So why the drastic change in beliefs?

[Norefund]

I agree with both of you. I just don't think Jesus was advocating a prohibition on attending movies, listening to upbeat music, women wearing pants, men having a particular hairstyle, attending church every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, and an ever growing list of other man based rules.

I think the real "standard" is how you treat others.

Folks, if we don't have to 'do things' in order to be right with God then my entire concept of Christianity is wrong-headed - or yours is. Holiness isn't something foisted upon us. By the grace of God, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, we are called to DO a whole bunch of things and not DO a whole bunch of things. This idea that we just sit down on our blessed assurance while God magically zaps us with sanctification is nonsense. No, we don't DO these things in our strength, but they sure must be done, and done by us.

Tom, you and I don't agree on much, but I do agree with you here. Jesus taught about abiding in the Vine to bear fruit He produces and it is up to us to do the abiding and remain attached to the Vine.

 

[myeyesareopen]

Tom Brennan wrote:

Folks, if we don't have to 'do things' in order to be right with God then my entire concept of Christianity is wrong-headed - or yours is.

Not to single Tom out, but his statement is representative of one side of the issue, and my sincere question is: Why is it assumed that those who purport that the same grace that saved is the grace that sanctifies...why is it assumed that those people simply sit around 'on their blessed assurances' and do nothing for the Lord?

 

[Fresh Air]

Tom Brennan wrote:

Folks, if we don't have to 'do things' in order to be right with God then my entire concept of Christianity is wrong-headed - or yours is.

Not to single Tom out, but his statement is representative of one side of the issue, and my sincere question is: Why is it assumed that those who purport that the same grace that saved is the grace that sanctifies...why is it assumed that those people simply sit around 'on their blessed assurances' and do nothing for the Lord?

...b/c that is what Mat Ward, amongst others, just said. And it is what countless other people have said to me through the years. No, I do not believe all the people who disagree with me hold that position, but many do, and I think it is an exceedingly wrongheaded one, similar to how I feel about those who believe 'under grace' means that there are no more rules/commands for us to follow. It is an extremely one-sided  hermeneutic with no balance at all.

Certainly there are Christians who are unbalanced the other way, and who, in essence, maintain that sanctification is completely up to me and to what I do/don't do. I obviously don't hold that position. But neither can I come anywhere close to accepting the idea that says we bear no responsibility to fight/work/win/strive/obey/etc. either.

 

[Fresh Air]

Folks, if we don't have to 'do things' in order to be right with God then my entire concept of Christianity is wrong-headed - or yours is. Holiness isn't something foisted upon us. By the grace of God, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, we are called to DO a whole bunch of things and not DO a whole bunch of things. This idea that we just sit down on our blessed assurance while God magically zaps us with sanctification is nonsense. No, we don't DO these things in our strength, but they sure must be done, and done by us.

It's either work or grace. 

You can work for your sanctification if you want to just like folks can work for their salvation if they want to.

Grace produces works. If it doesn't then grace didn't really happen. There is a clear and repeated emphasis paid to this in Scripture.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Folks, if we don't have to 'do things' in order to be right with God then my entire concept of Christianity is wrong-headed - or yours is. Holiness isn't something foisted upon us. By the grace of God, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, we are called to DO a whole bunch of things and not DO a whole bunch of things. This idea that we just sit down on our blessed assurance while God magically zaps us with sanctification is nonsense. No, we don't DO these things in our strength, but they sure must be done, and done by us.

It's either work or grace. 

You can work for your sanctification if you want to just like folks can work for their salvation if they want to.

Grace produces works. If it doesn't then grace didn't really happen. There is a clear and repeated emphasis paid to this in Scripture.

Sure grace produces works, never said otherwise. What I said was our sanctification isn't performed by works.  Sanctification is by the word and by the Spirit simply by God's grace.

Tithing, praying, going to church are not works that sanctify me, it is God that has sanctified me by his grace.  It is funny how IFB's believe in salvation by grace and glorification by grace but somehow sanctification is by works...just doesn't add up.

Somehow we think having a short haircut and wearing a shirt and tie while carrying a KJV will set us apart, it is sad people are so far from the Bible and call themselves people of the book.

 

[Evelyn]

Folks, if we don't have to 'do things' in order to be right with God then my entire concept of Christianity is wrong-headed - or yours is. Holiness isn't something foisted upon us. By the grace of God, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, we are called to DO a whole bunch of things and not DO a whole bunch of things. This idea that we just sit down on our blessed assurance while God magically zaps us with sanctification is nonsense. No, we don't DO these things in our strength, but they sure must be done, and done by us.

