Some fables indeed - on regeneration and justification

 

'Today believers are made not credited with righteousness as Abraham was b/c Jesus by his death made payment for all sin' --  Ed, president of a certain global outreach organization

This is a completely erroneous statement, betraying a very messed up understanding of the doctrine of justification. See if you can detect the grievous errors and confusion. State them February 6 at 11:19am

Sing F Lau
Let's try to understand what the statement says:

1. Today believers are made.... (i.e. in the NT)
- NOT credited with righteousness as Abraham was.
- Why? because Jesus by his death made payment for all sin.

What are some necessary implications from this statement?

Adam Wells
Wouldn't this be tantamount to what the RCC taught concerning righteousness being imparted whereas the reformers taught imputed righteousness?

Grant 
Why would God need to credit me with righteousness - if he made me righteous in the new creation? No, I don't have to be credited with something I already am!
OT saint were never new creations, they needed to be credited with righteousness. We have a better covenant.

Ed
Adam, the Old Testament never employs the terminology of "regeneration" or being "born" with the spiritual life of God in reference to Old Testament believers. Neither does the New Testament ever apply such terminology to Old Testament personages in the past. "Regeneration" and spiritual life are exclusively related to the unique spiritual union between Jesus Christ and the Christian.

[ERROR No. 1 : Just because the OT does not use the term 'regeneration' or 'born again', Ed concludes therefore there is no regeneration in the OT. However, OT is full of the accounts of men and women who manifested the EVIDENCES and EFFECTS of spiritual life - and but Ed's prejudice prevent him to see them. He insists that OT must employ the terminology he wants! Such impudence! Spiritual activities are most certainly evidences and effects of spiritual life... whether the terminology 'life' is used.']

The "Word of God" (Jesus Christ) became incarnate (John 1:14). "In Him was life" (John 1:4). He proclaimed that He was "the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6), and that He "had come that we might have His life" (John 10:10). "Whoever believes in the Son has the eternal life" of Jesus Christ (John 3:16, 36). "He who has the Son has the life" (I John 5:12), and has "passed out of death into life" (I John 3:14). "The Spirit (of Christ) gives life" (II Cor. 3:6), whereby the Christian can "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4), "reign in life through Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17), and be "saved by His life" (Rom. 5:10).

[ERROR No. 2: The Word of God, the Life-giving Logos, the Second Person of the eternal Godhead, was already active in giving eternal life to God's elect from the beginning. Read John 1:1-f. He did not begin to give eternal life ONLY AFTER He was resurrected. Ed believes so, therefore no regeneration UNTIL AFTER Christ's resurrection ]

Nowhere in Scripture are the Old Testament believers said to have "passed from death to life," to have been "regenerated," to have been "born again," or to have participated in the dynamic of the indwelling life of the risen Lord Jesus.

[All the effects and evidence of spiritual life abound. Unless of course Ed believes that the people in the OT were not dead in trespasses and sins.]

I believe in imputed righteousness but Paul taught in Rom 4 that Abraham's righteousness was "credited" why? B/c it was many years b/4 the cross were payment for all sins would be paid. Paul explains this in Gal 3. Another point is that Jesus tells in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, now where were they? In Paradise not in heaven, why? B/c they were waiting for the cross to happen. No OT saint had the permanent indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in them. Some had the spirit UPON them but not in them making them a new creation in Christ as believers experience today. Jesus was called "the first born from among the dead" if Abraham and other OT saints were born again that this would have been before Jesus and therefore Jesus could not have been the first. Paul said the same spirit that raised Christ from the dead has quicken out mortal bodies. There are many more reasons OT saints could not have been born again, like NT believers are told that the Law will nullify grace and Paul tells believers they are not under the law but if OT saints were born again how did they function under the Law when a NT believers are told grace /law don't mix? OT saints followed signs, burning bush, clouds, pillars of fire etc. but NT believers are told to walk by faith and not by our senses, why? Because we are led by the spirit something that OT saints weren't. There are many other scriptural reasons as well.

[ERROR No 3. Romans 4 DOES NOT speak of the imputation of righteousness to Abraham. It speaks of the imputation of Abraham's faith to Abraham. And Ed is oblivious to this basic monumental error, and keep droning on and on. When a teacher can't even differentiate between Abraham's faith and the righteousness of Christ, ]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ I believe in imputed righteousness but Paul taught in Rom 4 that Abraham's righteousness was "credited" why? B/c it was many years b/4 the cross were payment for all sins would be paid.

Ed is completely deluded. In Gen 15:6, there is no crediting of righteousness in that passage. "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

What was counted to him for righteousness?

Was Abraham STILL an unjustified man in Gen 12-14?
An unjustified man is a man under the condemnation of death.

