Is belief "works"?

[Jethro Bodine]

Abraham didn't have faith in the promise of a Messiah. If you think he did, simply post the verses. If you think Gal. 3:16 proves your point, break down the verse.

You already know that it plainly says the 'seed' spoken of in all the promises to Abraham is Jesus Christ. Just because he didn't know Jesus by name (as far as we know) and that He, Jesus, is the complete fulfillment of the promise of a son to him doesn't mean he was not believing in God's promised blessing--the belief that justifies.

Let's not forget why it's necessary to the 'faith + works' doctrinal belief to make Abraham's faith, that justified him, not be just faith in the promise of a person who will inherit the blessing on his behalf (that blessing ultimately being given to the person we now know to be Jesus). The 'faith + works' gospel has a hard time with the fact that Abraham did nothing except believe when he was declared righteous in Genesis 15. There's no work there to fill in the 'work' part of their 'faith + works' gospel (the 'work' of believing is the 'faith' part) . So they have to rely on work previously done by Abraham to show that Abraham's faith was not 'alone' but had works attached to it, and thus, he was justified (MADE righteous) by, both, faith and works. (You can see already what a reach that is).

The problem with this theory is there is no recorded declaration of righteousness given in regard to the faith he had at that time, let alone his works. As far as I can see the Bible simply does not say he was declared righteous before Genesis 15. What he did may have been faithful and righteous (like when I did lots of righteous things by 'faith' before I was actually declared righteous by my faith in the promise of the Son, Jesus Christ) but the Bible doesn't say God assigns him a declaration of righteousness in accordance with his faith at that time. It simply doesn't say that.

This being true, the 'faith+works' gospel then jumps over to Hebrews 11 to prove that Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15...because he had faith...and faith that was commanded/commended by God, and was, therefore, a justifying faith (you can see the circular reasoning). The problem is, that isn't a chapter on what faith, let alone actions, justify a person.

Are we justified when we believe and then build an ark? Is that what justifies a person? Are we justified when we believe and then slay the enemies of God? Or when we shut the mouths of lions, or quench the power of fire? Is that what justifies a person? Is that what he's teaching in that chapter? No. It's a chapter full of examples of people who persevered in their faith in God through what they did--the perseverance of faith that is rewarded in the end. Whether or not any one example of faith, and the work it produced, justifies is not what the chapter is about. That's plainly obvious from reading it and understanding the context of it in the letter to the Hebrews.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You didn't misunderstand. That's what Gal. 3:16 says, and this is what we are discussing. It says the "promise of the Spirit through faith" was GIVEN to Abraham and his "Seed" or "Offspring", referring to Christ. The "promise" mentioned here is not the promise of a Messiah, but the promise "of the Spirit through faith", and that promise was MADE TO Christ.

No. The promise was made to Abraham, in the form of the Land, the Seed and the Blessing as I detailed. Christ is God. No promise need be made to Him.

I'm curious, though as to your take on Abraham's justification. You seem to agree with me that he was justified when he "pulled up tent stakes" in Gen. 12.

Not really. There is no "double justification." Abraham exhibited a level of faith to leave his home, but he did not truly understand -- and therefore could not have believed -- God until the promise to him regarding the Land, the Seed and the Blessing for this last time in Genesis 15:6. It takes several presentations of the gospel for a man to come to faith. At least, for most it does. The rare occasion when someone hears and believes the first time he/she hears the name of Jesus Christ is the exception proving the rule.

Abraham had heard the words at least three times, as the Bible records, and perhaps more. But until that moment under the stars in heaven, he hadn't taken them into his heart. Suddenly, as with many of us who heard the gospel a dozen or more times before accepting it as truth, it all made sense, and Abraham could believe.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It isn't your answers were inadequate, they are nonexistent. You DIDN'T answer. You could land one of those hay-makers if you could prove me wrong here.

Where is your answer to this?


Here, again are the verses that "plainly" tie Paul's "deeds...done in righteousness" in verse 5 to the works of Mosaic LAW. Not all deeds or baptism or charity, only works of the Mosaic Law. Not any "law", not the "royal law", not the natural law, ONLY the Mosaic Law.

"Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, 6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Phil. 3)

What is Paul contrasting "the righteousness of God that depends on faith" to? Is it EVERY deed "done in righteousness", as you are claiming, or is it "righteousness of my own based on law"? In verse 6, as he is going through his JEWISH credentials, he says he is blameless "as to righteousness under the law", which PROVES beyond any doubt that when he contrasts faith to "righteousness of my own based on law" he means the MOSAIC LAW. Next...