We, the saved, are seen as righteous in God's eyes because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.  Our own righteousness, the very best we can do, is as filthy rags.  There is nothing I can do on my own which will bring me closer to God.  When God looks at me, He sees ONLY the finished work of His Son, not my own deeds. 

That said, a spirit-filled believer WILL display the fruit of the Holy Spirit purely because the Spirit will work through that person, or the person is simply not a spirit-filled believer, or a believer of any sort. 

To think that *I* can do something which will make me appear more righteous in God's eyes, well, this will seem harsh, but it smacks of blasphemy.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Here we go.....

I am IFB.  I am IFB because of what those words mean.  I believe an IFB church ought to be characterized by soul winning, separation and a spirit of revival.  I am perturbed by CCM and agitated by its more conservative cousin that is springing in to IFB churches and I don't like Southern/Country Gospel.  My family has each, individually, chosen to continue to abide by the old standards I grew up with at HAC.

I am IFB, but not THAT IFB.  I have chosen to remove myself from what I call the NADD (Not-A-Denomination-Denomination).  The system of pride and promotion in that group is wrong.  Ministers living in gluttonous luxury is wrong.  Blind loyalty is wrong.  Preaching opinion rather than Scripture is wrong.  The system of phariseeism in these churches is wrong.  Some time ago, I chose to leave the NADD, though I am still IFB.

Over the past year, I have discovered what many term legalism is actually Performance Based Christianity (PBC).  I was taught PBC throughout all of my life.  The model proclaimed by the NADD and many IFB is that if you do enough, you will earn the peace of God which passeth understanding.  One minister in the NADD proudly proclaimed that he tells people who have a problem that all they need to do is read their Bible every day, pray every day, go to church three times each week, tithe and go soulwinning - if one will do this for three weeks, all of their problems will go away.  What a buffoon.  Of course, when the problem doesn't go away, the individual is told that they then are not doing enough and they need to work harder to show God their devotion so God will shower His love and peace upon them.  This is PBC and it is wrong.

Tom, I get what you are saying.  Many of the "Grace" crowd teach that because they have liberty, they can live as they please.  Romans 6:2 plainly answers: "God forbid."  For nearly a year I struggled with what this meant to live the Christian life by the same grace through which we received our salvation.  Tozer's Pursuit of God helped me greatly.  Multitudes of hours of study, conversation with my wife and counsel helped greatly.  Grace Walk, though I could not agree with everything, finished this for me.  My best explanation of living by grace is Peter walking on the water.  When he took his eyes off Jesus and thought of what he needed to do, he sank.  When his eyes and heart was on Jesus, he overcame the impossible.  When we strive for God's power to help us do valiantly and overcome the storm, we sink.  If we will just keep our eyes on Jesus, we find ourselves overcoming sin, storm and stress in life.  What does this look like?  Get The Gospel Primer.  It interestingly applies the Gospel to every area of our life - Looking unto Jesus.

The real problem is that so many of us were taught to work hard, show God your devotion and you will be blessed.  Well, that worked for the people who knew how to play the system.  They were good politicians who aligned themselves with the right people to move up in position and receive a good salary and plush lifestyle.  These, our leaders, defined this plush lifestyle as success and taught us that if we work hard enough for God, God will shower us with these blessings also.  It was a false gospel, the prosperity gospel, and it is proclaimed by most of the NADD.  Now, for the rest of us, we worked our fool heads off and found no peace.  We found no acceptance.  We found no prosperity.  WHY?  is asked.  Is God real?  Didn't He promise?  ANSWER:  Yes, God is real and He promised - but He has already provided!  The peace is already there!  WE CAN'T EARN GOD'S FAVOR!  God loves us and freely gives us His favor.

IF WE SEEK TO EARN GOD'S FAVOR, WE HAVE DENIED HIS UNMERITED FAVOR.

I believe what has happened to many once they have learned the falsehood of PBC is that they throw out most of the rules and standards by which they had previously attempted to earn God's favor.  I have moved away from the NADD and PBC.  However, I have chosen to maintain my standards of separation because I believe they provide a lifestyle that glorifies God in my person and proclaims this desire to others through my daily walk.

 

[Fresh Air]

IF WE SEEK TO EARN GOD'S FAVOR, WE HAVE DENIED HIS UNMERITED FAVOR.