When Apostle Paul marshal Abraham for his teaching, what did he want to prove in Romans 4?

Ed
What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was CREDITED to him as righteousness." Rom 4:5

Grant  ‎
'Counted it to him' and 'credited to him' are essentially the same thing- they are accounting terms weighed against a ledger- being 'made righteous' is something very different. I can't think of anywhere that NT saints have righteousness credited to their account.

Sing F Lau
Ed, what is the pronoun 'it'? I have asked so many times, have you even got the question? What was credited to Abraham?

Ed
Sing, Abraham b/c he wasn't yet ""made" righteous was in Paradise waiting. What was he waiting for? Why wasn't he in heaven if he was already made righteous? You keep avoiding these questions.

[Another fable: someone without righteousness can be found in Paradise!]

Impressive but stuck in filthy waters!

Sing F Lau
‎Grant @ I can't think of anywhere that NT saints have righteousness credited to their account.

You don't have to go far! Here is it:
Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

Read the words, "that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."
There is indeed imputation of righteousness to the NT saints. Grant, you are PLAIN wrong.
I hope you don't repeat that point again, unless you can prove that Rom 4:11 doesn't answer you point.

[That's another big fable: no imputation of righteousness in the NT]

Ed
‎9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised (Jews), or also for the uncircumcised (Gentiles)? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was CREDITED TO HIM as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it CREDITED? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as A SIGN, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be CREDITED TO THEM. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. Rom 4:9-12

Grant
Nice try, Mr Sing, touche, now find a parallel verse that says that Abraham was a new creation and became righteous and I'll buy you a coke.

Context is King- Romans 4 is not specifically talking about new creation believers, it's talking about all OT saints, (although it has implications for NT saints).
In Romans 4 Paul was arguing that even under the OT, righteousness was by faith- he was not discussing the New Creation or being made righteous. He leads into that in Romans 5- having established a basis for OT faith.
Back to the concordance.

Yoel
After reading Grant and Ed views/understanding, I've being wondering how both will teach Matthew11:11 ?.... I think the answers has to be totally different from Sing ... and John the Baptist was a OT saint or a NT saint??

Sing F Lau
Grant @ Why would God need to credit me with righteousness - if he made me righteous in the new creation? No, I don't have to be credited with something I already am! OT saint were never new creations, they needed to be credited with righteousness. We have a better covenant.

Your statements above are full of confusion. And I will explain what I say so.

If God does not credit to a man with the righteousness of Christ, that man is without the only righteousness that God approves, and remains under condemnation. No ifs and no buts.

You are quite mistaken by separating the new creation from God's free and gracious act of justifying the UNGODLY, those without righteousness, by crediting to them the righteousness of Jesus Christ. That act of crediting righteousness is part and parcel of God's work in the new creation.

You are very mistaken about the better covenant from the one uniform and exactly the same covenant of redemption. The better covenant you are talking about is distinguished from the old covenant of the OT administered through Moses. Christ abolished that old covenant because he fulfilled that covenant.

Every elect of God is saved by God in exactly the same way in the covenant of redemption. God deals with His children differently in the old covenant and the new covenant.

Adam Wells
I wonder why Jesus would have asked Nicodemus, with knowledge of the OT covenant only, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"... concerning the necessity of being born again.

[Adam, what a loaded question. Regeneration was already a reality in the OT. However, Nicodemus was ignorant of it, and Ed is willfully ignoring the same truth too!]

Grant
Yoel, John the Bapist was an OT saint- he died before the New Covenant was implemented- Yes Matt 11:11 speaks of the difference between OT saints and NT saints.

Sorry you are confused, Sing, I'll try and explain it simply.

If I credit you with a dollar, it doesn't mean you become a dollar.
I can be credited with have said something witty but that doesn't mean I have become something witty.
Someone can credit me with a sausage, it doesn't mean they have made me into a sausage.
To become something and to be credited with something are two different things.
We have BECOME the righteousness of God.

You can be credited with righteousness and also become righteous at a later date, but not necessarily so, they are two different things.

[If I credit you with a dollar, it doesn't mean you become a dollar - this sort of reasoning is just plain stupid. If you credit me with a dollar, it does mean that I have a dollar to my name. When God credits a man with righteousness of Christ, he is declared righteous. But Grant would reject that plain connection.]

Yoel
I believed we are currently under better covenant because this new covenant was sealed by the Blood of Christ the only Lamb of God that can atone for sins at once and forever ...no like the blood of bulls and other beast that were required to be sacrifice every year....All OT saints sins were finally atoned at once at the cross

Grant
Yes, Yoel.

Ed
Yoel, that has been the point from the very beginning. In the OT the sins were covered, in the NT Jesus took away all sins. Just one of the many reasons the new covenant is better.
Btw, I agree with Grant about Matt 11.