"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame." (Rom. 9)

It is crystal clear that Paul thinks that Israel pursued "righteousness" based on works, and that those works were works of the Mosaic law. Next...

"Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it." (Rom. 10)

Again, "righteous practices" are tied directly to the Mosaic Law.

Now, please stop merely repeating your contention and acting incredulous because I won't accept "what the Bible plainly says". Try to actually give a response to the verses I posted, or post some of your own that tie "deeds...done in righteousness" to baptism or charity or ANYTHING but works of the law.

Again I point out to you that the thing Paul is contrasting works with in these passages is faith in Jesus Christ, not some other work.

And again I will say that when a person can understand what it is that faith in the blood of Christ can do that no other work can do they can see why only the 'work' of faith can make a person righteous before God...alone, all by itself, apart from works.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Just do a proper exegesis and show me where the the "promise" is the promise of a Messiah...Waiting

16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16 NIV1984)

How is it possible to not see in the passage that Paul plainly says the seed, the seed promised to Abraham--the seed through whom all people will be blessed--is Jesus...Jesus the Christ?

Abraham had faith in what he knew, and was therefore responsible to, about God's promise to provide a seed that would be the source of God's promised blessing to all people (because he inherited). This scripture plainly tells us that seed was the Messiah, Jesus.

Paul says we, also, will be blessed along with Abraham if we have faith in the promise made to Abraham about a 'seed', who we now know specifically to be Jesus the Christ, who would bless the earth with the inheritance, which is righteousness and blessing through the Holy Spirit. That is the promise, and the details, WE are responsible to have faith in to be declared righteous before God, just as Abraham was, but only according to the limited details he had. Just because Abraham didn't know all the details of the promise doesn't somehow not make it a promise of a Messiah--the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise being eventually unveiled in the appearing of Jesus the Christ.

"Coming from our own bodies"??? Please explain.

"...Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:27)

Jesus Christ, the promised seed, who is in us by the Holy Spirit, is the son who comes from our own bodies who inherits the blessing on our behalf, just as God said.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's in the same verse that proves that "Issac, and Jacob all had faith that God would keep his promise...and were justified by that faith."

It's also in the same verses that say Cornelius' and his household's "faith was reckoned to him as righteousness", Peter's "faith was reckoned to him as righteousness", Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's "faith was reckoned to them as righteousness".

Do you get my point? YOU think all these people were justified, yet Scripture doesn't specifically SAY their "faith was reckoned to them as righteousness". Why would you expect it to be proved in Abraham's case, yet simply accept the other's? You have no problem saying (in the baptism thread) that Cornelius and his household were "justified" because the Holy Spirit came upon them, even though Luke doesn't specifically SAY they were, yet in this thread you demand proof, that the exact words "was reckoned righteous" be applied to Abraham in Gen. 12 or you won't believe it.

This is a typical example of eisegesis. You bring your heretical, biased viewpoint into Scripture and attempt to make all Scripture fit into IT. This is what is truly sad.

You answered your own question in the part I emboldened and enlarged. The Holy Spirit is how we know where justification has occurred and the promise of the blessing rests:

"Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance..." (Ephesians 1:13 NIV1984)

"21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." (2 Corinthians 1:21-22 NIV1984)

"5 ...by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope." (Galatians 5:5 NIV1984)

The proof, the surety, the guarantee of the hope we profess is the indwelling Holy Spirit. Everyone who has the Holy Spirit has been justified by their faith and has the hope of salvation.

I can't tell you when Issac and Jacob were justified by their faith in the promise. I'm not sure the Bible even tells us, We don't know when that happened...the point of our discussion. But it's impossible to argue that they did not believe and did not receive the blessing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Now, all you have to do is show me where it says we are justified--made legally righteous before God--on the merit of work done (outside of the 'work' of believing, of course). That's all you have to do...and then we can unplug the coffee pot, put the lights out, and go home.

Good luck!

Where have I EVER made this claim? Where does the Catholic Church teach this? More straw-man argumentation .

To believe that justification--being made righteous before God--is conditioned on, and secured by work completed is to believe that justification is by what you do (outside of the 'work' of believing, of course) and not just through faith in Christ, alone, all by itself, apart from works. I don't think I've been misunderstanding what you're arguing for in this matter of how a person is justified (made righteous) before God. I'm also pretty sure that you have to redefine 'work' and 'justified' and 'grace' to make it seem like you are not defending a works justification belief.