You mean to tell me that there is nothing I can do to earn God's favor? I'm certainly not talking about salvation here, but afterwards. Have you studied every verse in the Bible about blessing, favor, and pleasing God? Because while I do believe I must have His enablement, via grace and the power of the Holy Spirit, I most definitely believe there are things I can/should do that will result in His favor on my life and things I cannot/should not do that, if done, would bring His disfavor to my life.

I realize that grace is, by definition, unmerited favor. I also realize it takes God's grace for me to do anything. But the people whom I know that hold the position that one can do nothing to either earn/unearn God's blessing on their life, that He is pleased with them (through Jesus Christ) regardless of what they do/don't do...well, those people curiously often end up living a life that very much resembles the unsaved. I reject that completely. Again, I must have God's help in order to please Him, but that pleasing Him comes from what I do/don't do after salvation. It is a teamwork. It is a partnership. But that means I have to carry my end of the log, so to speak.

I just finished up a nine week series on grace. I'm not afraid of the term at all, and I don't think the 'gracers' or the calvinists have the right to claim ownership of it. I'm fixing to start what will probably be a 12 week series on blessing. I'm not afraid of that either. I've preached probably 100x in the past three years about holiness, including a verse by verse study of Romans 6-8. I'm not afraid of those chapters either. I just don't believe that sanctification (in the sense of my present state) happens to me like the calvinists claim salvation does via irresistible grace, whether I want it or no. There is a whole bunch of work, of doing, of striving, of fighting, involved on my part - with the enabling grace of God and the indwelling power of the Spirit making that effectual. But He doesn't zap me with it, and I cannot please Him if I do not obey Him and serve Him.

Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

[lnf]

I am quite possibly the worst person to comment on the subject of sanctification, because honestly, there are way too many areas in my life where I recognize my failure...every single day.

Tom Brennan said, "Grace produces works", and I believe this  wholeheartedly.  As I tried to puzzle out what "bearing fruit" actually looks like in my life, I saw that God has changed my thought patterns .  I no longer believe (and consequently, act) the way I used to.  For instance, I forgive much more readily than I did in the past.  I believe I recognize unforgiveness in my life much sooner, and am much quicker to pray for "my enemies"...and I have seen God bless my relationships because of how He has changed me.

Just this past week, I was lamenting my many failures (I still struggle with striving in my own strength vs. wholly trusting in God)...when I believe Holy Spirit spoke to me...don't look at how far you have to go, but how far you have come... 

 

[Binaca Chugger]

IF WE SEEK TO EARN GOD'S FAVOR, WE HAVE DENIED HIS UNMERITED FAVOR.

You mean to tell me that there is nothing I can do to earn God's favor? I'm certainly not talking about salvation here, but afterwards. Have you studied every verse in the Bible about blessing, favor, and pleasing God? Because while I do believe I must have His enablement, via grace and the power of the Holy Spirit, I most definitely believe there are things I can/should do that will result in His favor on my life and things I cannot/should not do that, if done, would bring His disfavor to my life.

By definition, no - you cannot earn grace.  My full definition of grace is "God's enabling power of unmerited favor."  I have read every verse.  I have studied much.  But I must confess I have not made a lengthy study of every verse.  Finally, I cannot bring God's disfavor on my life.  I might sin and receive the wages thereof.  I might sin and grieve the Holy Spirit.  But, just as you do not abandon your favor to your children when they disobey (even though you must punish them), so too God does not abandon His favor toward His children even though they might need to be punished.  The reason for this constant favor is found in Imputation.  When you realize the wonder of imputation, you realize just how God sees you - righteous.  To proclaim that you can earn righteousness is to deny the need of the Gospel.

I realize that grace is, by definition, unmerited favor. I also realize it takes God's grace for me to do anything. But the people whom I know that hold the position that one can do nothing to either earn/unearn God's blessing on their life, that He is pleased with them (through Jesus Christ) regardless of what they do/don't do...well, those people curiously often end up living a life that very much resembles the unsaved. I reject that completely. Again, I must have God's help in order to please Him, but that pleasing Him comes from what I do/don't do after salvation. It is a teamwork. It is a partnership. But that means I have to carry my end of the log, so to speak.

