Upon this rock/Keys

dingoling.

Well-known member
Are you kidding?
Read Romans 3 and 4 ,every line
and answer when was Abraham justified?
Scripture explicitly state that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Issac on the alter. Now if you want to say that Abraham was justified when he left then we have to accept the fact that Abraham was justified more than once.
 

A new day

Well-known member
Scripture explicitly state that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Issac on the alter. Now if you want to say that Abraham was justified when he left then we have to accept the fact that Abraham was justified more than once.

why would he have been justified more than once?

Genesis 15, says he was justified. Abraham doesn't put Issac on the alter till chapter 22.
 
Last edited:

A new day

Well-known member
This is not said, before Genesis 15:6

"Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness"

And it was not repeated in Genesis 22. The point being made is that Abraham was justified because he BELIEVED God, not because he left a country. Or because he put Isaac on an alter.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

The words "belief" and "believe" are synonyms for the word "faith" . Scripture says God credited righteousness to Abraham on account of Abraham "believing" God.

ok, now, Genesis 15:4-5 says

Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

When God said this, Abraham believed God. (verse 6) Even though Abraham had no children at that time. Isaac is not mentioned until chapter 21.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Scripture explicitly state that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Issac on the alter. Now if you want to say that Abraham was justified when he left then we have to accept the fact that Abraham was justified more than once.
Scripture explicitly states that Abraham was justified (declared righteous) by God prior to being circumcised, which was prior to the offer of Isaac,


Abraham was NOT justified more than once.

Why not just except the view of the early Church and agree James 2:21 is talking about vindication/proved?

Cyril of Alexandria, a native Greek speaker, on the issue of the meaning of the term edikaiōthē (translated “justified” in Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scripture, New Testament VI), clearly explains that he believes that it refers to vindication, and not literal justification:

Clement
, who writes at a time contemporaneous enough with James’ to have a thorough understanding of edikaiōthē and the doctrine of the Apostles that is surrounding it. Citing James 2:23, and likely having the whole section in mind when exegeting Hebrews 11, he writes that Abraham proved his faithfulness in the performance faithful acts:
Not only does Clement endorse the view that Abraham was vindicated by his sacrifice of Isaac, as he was found faithful in our sight because of it, he linguistically uses the term “justified” to mean “vindicated” elsewhere in the letter.Cyprian of Carthage writes:
“men are tried by God for this purpose, that they may be proved.”

A later Latin writer, Hilary of Poitiers,
Abraham had proved, by the sacrifice of his son,

"the Greek language had no other word that meant vindication in the present tense"
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
I Thess is saying that he was justified when he left his country, which is before Genesis 15.
yes: because Abraham believed!!!

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”

please justify (prove/vindicate) your view that Abraham was NOT justified (declared righteous by God) when he first believed.
 
Last edited:

1Thess521

Well-known member
Well, sorry, but this is a perfect example of placing your interpretation of scripture over scripture.
  1. The Scriptures were NOT written in English
  2. "the Greek language had no other word that meant vindication in the present tense"
  3. The meaning of Scripture is more important than the words used. (so you don't misunderstand figures of speech). Its called context!

lets see what a Faithful, knowledgeable Church-loving, Catholic author has to say:
You Can Understand The Bible: A Practical And Illuminating Guide To Each Book In The Bible
By Peter Kreeft Pages 291-292
-----------------
"Actually, James' point is very clear and simple, it is not a contrast between faith and works but between a real faith, a faith that works, and a fake faith, one that does not. "Show me your faith apart from your works, and by my works will show you my faith."​
We do not see a living plant's roots, only its fruits. Others cannot see your faith, for it is invisible.​
They can see only your actions, which show your faith as a tulip flower shows you that a tulip bulb has taken root The apparent contradiction between James, who says that we, like Abraham, are justified by works (2: 21), and Paul, who says that we, like Abraham, are justified by faith (Rom 4), is explained by looking at the context.
Paul's context is the relationship between the believer and God, while James' context is the relationship between the believer and his neighbor.​
God sees your faith; your neighbor sees your works. Faith justifies us before God; works justify us before our neighbors."
---------------------
 

Johan

Well-known member
Scripture explicitly state that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Issac on the alter.
Scripture also explicitly states that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised.

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! (Rom. 4:9–10)
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
This is not said, before Genesis 15:6

"Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness"

And it was not repeated in Genesis 22. The point being made is that Abraham was justified because he BELIEVED God, not because he left a country. Or because he put Isaac on an alter.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

The words "belief" and "believe" are synonyms for the word "faith" . Scripture says God credited righteousness to Abraham on account of Abraham "believing" God.

ok, now, Genesis 15:4-5 says

Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

When God said this, Abraham believed God. (verse 6) Even though Abraham had no children at that time. Isaac is not mentioned until chapter 21.
Hebrews 11:8 says, "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance...."
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Scripture also explicitly states that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised.

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! (Rom. 4:9–10)
But Abraham had faith and obeyed before Genesis 15 as it states for us in Hebrews 11:8.
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Not the actual meaning of scripture in context and in agreement with the rest of scripture
Jesus said, "....this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant...."

You say that it is not his body and that it is not his blood of the covenant based on your interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation of scripture contradicts the actual words of scripture.

By dividing yourself from other Christians who don't agree with your interpretation you are placing your interpretation above that of scripture.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
James says, "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?"
yes:
Was not our ancestor Abraham VINDICATED by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?"


Why not just except the view of the early Church and agree James 2:21 is talking about vindication/proved?

"the Greek language had no other word that meant vindication in the present tense"

Cyril of Alexandria
, a native Greek speaker, on the issue of the meaning of the term edikaiōthē (translated “justified” in Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scripture, New Testament VI), clearly explains that he believes that it refers to vindication, and not literal justification:

Clement
, who writes at a time contemporaneous enough with James’ to have a thorough understanding of edikaiōthē and the doctrine of the Apostles that is surrounding it. Citing James 2:23, and likely having the whole section in mind when exegeting Hebrews 11, he writes that Abraham proved his faithfulness in the performance faithful acts:
Not only does Clement endorse the view that Abraham was vindicated by his sacrifice of Isaac, as he was found faithful in our sight because of it, he linguistically uses the term “justified” to mean “vindicated” elsewhere in the letter.Cyprian of Carthage writes:
“men are tried by God for this purpose, that they may be proved.”

A later Latin writer, Hilary of Poitiers,
Abraham had proved, by the sacrifice of his son,

 
Top