what Hebrews is describing. Abraham already had obedient, trusting faith.

So when I was obedient to get out of bed and go to church, trusting God to tell me how to get saved that was not obedient trusting faith? What was it then? Disobedience? Faithlessness? I'm pretty sure staying in bed would have been disobedience and a lack of faith.


I have to go now. I will start addressing the things that are actually relevant to your doctrine (instead of these side bar things) like how it is that Abraham getting justified in Genesis 12:4 somehow proves that what he did, not his faith all by itself, is what justified him there. Your answer is?

....oh, and how it is that a person can be re-justified when the author of Hebrews says that is impossible. Once you've lost it, you've lost it forever.