[New covenant contrasted with the old covenant speaks of the system of worship God instituted for His people in the OT and the NT. The covenant of redemption is one and the same throughout the OT and NT... the one same way of salvation for God's chosen people. The OT people are saved (justified, regenerated, and adopted) based on the redemptive work of Christ that WILL BE accomplished, and the NT people are saved (justified, regenerated, and adopted) based on the redemptive work of Christ that HAS BEEN accomplished]

Yoel
I go to sleep at night like a baby knowing I'm declared righteous and justified on the merits of Christ ALONE ...even if one day I'll stop believing what is already true

Sing F Lau
Grant @ "Nice try, Mr Sing, touche, now find a parallel verse that says that Abraham was a new creation and became righteous and I'll buy you a coke."

We are very different. To me coke is poisonous. There is no need to bring in the new creation yet here.

You stated: 'Counted it to him' and 'credited to him' are essentially the same thing- they are accounting terms weighed against a ledger- being 'made righteous' is something very different. I can't think of anywhere that NT saints have righteousness credited to their account."

I showed you the plain Scriptures that conclusively prove the falsity of your fable - "that NT saints did not have righteousness credited to their account."

Sing F Lau
‎Grant, consider this Scriptures,
Rom 8: 29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

My question to you and Ed: do the pronoun 'whom' and 'them' refer to all the saints in both the OT and the NT, i.e. ALL THE SAINTS of God in every generation from the beginning of the world to the end of the world, or just to NT saints.

[Grant avoided this question... because answering this question will condemned his idea as a fable! Every elect is justified, and every elect is regenerated, both in the OT and NT, no exception. But of course, Grant doesn't want the truth!]

Ed
Yoel, I think Grant and I would agree 100% with you. The beauty about believing is the joy it adds to ones life over an unbelieving believer.

Sing, Grant is not saying NT saints were credited with righteousness, just the opposite, it was OT saints who were credited with righteousness. NT saints are "made" righteous. Jesus made full payment for sin on the cross, so credit isn't the issue today. Righteousness is a reality!

[You refuse the plain statement in Rom 4:11 - "... "that righteousness might be imputed unto them also." Don't be so stiff neck!]

Sing, the OT saints sins were in the past, the NT saints sins were in the future but all sins were forgiven at the cross, past present and future. So today at this moment OT saints and NT saints are the righteousness of God in Christ. All are ONE in Him and in Him all are ONE. This was only possible after the cross not b/4.

[Your problem Ed, you limit God to your puny mind, that God is locked in by time... The OT saints are justified (imputed with righteousness, regenerated and adopted) based on what Christ's redemptive work, whether prospectively or retrospectively... all agreed by the Godhead in the covenant of redemption.]

Yoel
Well I just found out that all have strong agreements which make me stoked as it is in heaven ....but strong disagreements as it is on earth since the fall ....

Sing F Lau
‎Grand @, Context is King- Romans 4 is not specifically talking about new creation believers, it's talking ab...out all OT saints, (although it has implications for NT saints).

In that you are most deceived.
First, he was addressing the Romans believers.

Second, in the latter part of chapter 3, Paul demonstrated that justification is by the righteousness of God alone, i.e the righteousness provided by God in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, it is not through the works of righteousness by man himself. This deal with the BASIS of justification - justification by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Third, Paul also settled with the issue of how that righteousness of Jesus Christ is accounted to sinners... FREELY by the grace of God. That's justification by God's free grace.

Fourth, God justifies the UNGODLY. Faith, the act of believing in Jesus Christ, justifies the believer i.e faith certifies and evidences his justified state by God's free grace.

Then Apostle Paul moves on to the next matter in Romans 4. How to experience the blessedness of that justification that has taken place by God's free grace?

Is it through the observance of the old covenant laws, like circumcision, like God's children among the Jews would insist?

It is at this point that Apostle Paul MARSHAL the example of Abraham (whom the Jews had great veneration) to declare that faith in Jesus Christ is the way to experience the blessedness of one's righteousness by God's free grace.

Sing F Lau
‎Ed & Grant,
It is becoming very tedious interacting with you both... we are just too far apart... and I don't want wasting time disagreeing with what is written here on my wall. If fables are written elsewhere, I will leave them alone... not when there are littered here! I will shred them and call what what they are.

First, there is no regeneration in the OT.
Then, there is no need of justification in the NT... Grant's idea!
Worse, jesus was dead in trespasses and sins, and needed to be regenerated.
And several more.

So, please say what you need to say here...
I will let you have the last words
Some time later I will limit your access here.

Ed
Sing, I think you and Grant would agree! But the issue is and was about were OT saints regenerated as NT are today. I believe Grant and myself have offered numerous scriptural reasons why they were not and could not be. You just given us your views and opinions and really haven't addressed our points. Calling what we believe fables and myths when we supplied and ample amount of biblical text shows you are being insincere.

