Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw
Nope, what I'm saying is that the statement of being justified was said after he believed for the first time, and obeyed accordantly and moved to Canaan.
I'm also aware of the "Then he" on that verse. However, most translation say "And he", and the Septuagint says "kai" (and). Romans don't use "then" or "and". However, when you read the passage, it feels like a continuation of events anyways.
See this:
[ Heb 11:8-12 NASB] 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign [land,] dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, [as many descendants] AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE.
The last bold text is the exact promise where the statement of justified by faith happened in Gen 15:5-6. The promise is told again in Gen 22:17.
Why the Bible doesn't say that he was justified when he first believed and obeyed? Aren't you saying that believing activates justification right away? |
I may need you to clarify what your ultimate point is if you don't mind, because I'm not sure i know what you're ultimately getting at.
There is definitely a debate on when Abram's justification actually occurred, whether in
Gen 12 or 15. I guess I would be inclined to say 15 because, well, that's when Scripture explicitly says he was. I was reading 12 and 15, and though similar things are mentioned about the covenant, 15 is different. In 15 God confirms that the promised seed would come directly from his own body and not through Abram's servant. Abram believed this promise. God then confirms the covenant through sacrifice.
When he was justified may be up for debate. How he was justified is not. It was by believing and trusting the promise of God. He was not declared righteous because he obeyed. His initial justification came before any act of obedience. That is Paul's point. He obeyed later because he had true justifying faith. He was declared righteous then obeyed, which demonstrated his faith. Again, Paul's clear contrast in
Romans 4 is between believing and doing.
I do believe someone has to be baptized, but not in order to be justified. Baptism is the usual place a person publicly confesses his saving faith, baptism being the sign and seal of his justifying faith.
That is the theology of it all.
In actual practice, though, I would not lead someone to repent/make a confession of faith apart from baptism. I would lead them to baptism. Someone may be justified before going down in Jesus' name, but the Body of Christ would not know that and could not regard someone has having that faith till he is baptized.
So if we would follow the order of Peter's command in
Acts 2:38, a person coming to justifying faith and receiving the remission of sins and being baptized would basically occur together. Since we don't do this generally and push people to receive the baptism of the Spirit before being baptized we now have this debate of when forgiveness of sins actually occurs.
I understand you to believe that someone can have the fullness of the Spirit but not have his sins forgiven if he is not baptized yet. I find that to be impossible because that would necessarily mean he was still lost (you can't be alive spiritually and still be dead in sin), and so I conclude that what must be present for forgiveness of sins is not baptism but faith/repentance.
Luke 24:47: "and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Acts 13:38-39: "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."
Acts 3:19: "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."
Acts 5:31: "To give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."
Acts 10:43: "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”
I'm not suggesting by these verses that baptism is dispensable or not the usual place where repentance would take place, but these verses suggest to me that repentance is the primary thing and if present forgiveness comes. When Peter said what's in v. 43, Cornelius and his household believed in Him and were forgiven and then almost instantaneously baptized with the Spirit.
Ultimately, though I think the traditional OP view of conversion can make a strong case, I think what I have been arguing for in this thread has more explanatory power and can make sense of all the passages about salvation without contradiction or unreasonable or illogical implications.
I'm reluctant to use words like
illogical or
unreasonable because I don't want anyone to think I am suggesting anyone is stupid for holding the traditional view. I don't think that. Nor do I think I am supremely logical or reasonable. I am just trying to do my best to understand a difficult issue.
God bless.