By Faith Alone?

[jeager106]

Folks if it weren't for the God of my understanding and A.A. I'd have died earlier this year of
alcoholism that claimed both mom and dad and nearly all of their siblings.
I have no problem claiming my disease (read dis-ease) as it's at least partially a genetic predisposition.
My Higher Power is God.
Period.
I get a daily reprieve IF I talk to God daily, attend A.A. meetings and gather God's Power around me.
A.A. isn't religious but spiritual.
Too many of my friends and family have died from this disease.
A senseless and shameful death as all addictions are.
Sadly heroin is epidemic in N.E. Ohio right now and I suspect a lot of places.

 

[Michael Peterson]

@shava

Your post, Shava, takes us somewhat far afield. My point in the original post is that Genesis 15:6 cannot be used as a proof text for justification by faith alone (as St. Paul clearly does). Justification by faith alone may well be a sound doctrine, but Genesis 15:6, correctly translated, simply does not support it.

Nevertheless, you spent time and energy contributing this thread, so you deserve a considered response.

Baptism notwithstanding, are you advancing the argument that works arising from faith are necessary for salvation? If you are, then I agree with you. Works, i.e., obedience to the will and laws of God (as taught by His son, Jesus) are necessary for salvation. Indeed, I am quite skeptical of the doctrine of Justification by faith alone.

As for the requirement for baptism, I think your understanding of its necessity for salvation is well-attested in the New Testament. However, nowhere (I think) does Jesus claim that his followers must be baptised to be saved. His requirement for salvation is pretty straightfoward - obedience to the Father's will as He explained it in His teachings. In other words, Jesus claimed that only those that faithfully followed His teachings would be saved.

Blessings,

 

[savagewind]

I think that a person is not born knowing a Righteous God and that each time it happens that God's righteousness becomes evident, it is wonderful and good.
To acknowledge it has to make The Lord's heart glad imho. To be praising God for righteousness' sake means that a person is learning grace. Grace is the opposite of neglect. Do not neglect making known God's righteousness. Do not take it for granted.

I think I might agree with your proposition @Michael Peterson, but good luck putting back scripture in its right place (as written). See the number of my posts? I haven't moved anybody yet and it is what I do, aim to restore correct meaning to scripture. It is my hobby.

 

[Michael Peterson]

I think I might agree with your proposition @Michael Peterson, but good luck putting back scripture in its right place (as written). See the number of my posts? I haven't moved anybody yet and it is what I do, aim to restore correct meaning to scripture. It is my hobby.

Thanks for your thoughts. My aim is slightly different and not nearly so difficult as yours. I try always to seek clarity, not agreement. An important part of serious Bible study is to test and compare one's understanding with that of others - Hence, my goal of clarity, not persuasion.

Blessings,

 

[savagewind]

Thanks for you thoughts. My aim is slightly different and not nearly so difficult as yours. I try always to seek clarity, not agreement.

I might add that studying the Bible at its deepest levels is my avocation. An important part of serious Bible study is to test and compare one's understanding with that of others - Hence, my goal of clarity, not persuasion.

Blessings,

What is the difference between clarity and persuasion? If you are right and you make a scripture clear, how can a believer in Jesus NOT be persuaded to see it clearly the right way?

What I mean is if scripture can be made clear it has to be believed in. Eventually..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................John 8:12

 

[Deeje]

Deeje,

Thank you for your thoughtful [and informed] response. Let me try to be as careful in my redirect as you were in your rebuttal.