[You are quite confuse with the regeneration of the OT and NT saints, and the difference between the OT and NT saints with regard to having the gift of the Holy Spirit. The two are distinct... regeneration by the Spirit and the reception of the gift of the Spirit are two distinct matters. Because of your confusion, you conclude that the OT saints were not regenerated at all!]

Sing F Lau
That's ok. When I have time, i will summarize your numerous scriptural reasons, and my scriptural rebuttal offered but were never noticed. That's my offer to your grudges. is that acceptable?

Ed
What grudges? I doubt anyone is holding a grudge. I answered many or most of your rebuttals with scriptures and questions. Example you did answer my question on how a demon possessed man could come to Jesus. I just wished you had provided scripture instead of opinion. To say that God allowed a regenerate man to be demon possessed for His will does not make any sense. You provided no proof the man was regenerate. You assume he was b/c you cannot accept the fact that unregenerate people can have faith and come to Jesus so you have to make a demon possessed man a regenerate person so it will fit your theology. Maybe you should let Gods word change your theology instead of changing Gods word to fit your theology. Saying a demon possessed man was regenerate makes no sense at all b/c God does not live with demons and Gods word tells us to give the devil no place. You have God going against His own word.

Pj Walters
Why was Christ telling Nicodemus of the new birth and saying that he should have known of it already if it was not yet in effect? Truth is, it was already happening. It had been for eons.

[ But Ed, like Nicodemus a teacher in Israel, is equally oblivious to the reality. May be like Ed, Nicodemus could find terms like 'regeneration' or 'born again' in the OT!!!]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ You just given us your views and opinions and really haven't addressed our points.

That's what I meant by grudges... in black and white.
So when I have time, I will summarized them.

Ed @ Example you did answer my question on how a demon possessed man could come to Jesus. I just wished you had provided scripture instead of opinion. To say that God allowed a regenerate man to be demon possessed for His will does not make any sense.

Then why don't you offer Scriptural reason why it doesn't make sense?

I cannot accept regenerated person can have faith because of many Scriptural reasons. But you insist that unregenerated are capable of faith.

Ed @ 'Saying a demon possessed man was regenerate makes no sense at all b/c God does not live with demons and Gods word tells us to give the devil no place.

God suffered that for a purpose - to demonstrate the power of Christ over Satan, in delivering His people from it. You say this makes no sense... and prefer to say that spiritual dead sinners are capable of faith makes sense! You have God going against His own word.

You and I are disagreed at a fundamental level:
I take it as a settled truth that life must precede the activities of that life. You disagree by insisting that those without spiritual life is capable of spiritual activities.

Ed
Sing, I did offer reasons why a regenerate man who you claim was demon possessed came to Jesus. Now you say I didn't but then try and rebut a reason I used. Here are the others you ignored light cannot fellowship with darkness but you believe the Holy Spirit and demons can live together in the same man. Even your reasoning makes no sense. Could not Jesus have found an unregenerate demonic to prove He had power over Satan? This idea is perverse b/c it telling believers that the God who tells you in His word to give the devil no place. Will if he desires fill you with demons if he so desires.

You struggle with a demoniac coming to Jesus or others coming to Jesus for healing and Jesus said that these people had faith for healing. You have to assume they are all born again b/c you cannot accept that unregenerate people can actually have faith. So Jesus wasn't the first born from among the dead according to you.

You misunderstand Rom 3 and 1 Cor 2 which you use as support for your belief. When it is shown to you that in fact their were people who the bible says were righteous and did good when you claim there was no one. What about Job and Abraham? It shows that your use of "“There is no one righteous, not even one;" isn't correct b/c there were those who did good and God called righteous.

I dealt with 1 Cor 2:14 & Rom 3 in great detail and you just ignored my line of reasoning. Yet when confronted with direct scriptural proof that your understanding of those passages cannot be correct b/c the bible does not contradict itself you claim we are teaching myths and fables. Maybe you should ask the Holy Spirit to teach you what these passages actually mean.

Sing F Lau
Anything else, Ed?

Ed
Sing, did you block Grant and Rodney? If you did why? Why wouldn't you just answer their questions and allow them to respond to yours? Why invite me here to have a discussion and than not discuss?

Sing F Lau
Rodney is blocked. He is just a nuisance...
He doesn't discuss. Grant does.

There is nothing more to discuss.
We don't have common ground.

I take it as an fundamental truth that life must precede the activities of that life. You disagree by insisting that those without spiritual life is capable of spiritual activities.

This disagreement cannot be reconciled.
So, I don't want to waste time calling such ideas as fables and myth here on my wall.