Rom 6 speaks plainly to answer the "I can do anything I want now" crowd.  I also reject the notion that a Christian should live a life that resembles the unsaved.  This is one of the big problems I have with the Purpose Driven Church model.  I am hearing you say "I must please God."  I have changed that in my life to "I must glorify God."  This may seem subtle to some. But, to a fellow HACker, I think you understand the difference.  I am not trying to do enough to gain God's pleasure of me.  I rest assured of His love which motivates, inspires and empowers me to have peace that passeth understanding. 

A marriage is a type of Christ and the church.  Imagine a marriage where the wife is constantly trying to achieve her husbands favor!  You have pastored long enough to know the marriage would be in shambles.  Just as the wife is to rest assured of her husbands love, we are to rest in the unmerited love of our Savior.

I just finished up a nine week series on grace. I'm not afraid of the term at all, and I don't think the 'gracers' or the calvinists have the right to claim ownership of it. I'm fixing to start what will probably be a 12 week series on blessing. I'm not afraid of that either. I've preached probably 100x in the past three years about holiness, including a verse by verse study of Romans 6-8. I'm not afraid of those chapters either. I just don't believe that sanctification (in the sense of my present state) happens to me like the calvinists claim salvation does via irresistible grace, whether I want it or no. There is a whole bunch of work, of doing, of striving, of fighting, involved on my part - with the enabling grace of God and the indwelling power of the Spirit making that effectual. But He doesn't zap me with it, and I cannot please Him if I do not obey Him and serve Him.

Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

From your study in Romans, you know that sanctification happened before the world began, at your salvation, is continuing through your Christian growth and will be perfected when you receive your glorified body in heaven.

I must put on the armor.  I must choose right.  But, if you would, picture the Christian life as typified by the children of Israel going into Canaan.  God's children went to the battle clean and prepared, but God gave the victory.  We are to run the race, looking unto Jesus.

How do you define God's favor?  If it is health, wealth and prominence, your definition is absolutely wrong.

 

[Fresh Air]

On an un-related study I came across this quote this afternoon, and I think it has direct bearing:

That does not mean I therefore remain passive in the matter. I believe that the work is God's; but I also believe what James says, 'Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you.' I want God to draw nigh to me, because, if He does not, my heart will remain black. How is God going to draw nigh to me? You 'draw nigh to God and he will draw night to you,' says James. 'Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts ye double minded.' The fact that I know that I cannot ultimately purify or cleanse my heart in an absolute sense does not mean that I should walk in the gutters of life waiting for God to cleanse me. I must do everything I can and still know it is not enough, and that He must do it finally. Or listen again to what Paul says: 'It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.' Yes, but 'mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth.' Strangle them, get rid of them, get rid of everything that stands between you and the goal you are aiming at. 'Mortify', put it to death. 'If ye through the Spirit,' he says again in Romans, 'do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.'
                                                            David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, pg 99

There is a balance here. If I just sit down and wait for God to zap me with holiness this side of eternity, similar to how the calvinists view irresistible grace, I will end up living a life of very little practical holiness. On the other hand, if I simply depend upon my effort and fight to win through to holiness I may be slightly cleaner in some aspects but there will be no real heart growth toward God. There is a balance here expressed both in the Sermon and in Paul's writings that ought to likewise be expressed in our lives.

 

[RAIDER]

I always find it funny that the first thing mentioned by those who consider IFB "legalist" is dress standards.  If not for this one item I'm not sure there would even be a debate.  I'm also sure that the reason it is the first thing brought up is because of the emphasis on the topic by IFB.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I always find it funny that the first thing mentioned by those who consider IFB "legalist" is dress standards.  If not for this one item I'm not sure there would even be a debate.  I'm also sure that the reason it is the first thing brought up is because of the emphasis on the topic by IFB.

Any of the performance based sanctification standards will do...CCM, KJVO, acceptable words to use, no alcohol consumption, interracial marriage to name a few.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Now to throw a monkey wrench in the conversation. How does Covenant Theology fit in? In the OT, God worked with His people based on covenants: they obeyed and he promised and blessed. Abraham's faith was based on God keeping His end of the covenant so it wasn't solely based on faith alone. James said this was proven when he was willing to offer Isaac up to God. Israel was given promises of blessing IF they obeyed. That does not mean that God never blessed outside the covenant, but rather He was not obligated to do so.

God never changes. So in that realm, how can a covenantal God suddenly change from a covenant system of blessing (His blessing upon obedience of the other party) to that of grace through faith alone?

This is one of the things I can't seem to hash out in my mind.