These two Bibles, like virtually all English translations, wrongly insert punctuation (the comma and the semi-colon) and the indefinite English pronoun 'he'. Neither the punctuation nor the pronoun are attested in the actual Hebrew text. These two additions were added much later. When the Hebrew is read in its original form (i.e., without added words and punctuation), then the grammar rule governing single-subject-multiple-clauses applies. Here's a simple example in English (tho' the rule is identical in Hebrew grammar):

Jim met Mark at the Mall and then went home.​

Written this way (as is the actual Hebrew), then Jim is the subject of 'went', not Mark! When one inserts the indefinite pronoun, ambiguity is introduced, i.e., its antecedent can be either Jim or Mark. In 15:6, when 'he' is introduced as the subject of 'reckoned' (see the KJV's translation, for example), then either God or Abram can be its subject. No such ambiguity exists in the Hebrew.

Like Hockeycowboy said "Why would God need righteousness to be 'credited' to Him? ..."

The scripture makes no sense if you take away the punctuation and the "he" in that sentence. God needs no credit from any human.

If by this you mean that Jews interpret this verse the same way as Christians, then you would be mistaken. Some of the greatest Jewish Bible scholars, Rambam (a.k.a., Maimonides) springs to mind, argue that the addition of the extra 'he' is unwarranted and mistranslates the actual Hebrew. Jews like Rambam believe verse 15:6 is about God's faithfulness.

Punctuation is often a problem in translation. Greek for example is not only phrased differently to English, but has no punctuation either.
A case in point arises in Luke 23:39-43: @David1967 has mentioned this scripture.

NASB...."One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

The last sentence has a comma placed after the word "you" in the NASB and most others.
Remembering that there was no comma in the Greek, if we place it after the word "today", the meaning of the sentence is completely changed. So, what is recorded in other parts of the Bible to help us with this issue of punctuation and where to place it in this verse? The Bible tells us that Christ did not ascent to heaven for 40 days after his resurrection. (Acts 1:3) It also tells us that Jesus is the one who will raise the dead from their graves.....but not until he is king ruling over this earth in his kingdom. The thief was not one of the elect but will be among those Jesus returns to life in the general resurrection of the dead in the "new earth". (2 Peter 3:13; John 5:28-29) Jesus promised him that he would be remembered.

Throughout the Pentateuch, Abram is clearly pictured as the archetype of an obedient, faithful servant (c.f., the binding of Isaac). But in this particular verse, it is God that is being credited, not Abram. In other words, this specific verse does not speak to Abram's obedience nor his faith (I grant you both), but rather to God's faithfulness - specifically, that God lives up to His promises.

Why does God need something he always had, credited to him?

The archtypes of the Father Abraham and son are a reflection of God and his son. Just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his precious son, and Isaac was willing to be sacrificed....so this pictures God's willingness to sacrifice Christ, and his son's willingness to be that sacrifice.

Not really, though there are differences in the soteriology of the two. Paul denies the salvific nature of works to any extent. James differs somewhat from Paul in that he regards works as an expression of a rightly ordered faith. Put another way, James would argue that works is the measure of faith (ASIDE: a view to which I am partial). In other words, both hold that faith is salvific, but James differs from Paul in that he argues that God measures our faith by our works.

In the last judgment, Jesus is pictured as condemning those who "perform" even "powerful works" in his name, but who apparently have no substance to their worship apart from their works. (Matthew 7:21-23) He says it is "the ones DOING the will of his Father" who will be accepted for salvation. Clearly it is faith based works that are necessary. "Doing" is an activity, not a mere belief. The global preaching of the "good news" is part of those works, assigned to all Christians. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20)

James notwithstanding, the issue here is not faith v works. The question before the forum is whether genesis 15:6, correctly translated can be used by Paul to support justification by faith alone. I'm claiming that this verse rightly read, cannot be used in this way.

I believe that what Paul wrote was part of 'inspired scripture'. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) This is where we have to have faith in what God has preserved down through the centuries as his written word. Paul knew what faith was and he also backed up his faith by his many works. As a missionary, he is a living demonstration of what he taught.

 

[Michael Peterson]

What is the difference between clarity and persuasion? If you are right and you make a scripture clear, how can a believer in Jesus NOT be persuaded to see it clearly the right way?