Sing F Lau
Ed @ You misunderstand Rom 3 and 1Cor 2 which you use as support for your belief. When it is shown to you that in fact their were people who the bible says were righteous and did good when you claim there was no one. What about Job and Abraham? It shows that your use of "“There is no one righteous, not even one;" isn't correct b/c there were those who did good and God called righteous.

By nature, there is none righteous, no not one. And this is the truth. The Scriptures does not contradict itself. Those who did good and whom God called righteous is BECAUSE... and the only explanation is this: the work of divine grace has made the difference.

Isn't that so obvious!

Ed
That OK with me. In the future I suggest you actually try having a discussion using scripture to support your position. To just say it is a myth or fable is childish and ignores the evidence that is up for discussion. I understand why you find it difficult to accept that the unregenerate can have faith. I use to be a Calvinists and my study and journey with God has shown me that reformed theology has problems. As has been pointed out by me and others blood covenant and covenants in the bible seem to escape your understanding and that is why you overlap the new into the old. You don't understand the legal problems that came along with all these covenants that would not allow God to cause anyone to be born again before the cross. Well at least we gave you some truth to think about and I will trust the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to these wonderful and mighty truths. Be blessed Sing you are in my prayers. I recognize you as a brother in the Lord and you never know one day we may meet. I have lots of invitations to your country and I might come sometime. Blessings, Ed

Scott
Ed says 'Grant is not saying NT saints were credited with righteousness, just the opposite, it was OT saints who were credited with righteousness. NT saints are "made" righteous. Jesus made full payment for sin on the cross, so credit isn't the issue today. Righteousness is a reality'

NT saints are imputed, accounted,counted or reckoned with righteousness:

Rom 4:20-24
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for US ALSO, TO WHOM IT SHALL BE IMPUTED, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Ed
Sing, why did Paul say there were none righteous Rom 3? We know Job was as was Abraham or did Paul have a different view in Rom 3 or Psalm 14 which Paul is quoting.

Scott, 3049 is the Strong's word in the Greek, impute = Credited. They mean the same thing. Paul goes into detail in Gal 3 as well. Pretty obvious Abraham wasn't born again.

[Why the fuss about 'credited' and 'imputed'? Why avoid the issue. The point from Scott's quote is to show that NT saints enjoy and experience the same crediting (since you prefer this word) as Abraham did - something explicitly denied by Ed and Grant!)

Sing F Lau
Paul was demonstrating that all man are unrighteous, and are under the just condemnation of God.

This prepares the grand and glorious declaration of God's provision of righteousness in Christ Jesus... by Christ obedience to the law. I have said men like Job and Abraham were righteous BECAUSE of the work of God's free grace in them. I hope that is noted.

Ed
Sing, you are missing my point. If Job and Abraham were righteous born again like NT saints. Than Paul could not use the word "none" in that passage the way you do. Paul himself was righteous as were all the believers. So if people b/4 the cross were righteous and after the cross, when was the time where there was "none"?

Sing F Lau
O Ed, you are just so obtuse, given to sound-byte instead of sense.
Paul is making the point that man by nature, apart from the gaving grace of God, there is none righteousness.

Context: there is none righteous APART from the gracious work of God. And that righteousness is found in Jesus Christ alone, a righteousness of God's own provision.

I thought this is so evident... but even this we have to waste time disputing!!!

Your rhetorical question is quite mistaken... as though Paul is making an absolute statement, that at no one time, there was any righteous man.

Mark
None are righteous prior to their being sovereignly given spiritual eternal life in the new birth. Either OT or NT. None have any righteousness which will stand before God without such. There is only one eternal Saviour, either OT or NT. There is only one way of eternal salvation taught in Scripture. This notion of there being two ways is nothing but a man-made myth.

Ed
Sing, I was showing you that what Paul was saying was not an absolute statement and I pointed this out a few days ago and you ignored it. Now you are agreeing with me. The same can be said of 1 Cor 2:14 it isn't an absolute statement but Praise God we are making progress. ;)

Mark, I agree with you! I was pointing out that OT saints were not regenerate. Paul says in Heb 11:13 that they died in faith not having received the promise. Paul explains in Gal 3 that is the promise of the Holy Spirit to be made righteous with God etc. The OT saints were in paradise aka Abraham's bosom waiting for this promise. Today they are regenerated like every NT believer is when they put their faith in Christ.

Sing F Lau
It is an absolute statement in that there is none righteous without the gracious work of grace.

It is not an absolute statement in that there is none righteous at any one time in history. There are righteous men because God's gracious work has intervened in the lives of those men.

No progress... we are still on different pages.

You still believe in the fiction that there can be righteous men WITHOUT regeneration from their fallen state of sin and death!