 

[Fresh Air]

Now to throw a monkey wrench in the conversation. How does Covenant Theology fit in? In the OT, God worked with His people based on covenants: they obeyed and he promised and blessed. Abraham's faith was based on God keeping His end of the covenant so it wasn't solely based on faith alone. James said this was proven when he was willing to offer Isaac up to God. Israel was given promises of blessing IF they obeyed. That does not mean that God never blessed outside the covenant, but rather He was not obligated to do so.

God never changes. So in that realm, how can a covenantal God suddenly change from a covenant system of blessing (His blessing upon obedience of the other party) to that of grace through faith alone?

This is one of the things I can't seem to hash out in my mind.

The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional on its face, but it did have some conditional aspects attached. In that sense, it reminds me very much of how God operates now. IOW, He has remained consistent in His dealings with humanity. Faith = receiving an unconditional promised blessing...but once that is done if we want to move on to further blessings there are some conditions attached.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Now to throw a monkey wrench in the conversation. How does Covenant Theology fit in? In the OT, God worked with His people based on covenants: they obeyed and he promised and blessed. Abraham's faith was based on God keeping His end of the covenant so it wasn't solely based on faith alone. James said this was proven when he was willing to offer Isaac up to God. Israel was given promises of blessing IF they obeyed. That does not mean that God never blessed outside the covenant, but rather He was not obligated to do so.

God never changes. So in that realm, how can a covenantal God suddenly change from a covenant system of blessing (His blessing upon obedience of the other party) to that of grace through faith alone?

This is one of the things I can't seem to hash out in my mind.

Genesis 15:6  And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Paul states the same thing in Romans 4:3  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

To think that it wasn't by God's grace would be folly, imho, and Abraham believed (faith) God.  So of course it was by grace through faith as the scriptures teach.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Now to throw a monkey wrench in the conversation. How does Covenant Theology fit in? In the OT, God worked with His people based on covenants: they obeyed and he promised and blessed. Abraham's faith was based on God keeping His end of the covenant so it wasn't solely based on faith alone. James said this was proven when he was willing to offer Isaac up to God. Israel was given promises of blessing IF they obeyed. That does not mean that God never blessed outside the covenant, but rather He was not obligated to do so.

God never changes. So in that realm, how can a covenantal God suddenly change from a covenant system of blessing (His blessing upon obedience of the other party) to that of grace through faith alone?

This is one of the things I can't seem to hash out in my mind.

You have a Performance Based Christianity (PBC) paradigm of the covenants. 

Yes, the covenants are filled with if/then.  However, the promise of the covenant is that the wages of sin is death.  When we choose sin despite the grace that is continued to be given, God will sometimes (He is longsuffering) allow us to taste the end of our sin.  In the Old Testament, destruction and captivity came.  BUT, a remnant always remained.  God used the destruction to bring about their recognition of their sin, humble repentance and restored worship of God.  Thus, Rom 8:28-29 was proven correct.  God worked all things together for good, where good is defined as sanctification of the people and glorification of God (That we may be conformed into His image).

God does not quit showing favor when I sin.  His favor is to break me from my pride that I might be further conformed to His image and further glorify Him. 

I think that many in the IFB, especially in the NADD, believe that God's favor is only health, wealth and comfort - or honor, prestige and authority.  Did God show favor to Paul when he was repeatedly beaten and imprisoned?  Did God show favor to John the Baptist when he was beheaded?  Did God show favor to Job when allowing the trial?  YES, He did.  We must move away from the Prosperity Gospel, which is not the Gospel, but another gospel.

 

[RAIDER]

Now to throw a monkey wrench in the conversation. How does Covenant Theology fit in? In the OT, God worked with His people based on covenants: they obeyed and he promised and blessed. Abraham's faith was based on God keeping His end of the covenant so it wasn't solely based on faith alone. James said this was proven when he was willing to offer Isaac up to God. Israel was given promises of blessing IF they obeyed. That does not mean that God never blessed outside the covenant, but rather He was not obligated to do so.

God never changes. So in that realm, how can a covenantal God suddenly change from a covenant system of blessing (His blessing upon obedience of the other party) to that of grace through faith alone?

This is one of the things I can't seem to hash out in my mind.

I still believe your answer may lie in a dispensational view.  IFB X-files, care to chime in? 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Please believe me when I am saying that I am not trying to be an antagonist here because that is far from any intent I have. But I do have problems with the  Abrahamic Covenant as stated above. Here are the issues:

1. Abraham produced faith BEFORE Genesis 15:6. Hebrews 11 says, "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God."