 

[dadof10]

The point is that son was to inherit the promises on his behalf. He believed that and was declared righteous as a result. There are no details of Christ available at this time. The specifics of the Christ have not been revealed yet at this time. But, nevertheless, his faith is in what he does know about a son that will inherit the blessing.

The point is, Abraham had faith in what details were available at the time as to the son that would inherit the blessings on his behalf. He is establishing the truth for all people of how God grants righteousness based on one's belief in his promise of a son who would inherit the blessing on our behalf (because we can't inherit it ourselves), not granted on the basis of work completed.

The problem is coming to the conclusion that any and all faith in God justifies for the purpose of defending a 'faith + works' gospel. That is in complete and total defiance of what we now know, that one must have faith in the work of Christ to be justified, not have faith to go to church, read a Bible, call yourself a Christian, etc. I had that level of faith once. I'd even tell you I had faith in Christ, but I was not justified, and therefore born again by that faith. My faith was not yet in the sufficiency of Christ's blood alone to make me righteous. It was not until I had I heard about and trusted in God's promise of a Son, and all that implies, that I was justified by my faith...alone, apart from (other) work. To suggest I was justified before that is to completely defy the gospel of Jesus Christ. And worse, to suggest that I was justified by what I did before that.

Let's keep in mind what we're discussing here. It is your contention that Abraham was NOT justified in Gen. 12, even though Heb. 11 says he had "faith". With that in mind, let's suppose you are right. Suppose "that son was to inherit the promises on his behalf. He believed that and was declared righteous as a result" and that "his faith is in what he does know about a son that will inherit the blessing."

Now, let's take a look at Gen 12 and see if it fits your criteria above:

"Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."
4 So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions which they had gathered, and the persons that they had gotten in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan. When they had come to the land of Canaan,
6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him."

So, it seems that in Gen. 12, Abraham believed "the promises" of God. There was a promise of descendants, a "blessing" and the inheritance of the land. His "faith was in what he did know about a son (descendents) that will inherit a blessing".

Now, let's compare Gen. 12 to Gen. 15:

"And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, "This man shall not be your heir; your own son shall be your heir." 5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness."

The word for "descendants" in both Gen. 12 and Gen. 15 is "zeh'·rah", which means "SEED". In Gen. 12 Abram received the PROMISE that his SEED would inherit the land.

What are the implications of this truth? In Gen. 12, all your criteria for justification is present, just like it is in Gen. 15. By faith, Abraham left Haran, believed that God would give him a son (seed), believed all nations would be blessed by that Seed, and that Seed would inherit the land promised. This is all Abraham knows, he doesn't know about Christ.

Using your own word, it's "impossible" to argue with this exegesis. If Abraham was justified in Gen. 15 by his "faith in the promised "Seed", he was justified in Gen. 12 by the same criteria.

Now, I have been accused by you of bringing my 'faith+works' bias into Scripture, which is not true. My question is, will you admit that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12, or will you continue in your belief in the man-made OSAS (or ISAS, if you prefer), ignoring Biblical Truth?

 

[dadof10]

No. The promise was made to Abraham, in the form of the Land, the Seed and the Blessing as I detailed. Christ is God. No promise need be made to Him.

Galatians 3:16 disagrees with you:

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ.

Not really. There is no "double justification." Abraham exhibited a level of faith to leave his home, but he did not truly understand -- and therefore could not have believed -- God until the promise to him regarding the Land, the Seed and the Blessing for this last time in Genesis 15:6. It takes several presentations of the gospel for a man to come to faith. At least, for most it does. The rare occasion when someone hears and believes the first time he/she hears the name of Jesus Christ is the exception proving the rule.

There is no "double justification". Justification is a life long process, not a one-time event. I was under the impression you agree with this. You even used the word "process". Here is your quote:

"Your exegesis ignores the fact that Jesus and Paul both called Abraham the father of faith. If it were merely faith that God would give him a son, it would not warrant this grand compliment to an otherwise obscure farmer from Ur of the Chaldees, the fact that Abraham's faith reckoned to him as righteousness is not limited to the events of the few minutes prior to that reckoning, but the entire process through which Abraham pulled up his tent stakes and traveled to an unknown land to follow God who was foreign to His people."

Again, this episode that you said justified Abraham was in Gen. 12. Heb. 11 says he had faith in Gen. 12. I'm confused...