Mark
Ed. If the OT saint is not regenerated in the same way as the NT saint then you have TWO ways of eternal salvation. That is not Biblical. There is only ONE way of eternal salvation.

Ed
Yes I agree, there are no righteous people without Gods grace.
I do believe that there were unregenerate men like Abraham who had faith and were "credited" with righteousness.

[Abraham's faith was credited to him in Gen 15:6, and not righteousness was credited. When you will ever learn this plain truth, Ed? The very idea of the unregenerate having faith is just contrary to Scriptures and common sense. ]

Mark
Unregenerated men have no righteousness before God, Ed. Wake up and smell the coffee.

The dead have no faith.

Ed
Mark, Jesus is called the first born from among the dead. Pretty much settles the fact that no one was born again b/4 Jesus was raised from the dead.
The OT saints were save by faith like we are but they did not have their spirit recreated like believers do today until after the resurrection. That is why they were in Paradise waiting for the promise they died in faith waiting for.

Mark, I said Abraham was "credited" with righteousness that should say it all. Jesus made full payment and today we are made righteous.
[There was NO crediting of righteousness to Abraham in Gen 15:6! ]

Sing F Lau
In 10 - TEN minutes from now, I will show you to the gate of this pasture.

I don't want to waste time going round and round. Thank you for the discussion.

You and I are on parallel tracks on a fundamental point:
- Life precedes the activities of that life.
- Life activities is possible without that life.

Ed
Mark a demon possessed man came to Jesus now how did that happen if as you say the dead cannot have faith?

Mark
Faith is an act of life. No life, no action. Real simple stuff Ed.
 Men have faith because they ARE saved. Not to get saved.

Sing F Lau
Ed is repeating the same mistake... equating the resurrection of the begotten Son of God from the death as the same of regeneration of those dead in trespasses and sins.
It is just going round and round and round.

Ed
Says who? Your definition of faith or is it what Gods word says? People came to Jesus all the time and were healed and Jesus said their faith has healed them. Did all these people get born again b/4 they came to Jesus? What about the 10 lepers who were healed only one came back to say thank you. Were all 10 born again? C'mon Mark read the bible not some theology that opposes it.

Mark
I agree Bro. Sing. He does not want to see. It would pull down his whole 'house of cards'.

Ed
Mark, Paul says in Rom 4 that Abraham was righteous after he believed not b/4.

Mark, please explain all those people who Jesus came in faith to be healed were they all born again first b/4 they had faith?
If God was able to get people born again why did His son have to die such a torturous death?

[Why? He had to meet the costly price for their eternal life! Before the cross, God saves based of what Christ will do. After the cross, God saves based on what Christ HAS DONE on the cross!]

Mark
He believed because the righteousness of Christ had already been imputed to him in the new birth.
They were born again in prospect of His payment. God is not dependant upon time. He is above time.
The dead do not have faith Ed. The dead do nothing spiritual.
Spiritual life preceeds spiritual action.

[Unrighteous ungodly Abram was justified when he was UNGODLY. Paul declares, God justifies the UNGODLY.]

Ed
That is not what Paul said happened, However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Paul makes it clear that Abraham's faith was credited with righteousness. He didn't have faith b/c he was righteous.

[Ed does not understand what 'faith was credited for righteousness' mean. Apostle Paul was demonstrating that believing is the way appointed for those ALREADY JUSTIFIED by God's free grace to experience the blessedness of their justified state by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Abraham was ALREADY a justified man in Gen 12-14. In Gen 15, he experienced the blessedness of his justified state through his believing. Abraham did not experience that blessedness through observing some ceremonial laws like circumcision!]

Ed
Mark, is sin spiritual? How can a corpse sin than? If they can't have faith than they can't sin either b/c as you say the dead can do nothing. Maybe you should have another look at what those dead in sins can do b/c we both know they can sin and sin is spiritual.

[How very confused, and illogical! Ed equates the deadness in trespasses and sins as a dead corpse! How silly! Sin is the transgression of God's law. A living man by nature is spiritually dead, i.e. he is incapable of any spiritual activity that will commend him to God, like believing Christ. He is actively opposed to God, a rebel in active enmity against God in his heart and actions! ]

Sing F Lau
‎Ed @ "If God was able to get people born again why did His son have to die such a torturous death?"

This is his major premise of his fable: the OT saints are righteous and died in faith even though they were not regenerated... still in their naive state of sin and condemnation in Adam!

This objection DOES NOT register of Ed at all, and he just rave on and on and on.

God justified and regenerated His people in the OT based on what Christ will as their redeemer, and so His tortuous death was necessary... because salvation has been bestowed in the OT. His life of sinless obedience secured the righteousness, and His tortuous death secured the forgiveness of sins.