So how is it that this faith was not sufficient enough for salvation?

2. Hebrews 11 then continues on to say it was Sarah's faith concerning her conception and not Abraham's: "By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised." Why wasn't Abraham's faith mentioned at that point? Or is it that the faith as mentioned in Hebrews 11 is completely different than any "saving" faith?

3. How is it that Abraham's faith in God's promise to extend his seed was salvific in nature when it is not in the original context in Genesis?

4. The covenant in Genesis 15:6 is again mentioned in Genesis 17. Same covenant that Abraham's seed would be extended. But this time, the condition was given: "When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "“I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” So since God's portion of the covenant is the same in chapters 15 and 17, what makes faith in chapter 15 and not obedience in chapter 17?

5. In Genesis 26, God reiterates His covenant with Isaac but links it to Abraham's obedience and not faith: "... And Isaac went... unto Gerar. And Jehovah appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt. Dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of. Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee. For unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father. And I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

6. Then James comes along and mixes it up as well: " Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Seems to be what James was saying is that obedience + faith is what saved Abraham. It was his actions in Genesis 22 that eventually justified Abraham, not simply Abraham's faith alone in Genesis 15. This is backed up by the Genesis account: " “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore."

7. Then we come back to Genesis 15:6 itself. Could the pronouns convolute the meaning? Could it not mean this: "And Abraham believed God and he (Abraham) counted it to him (God) as righteousness"?

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament puts it like this:

The second part of this verse records Yahweh's response to Abram's exercise of faith: `he credited it to him as righteousness.' But even here there is a degree of ambiguity. Who credited whom? Of course, one may say that the NT settles the issue, for Paul expressly identifies the subject as God and the indirect object as Abram (Rom. 4:3). If we follow normal Hebrew syntax, in which the subject of the first clause is presumed to continue into the next clause if the subject is unexpressed, then the verse's meaning is changed... Does he, therefore, continue as the logical subject of the second clause? The Hebrew of the verse certainly permits this interpretation, especially when one recalls that sedaqa means both `righteousness' (a theological meaning) and `justice' (a juridical meaning). The whole verse could then be translated: "Abram put his faith in Yahweh, and he [Abram] considered it [the promise of seed(s)] justice."

If this commentary is correct (I don't know enough Hebrew to determine it is or isn't), Genesis 15:5 was Abraham counting the promise of God as justice by God.

Regardless, the entire basis between God's covenant with Abraham and salvation by grace through faith ALONE is convoluted at best, IMHO. Original context of the verse in Genesis 15 is not salvific, Abraham displayed faith before Genesis 15, the exact same covenant was based upon Abraham's obedience in Genesis 17, James reiterated that Genesis 15 didn't lead to justification until Abraham's obedience in Genesis 22 and the ambiguity of the meaning of the verse itself as who counted what to whom.

Hence, my confusion...

 

[christundivided]

Regardless, the entire basis between God's covenant with Abraham and salvation by grace through faith ALONE is convoluted at best, IMHO. Original context of the verse in Genesis 15 is not salvific, Abraham displayed faith before Genesis 15, the exact same covenant was based upon Abraham's obedience in Genesis 17, James reiterated that Genesis 15 didn't lead to justification until Abraham's obedience in Genesis 22 and the ambiguity of the meaning of the verse itself as who counted what to whom.

Hence, my confusion...

I believe you have a valid point. A point that is not easily reconciled when you introduce the words of James. I don't believe the answer involves rejecting salvation by faith alone. That seems the the direction you're taking. I believe you're wrong in doing so. I've enjoyed discuss the book of James through the years with those who are open to such a discussion. You're basing your beliefs largely on the words of "James". You should honestly consider the possibility you're are wrong to take them as being equally persuasive as the writings of Paul you've referenced.

Also, there is difference between God establishing a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 and the very moment Abraham forsook his homeland. The difference is found in what Abraham placed his faith "in". Faith is often a journey of believing. One belief leads to another belief. Taken together, they form the bases for a theology. I think you must recognize this. I believe you do. Isaac is a clear allusion to Jesus Christ. Its is unmistakeable. When God spoke of a promise seed, it extended beyond just Isaac. It was an illusion to Jesus Christ Himself. Its a truth Abraham began to understand. Abraham believed more than just Isaac would be born of God's promise. Abraham picked a "telescope" of faith and saw the redemption of humanity in Jesus Christ. This was a process.