Abraham had heard the words at least three times, as the Bible records, and perhaps more. But until that moment under the stars in heaven, he hadn't taken them into his heart. Suddenly, as with many of us who heard the gospel a dozen or more times before accepting it as truth, it all made sense, and Abraham could believe.

He took the word's "to heart" enough to leave his father's house and strike out BY FAITH. I don't think you can prove that his faith in Gen. 12 was somehow inadequate from Scripture. Please read my post to Jethro above and let me know what you think. Gotta go...Superbowl time...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let's keep in mind what we're discussing here. It is your contention that Abraham was NOT justified in Gen. 12, even though Heb. 11 says he had "faith".

Actually, it's my contention that we don't know if Abraham had been declared righteous in Genesis 12...let alone that he was declared righteous by what he did at that time. My personal feeling is he was not declared righteous at that time.

What we do know is he was declared righteous in Genesis 15. It plainly says that. And even if a person wants to only accept James' use of the word 'justified' as being the way Paul uses that in his letter, even James refers to Abraham's actions after Genesis 15 as the actions that justified him...actions directly in line with the specific promise made to him in Genesis 15. Read on...

In Gen. 12, all your criteria for justification is present, just like it is in Gen. 15. By faith, Abraham left Haran, believed that God would give him a son (seed), believed all nations would be blessed by that Seed, and that Seed would inherit the land promised. This is all Abraham knows, he doesn't know about Christ.

Using your own word, it's "impossible" to argue with this exegesis. If Abraham was justified in Gen. 15 by his "faith in the promised "Seed", he was justified in Gen. 12 by the same criteria.

Abraham believes in something specific in the promises now revealed to him in Genesis 15. It is then, when he has faith in that specific promise, that God declares him righteous according to his faith:

2 But Abram said, “O Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”

4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir.”

6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:2-4,6 NIV1984)


This is where the parallel between Abraham's justification through faith in the promises and our justification through faith in the promises of God exists. It is this matter of a son we presently do not have, and by all natural expectation can't have, who is promised to us and who will inherit the blessings on our behalf.

Now, I have been accused by you of bringing my 'faith+works' bias into Scripture, which is not true. My question is, will you admit that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12...

Show me where it says that and I'll get right on board with you. Then show me where it was not just his faith that justified him in Genesis 12, but what he did, too, and I'll get on board with that, too.

...or will you continue in your belief in the man-made OSAS (or ISAS, if you prefer), ignoring Biblical Truth?

Adding to scripture does not constitute Biblical truth.

What the Bible does say, in Hebrews, is we are made perfect before God one time, for all time, by the one time sacrifice of Jesus. It does not say we continually come to God to be made perfect again and again. It says we are made perfect one time for all time (justification) and then grow up in a process of being made holy, being more and more set apart (holy) in how we behave (sanctification). You are confusing 'justification' with 'sanctification'. Sanctification is the life long process, not justification.

As long as you continue to have the faith that justified you, you will remain justified. Sanctification is the process of being more and more set apart (holy) in what you do. That process continues as long as you have faith, too. The difference being sanctification is a process, not justification.

 

[dadof10]

You already know that it plainly says the 'seed' spoken of in all the promises to Abraham is Jesus Christ. Just because he didn't know Jesus by name (as far as we know) and that He, Jesus, is the complete fulfillment of the promise of a son to him doesn't mean he was not believing in God's promised blessing--the belief that justifies.

Let's not forget why it's necessary to the 'faith + works' doctrinal belief to make Abraham's faith, that justified him, not be just faith in the promise of a person who will inherit the blessing on his behalf (that blessing ultimately being given to the person we now know to be Jesus). The 'faith + works' gospel has a hard time with the fact that Abraham did nothing except believe when he was declared righteous in Genesis 15. There's no work there to fill in the 'work' part of their 'faith + works' gospel (the 'work' of believing is the 'faith' part) . So they have to rely on work previously done by Abraham to show that Abraham's faith was not 'alone' but had works attached to it, and thus, he was justified (MADE righteous) by, both, faith and works. (You can see already what a reach that is).

This being true, the 'faith+works' gospel then jumps over to Hebrews 11 to prove that Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15...because he had faith...and faith that was commanded/commended by God, and was, therefore, a justifying faith (you can see the circular reasoning). The problem is, that isn't a chapter on what faith, let alone actions, justify a person.