Mark
You are confusing two differing aspects of justification Ed. Until you learn better you will be as confused as a termite in a yo-yo. Distinction is the hallmark of sound theology. Distinguish between righteousness before God and righteouness in the framework of one's own conscience.

Ed
Sing, you still never answered what the promises were they died in faith not having received.

Mark
I answered that at the outset Ed. The actual physical coming of the Son of God and the establishment of His physical church upon the earth.
[Ed didn't like the answer. He insists that the promise is regeneration in a distant future!]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ Paul makes it clear that Abraham's faith was credited with righteousness. He didn't have faith b/c he was righteous.

This is just an absolutely ignorant statement.
At least now you say that it was Abraham's faith was the thing that was credited!

When Abram was an UNGODLY man in Ur of the Chaldean, he was justified when God called him out of his native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation. This enables him to obey God. His faith is the fruit of his justification by the free grace of God.

When he believed in Gen 15:6, his believing was blessed by God... and he experienced the blessedness of his justified stated by the righteousness freely given to him.

He believes because he was justified and righteous.

Paul said, 'The JUST shall live by faith."
Abraham's faith was an effect of his justified state.

Ed
Mark, I understand righteousness and I understand why God had to "credit" it to Abraham. Sadly you are not able to and diminished Christ work at the cross as being unnecessary b/c God was able to regenerate people b/4 the cross. You really not thought this through at all. If they were saved in the same way as NT saints are today than why did Paul warn believers not to get entangled with the "law". Paul taught that mixing law and grace would nullify grace. In the OT saints were led by signs burning bush, clouds etc. in the NT saints are led by Gods spirit. Now why the difference? Like I said you haven't really thought this through. You just embraced Calvinistic theology and let it be the Holy Spirit for you.

[See how Ed revert back to that basic error... Abraham's faith is mistaken for righteousness!
The law Paul warned them is ceremonial laws. Abraham experienced the blessedness of his justification by God's free grace through faith, and not through observing some ceremonial laws. There was no ceremonial laws yet, declared Paul... so that cannot be the means to experience the same. What confusion!]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ Sing, you still never answered what the promises were they died in faith not having received.

You have no ears to hear what you don't want to hear. So don't say I didn't answer.

Ed
Sing, you are adding your theological view into what Gods word actually says. You are correct that God blessed Abraham's faith with crediting him with righteousness.
When I quote scripture you should not call it ignorant.

[Your quoting Scriptures? Which Scriptures? Is it '... FOR righteousness' or '... AS righteousness' or '... WITH righteousness'? Which of it is Scriptures?]

Mark
I am not a Calvinist Ed. I have thought it through. I am not the one left with 'blessed inconsistencies'. I hold to one way of eternal salvation for both the OT and the NT saint. You do not. Nor do you wish to espouse what Scripture teaches after many admonitions. I am done with you.

Ed
Sing, go read what Paul said about Abraham "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."

[God JUSTIFIES the ungodly (that DOESN'T register with you, does it???)... and you think God justifies the believing Abraham! God ALREADY justified Abraham when he was yet an UNGODLY man in idolatrous Ur. In Gen 15:6., Abraham experienced the blessedness of his justification through faith, not through observing some ceremonial laws, which so many Jewish believers imagined.]

Ed
Mark, I really didn't expect you to continue, it was obvious you really haven't thought these views through and are just parroting what others have told you. I doubt you really know what a scriptural admonition is. Rejecting your views b/c they don't harmonize with scripture is what a true believer should do. Bless you Mark, I be praying for you.

Mark
Power and position are the opiates driving most of the christian religion today. Those teachings which elevate the power and postion of the preacher or the believer are not difficult to disprove by either logic or Scripture, but parting with them is usually only accomplished by individuals who love truth more than power and position and are willing to see themselves as powerless to save themselves and in a postion where left alone they would never have even desired it. It is a rare individual who loves Divine truth more than power and position.

Sing F Lau
Ed @ You are correct that God blessed Abraham's faith with crediting him with righteousness.

Now, that's very mistaken. That's the very thing I rejected.
I didn't say what you make me say. That's your imagination!

I said God blessed Abraham's act of believing to experience the blessedness of his justified state by God's free grace. God justified Abraham when was still an UNGODLY man in Ur.

God justifies the UNGODLY.
Faith justifies the BELIEVING.

Distinguish these two, and then, if God give opportunity, we can discuss again.

Ed
Sing, you didn't answer, you made some kind of an objection about promise means promises etc. but when I asked you dodged the question.
You ignored that the bible teaches that Jesus was the first born from among the dead. Even Mark wouldn't touch that one.