Because I may be wrong. It's happened many, many times. Over the years I've learned that one can be as clear as unblemished crystal and still be wrong. This approach has the advantage that increase the possiblilty that any correction(s) I receive will be on-point and illuminating.

Let me give you an example from my years as a software developer (I worked on the Windows XP kernel). There came a time when I was certain I had found a bug in my company's C compiler. Now, compiler bugs are very, very rare. And knowing this, I took extra pains to test and validate my claim that I had found a legitimate bug. I was as certain as the nose on your face. Would have staked my life on it.Luckily, I did not because when I filed the bug report I got a call from one of the developers who complimented me on how thorough my testing and documentation were. But, she said and I quote, "It's clear you don't know compiler design enough to construct an applicable test." And, she was right. I reran my tests with the correct parameters and ...there was no bug.

So you see, by my being clear in my explanation of the "bug", she was able to steer me to a correctly designed test and a deeper understanding of compilers (not really my goal at the time).

The other problem with seeking persuasion is the type of engagement it engenders. It's an "I'm right and you're wrong" encounter - no matter how politely couched. Better to be clear and if you are right, have faith that truth will win out. If it doesn't, that's between your interlocutor and God.

Great question - Blessings

 

[Michael Peterson]

Punctuation is often a problem in translation. Greek for example is not only phrased differently to English, but has no punctuation either.

Correct, but unlike Hebrew, Greek is heavily declined - more so even than English. Punctuation in such languages is far less problematic by which I mean one can more easily introduce punctuation that clarifies and does not give rise to ambiguity (just as your example showed).

Hebrew is not such a language. Even if it were, it is against translation practice 101 to introduce words and punctuation that give rise to ambiguity. It's perfectly reasonable to introduce words and punctuation that clarify or eliminate underlying ambiguity in the source text. Goodness, Eugene Peterson's "The Word" Bible does this all the time and it's a great Bible.

But I'm not talking about removing or clarifying an ambiguity in the original source text as your example elegantly showed. In Genesis 15:6, the actual Hebrew text is unambiguous from the get go. Check out the two sentences below: #1 is grammatically identical to Genesis 15:6 and there is no ambiguity - Jim is the subject of walked. In sentence #2, grammatically identical to most English Bibles, the addition of the indefinite pronoun makes the subject of walked ambiguous.

1. Jim met Mark then walked home - unambiguous
2. Jim met Mark; then he walked home - ambiguous. The antecedent of 'he' can be either Jim or Mark.

I believe that what Paul wrote was part of 'inspired scripture'

Do you believe God inspired the authors of the Septuagint to mistranslate Genesis 15:6 - the very verse upon which Paul bases much of his soteriology?

I don't remember discussing the Septuagint's [mis]translation in my original post. But, it's even more egregious than the English translations. The Septuagint translated an active verb (counted) with its passive counter part ("it was counted"). You can read more about this [mis]translation here.

Blessings,

 

[shava]

@shava

Your post, Shava, takes us somewhat far afield. My point in the original post is that Genesis 15:6 cannot be used as a proof text for justification by faith alone (as St. Paul clearly does). Justification by faith alone may well be a sound doctrine, but Genesis 15:6, correctly translated, simply does not support it.

Nevertheless, you spent time and energy contributing this thread, so you deserve a considered response.

Baptism notwithstanding, are you advancing the argument that works arising from faith are necessary for salvation? If you are, then I agree with you. Works, i.e., obedience to the will and laws of God (as taught by His son, Jesus) are necessary for salvation. Indeed, I am quite skeptical of the doctrine of Justification by faith alone.

As for the requirement for baptism, I think your understanding of its necessity for salvation is well-attested in the New Testament. However, nowhere (I think) does Jesus claim that his followers must be baptised to be saved. His requirement for salvation is pretty straightfoward - obedience to the Father's will as He explained it in His teachings. In other words, Jesus claimed that only those that faithfully followed His teachings would be saved.