Are we justified when we believe and then build an ark? Is that what justifies a person? Are we justified when we believe and then slay the enemies of God? Or when we shut the mouths of lions, or quench the power of fire? Is that what justifies a person? Is that what he's teaching in that chapter? No. It's a chapter full of examples of people who persevered in their faith in God through what they did--the perseverance of faith that is rewarded in the end. Whether or not any one example of faith, and the work it produced, justifies is not what the chapter is about. That's plainly obvious from reading it and understanding the context of it in the letter to the Hebrews.

Is this supposed to be an exegesis of Gal. 3:16? If so, it's way off base. The "Seed", which is Christ, RECEIVED the promise of "the Spirit through faith". If this is just another sermon, just post the verses that back up your claims.

The problem with this theory is there is no recorded declaration of righteousness given in regard to the faith he had at that time, let alone his works. As far as I can see the Bible simply does not say he was declared righteous before Genesis 15. What he did may have been faithful and righteous (like when I did lots of righteous things by 'faith' before I was actually declared righteous by my faith in the promise of the Son, Jesus Christ) but the Bible doesn't say God assigns him a declaration of righteousness in accordance with his faith at that time. It simply doesn't say that.

Where was Cornelius' "declaration of righteousness"? Isaac's? Jacob's? You said these men were "declared righteous". See, there is a double standard with you. If it fits the "sola-fide" mold, anything will do. If the example doesn't fit, NO EVIDENCE will EVER be enough. I'm waiting for the word "seed" or "land" to be changed in Gen. 12 to something else, ala "justified" in James. If it doesn't fit the mold, the words must be made to fit, no matter how ludicrous. Game's back on...

 

[dadof10]

I can't tell you when Issac and Jacob were justified by their faith in the promise. I'm not sure the Bible even tells us, We don't know when that happened...the point of our discussion. But it's impossible to argue that they did not believe and did not receive the blessing.

LOL...My point is made...Scripture doesn't say they WERE justified, but you are positive they were. Double standard...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

LOL...My point is made...Scripture doesn't say they WERE justified, but you are positive they were. Double standard...

11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 8:11 NIV1984)

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

LOL...My point is made...Scripture doesn't say they WERE justified ...

Then how did they get into the Kingdom of God?

Matthew 8 NASB
11 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven ...
​

 

[dadof10]

Again I point out to you that the thing Paul is contrasting works with in these passages is faith in Jesus Christ, not some other work.

How does this prove your point that "deeds...done in righteousness" means "all righteous works"? The verses I posted...and reposted....and reposted...prove that Paul means righteous works of the Law by "deeds...done in righteousness". Until you can show anyone tying "deeds..." to ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE LAW, you haven't proved your contention.

 

[dadof10]

To believe that justification--being made righteous before God--is conditioned on, and secured by work completed is to believe that justification is by what you do (outside of the 'work' of believing, of course) and not just through faith in Christ, alone, all by itself, apart from works.

You just can't bring yourself to say the word "obedience" in relation to justification, can you? I, nor the Catholic Church, has EVER said that justification is "secured by work completed". All I have EVER said is OBEDIENCE to God's commands is NECESSARY for a person to remain justified because justification is a process. Where do you see the word "works" in that definition?

I don't think I've been misunderstanding what you're arguing for in this matter of how a person is justified (made righteous) before God. I'm also pretty sure that you have to redefine 'work' and 'justified' and 'grace' to make it seem like you are not defending a works justification belief.

I think you are still purposely setting up straw men because you can't deal with solid, Biblical theology. The fact is, that Scripture teaches that OBEDIENCE is necessary for salvation. You can call that "works" if you want to, but it will still be a straw man, because you can't even come close to proving that by "works" Paul means "all deeds", which is the topic here. There is a HUGE difference between "works" and obedient faith, especially to Paul.

 

[dadof10]

Actually, it's my contention that we don't know if Abraham had been declared righteous in Genesis 12...let alone that he was declared righteous by what he did at that time. My personal feeling is he was not declared righteous at that time.

OK. Then in your mind, it's possible that justification is a process.

What we do know is he was declared righteous in Genesis 15. It plainly says that.

Yes, it does.

Abraham believes in something specific in the promises now revealed to him in Genesis 15. It is then, when he has faith in that specific promise, that God declares him righteous according to his faith:

2 But Abram said, “O Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?†3 And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.â€

4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir.â€

6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:2-4,6 NIV1984)

This is sad, again...What happened to verse 5? Why was it skipped? Because it proves my point?