[Ed, you are so stiff neck... Jesus' resurrection from the dead is vastly different from the regeneration of sinners dead in trespasses and sins. You even believe the horrid lies that Jesus was also dead in trespasses and sins, and needed to be regenerated  just like any other sinners, and based on that, that no one is regenerated until Jesus Christ was regenerated... because jesus is the first born of regeneration! O what a load of misguided notions.]

Ed
Mark, what does that have to do with what we are discuss

[Ed is too obtuse to connect the dots!]

Sing F Lau
Ed, you had better make up your mind:
Is it 'with righteousness' or 'as righteousness'. None of them is found in the Kj I use.

I read everywhere as "for righteousness"!
Go figure the difference... and we can continue later.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Ro 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Ro 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Ga 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Ed
Sing, I never said that God did not justify the ungodly? Paul said that Abraham was credited with or as ( means the same thing) righteousness b/c of his faith.

[Ed, if I say you are stupid, I am not wrong at all. You have MISREAD Gen 15:6, and all the NT quotes of it. There is no crediting of righteousness because of his faith. There is a crediting of Abraham's faith for righteousness. You can't even read that passage properly, much less understand! Wake up, Ed, don't be drunk on sound-byte! Be sober and get some sense!]

Sing F Lau
Ed @ 'Sing, you didn't answer, you made some kind of an objection about promise means promises etc. but when I asked you dodged the question.'

Go back to read it, if you can see it any way!

Ed
Abraham's faith was credited not his righteousness, he had none until he first had faith. So simple!

[Now at least you say rightly. BUT have you figured out what 'his faith was credited unto him for righteousness' mean? Go figure it out first.]

Deon
John 3 16 & 17

Sing F Lau
At least now, you have forsaken that stupid mistake... that what was credited is not righteousness but Abraham's act of believing. Rom 4 tells us how that believing of Abraham is related to the blessedness experienced by him.

Have you read before, 'The just shall live by faith'????
Why did apostle quote that, and marshaled Abraham as a classic example of that statement of truth?

Answer: Abraham believes (live by faith) because he was already JUSTIFIED when he was an ungodly man in Ur.
The just manifests their justified state by their faith... not by their obsession with their ceremonial laws... addressing God's children among the Jews!

Sing F Lau
‎Ed "Abraham's faith was credited not his righteousness, he had none until he first had faith."

So, righteousness is CONDITIONED upon a man's faith!
This I call the lie of the devil!
Scriptures say that righteousness is credited FREELY by the grace of God.

Deon
And everyone who is not a theologian or who does not understand the finer details of your religion will now go to hell.

Sing F Lau
Deon, did any one even hint at that?

Deon
It is implied. After many years in the back benches I am so sick and tired of the word games. I have decided not to argue with people anymore - Pharasees argue and abuse the law. What the big print giveth - they water down with the Law and the fine print. What is the GOOD NEWS if everyone keeps changing their minds ?

Ed
Sing, Paul said that Abraham's faith was "credited" as/with righteousness. I did not say it or write I just quoted it from scripture that Paul wrote to the Romans. So according to Paul the condition for righteousness is faith. You can call Paul a liar all day, I could careless, you can rip out Romans and Galatians from your bible b/c they teach the same thing. Paul asked the Galatians how did they received the spirit and Paul said they did it by faith. By faith they received Gods spirit and Paul doesn't say they have faith b/c they have the spirit. He says they received Gods spirit by faith. I stick with what Paul preaches and teaches.

Good night Sing.

Sing F Lau
Deon, the good news is God saves sinners.... and of those He saved, some even make shipwreck of their faith... some messed up their life big time... some shall be saved; yet so as by fire... but they shall all be in heaven BECAUSE GOD saved them by His free grace, through the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Their well being here and now is conditioned upon their working out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Their place in heaven, is entirely and solely and completely by the FREE GRACE of God, in Christ Jesus.

Sing F Lau
Ed didn't read the passages of Scriptures I quoted... each of them has '... for righteousness.' Whether it is '... as righteousness' or '... with righteousness' or '... for righteousness' is IRRELEVANT to Ed.

Now, you are just being silly for changing the subject.
We are dealing with the relationship between faith and righteousness... but you are running away from it, and raising a different and separate matter... faith and the receiving of the spirit!

Sing F Lau
Ed @ 'So according to Paul the condition for righteousness is faith."

This is the truth according to Paul:
Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Tit 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Justification involved the crediting of righteousness to one's account - and this is not condition on faith, but by the free grace of God. Ed, you reject this truth.
So, according to Paul, there is no condition for righteousness to be credited to a man... it is credited by the free grace of God.

However, Paul did teach that the condition to EXPERIENCE the blessings of that righteousness credited freely by the free grace of God is believing in Jesus Christ. That's experience does not come through works of righteousness or observing ceremonial laws.

This statement is a whole world of different from Ed's statement.

This explains why there is this SOLEMN INJUNCTION:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.