Adding to scripture does not constitute Biblical truth.

Does taking away from Scripture? Here is how Moses intended it to read, without your editing:

"But Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3 And Abram said, "Behold, thou hast given me no offspring; and a slave born in my house will be my heir." 4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, "This man shall not be your heir; your own son shall be your heir." 5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your descendants [seed] be." 6 And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness."

That was just disingenuous. You skipped the verse that uses the word "seed" because the same word is used in Gen. 12 and THIS IS WHAT RECKONED HIM RIGHTEOUS.

Show me where it says that and I'll get right on board with you. Then show me where it was not just his faith that justified him in Genesis 12, but what he did, too, and I'll get on board with that, too.

You already are on board, you just won't admit it. That's why the verse was skipped. Again, Gen. 12 holds ALL OF YOUR OWN PERSONAL CRITERIA FOR JUSTIFICATION. Let me lay this out for you.

Jethro: "You already know that it plainly says the 'seed' spoken of in all the promises to Abraham is Jesus Christ.

Gen. 12: "When they had come to the land of Canaan, 6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said, "To your descendants [seed] I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

Heb 11: "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. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise.

Jethro: Just because he didn't know Jesus by name (as far as we know) and that He, Jesus, is the complete fulfillment of the promise of a son to him doesn't mean he was not believing in God's promised blessing--the belief that justifies.

Gen. 12: And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."

In Gen. 12, we have Abraham leaving Haran, by faith. He BELIEVES GOD that his SEED will inherit the land of promise and all nations will be blessed through him.

These are YOUR criteria, Jethro, and they ALL happen in Gen. 12, and again in Gen 15. All you have to do is be honest with yourself.

What the Bible does say, in Hebrews, is we are made perfect before God one time, for all time, by the one time sacrifice of Jesus. It does not say we continually come to God to be made perfect again and again. It says we are made perfect one time for all time (justification) and then grow up in a process of being made holy, being more and more set apart (holy) in how we behave (sanctification). You are confusing 'justification' with 'sanctification'. Sanctification is the life long process, not justification.

What Hebrews does say is that we are to persevere in faith. If the faith mentioned in Heb. 11 was not "saving faith", then why would the author stress perseverance in a "non-saving faith"? It's obvious what he means by "faith" in Heb. 11. Again, I have yet to hear of a theologian (or even a pastor), either Catholic or Protestant, who doesn't think Heb. 11 refers to saving faith.

As long as you continue to have the faith that justified you, you will remain justified.

So, justification CAN be lost? Why can't you accept that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12, then lost that initial justification? He obviously doubted that God could give him "descendants" in Gen 15:2-3.

But Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3 And Abram said, "Behold, thou hast given me no offspring; and a slave born in my house will be my heir."

God had to renew the promise, and Abraham believed Him, which justified him AGAIN. Abraham broke communion with God by not trusting the initial promise and, therefore, had to be justified again.

This is not hard.

 

[dadof10]

11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 8:11 NIV1984)

Great, then the words "were reckoned righteous" aren't NECESSARY to prove that a person was justified. We can INFER from other words (like "kingdom of Heaven" or "the Holy Spirit descended upon all who were present") that a person is justified, right? That was my point. We can infer from the words in Heb. 11 and Gen. 12 that Abraham was justified when he left Haran, which, BTW, was NOT by faith alone, even though he HAD faith. If he would have stayed, he wouldn't have been justified.

 

[dadof10]

Then how did they get into the Kingdom of God?

Matthew 8 NASB
11 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven ...
​

I was proving a point to Jethro. See above.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I was proving a point to Jethro. See above.

Regardless, Scripture does indeed say they were justified, or they would not be in heaven.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How does this prove your point that "deeds...done in righteousness" means "all righteous works"? The verses I posted...and reposted....and reposted...prove that Paul means righteous works of the Law by "deeds...done in righteousness". Until you can show anyone tying "deeds..." to ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE LAW, you haven't proved your contention.

Paul plainly contrasts works of the law with faith in the blood of Christ, not the non-law work you claim justifies a person.

I asked you to show me where the Bible says we are made righteous before God (justified) by this work outside of the law. I especially want to know where Paul said it so there can be no doubt that he just wasn't including other work for some reason along with the forgiveness of sins to be justified. Just show us where it says what work has the power to make us righteous before God. Paul says only the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus' blood can do that.