Blessings,

Matthew 28:19-20,
Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


I ask you to consider that the very last seconds before Jesus ascended out of sight he gave instructions to the Apostles, which we are to follow, which is to teach and baptize, I feel the need for Jesus to give these instructions are for us to obey.


The scriptures I gave earlier are all commands, such as Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16 which tells us in order to be saved, we must comply to it's instruction, that being to believe and be baptized, which results in being saved as we are imitating the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus death.

When we are baptized, as we go under the water, we imitate his death, as we are buried as Christ was, then, he arose to live forever and has paid the ultimate price for the sins of the world, so we to live forever because are sins, which Jesus died for have been washed, and now we are presentable to our Father as his child , also to live forever because of our obedience to his word. if you will notice that every time someone believed they were immediately baptized for the remission of their sins. How can one be saved without being baptized, if the baptizing washes away our sins?


1 Peter 3:21, King James Bible
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

 

[Thief]

act as if you have faith and faith will be given

I always thought that to be a trial and error approach

your hand will act by your thought or your feeling
if you do anything....it is that you thought you should
or you felt like it

so....make certain your own mind and heart .....first

 

[Deeje]

I'm not talking about removing or clarifying an ambiguity in the original source text as your example elegantly showed. In Genesis 15:6, the actual Hebrew text is unambiguous from the get go. Check out the two sentences below: #1 is grammatically identical to Genesis 15:6 and there is no ambiguity - Jim is the subject of walked. In sentence #2, grammatically identical to most English Bibles, the addition of the indefinite pronoun makes the subject of walked ambiguous.

1. Jim met Mark then walked home - unambiguous
2. Jim met Mark; then he walked home - ambiguous. The antecedent of 'he' can be either Jim or Mark.

I really don't understand the significance of this argument....? If you say that Genesis 15:6 has been mistranslated in most Bibles, then why is the mistranslation the thing that makes sense, whilst the supposedly unambiguous translation (minus the punctuation and added word) doesn't make sense at all? It does not gel with the overall relationship between God and Abraham? Theirs was a true friendship...Abraham being the only human to be called "God's friend". So did Abraham need to "credit" God with righteousness?
Who is more righteous than God himself already is, and always has been?

Do you believe God inspired the authors of the Septuagint to mistranslate Genesis 15:6 - the very verse upon which Paul bases much of his soteriology?

I do not believe that any translators are "inspired". I believe that the original Bible writers were inspired by God's spirit to write what they did, (2 Timothy 3:16-17) but the translation was guided by God only up to a point. If the Bible translations we use are truly inspired of God, then there would be no real difference between them.....we know that there are many. Only a well versed Bible student would know which verses were mistranslated. It's like a counterfeit coin or banknote.....you do not have to be familiar with every counterfeit to pick the fakes...you just have to know the original well.

I don't remember discussing the Septuagint's [mis]translation in my original post. But, it's even more egregious than the English translations. The Septuagint translated an active verb (counted) with its passive counter part ("it was counted"). You can read more about this [mis]translation here.

Since the Septuagint was quoted by NT Bible writers, I do not think that it could have been too far off base or else Jesus would have warned his disciples about its contents, just as he warned them about the teachings of the Pharisees. (Luke 12:1-2)

In his parable of the wheat and the weeds, Jesus warned about a fake kind of Christianity that would be sown by the devil in the same field as his true disciples. Again, we don't have to know every fake to distinguish the genuine article....we just have to know Jesus' teachings well and understand which doctrines were introduced into Christendom long after Jesus died and returned to heaven.

If you don't think that God is powerful enough to preserve his written word in a world ruled by his adversary, (the one who wants to lead people down a very different road) then I don't know if you can call that "faith"....can you?

 

[Skwim]

Greetings,

This is my first post and I wanted to make it interesting. So here goes:

In my essay, As It Is Written: Whose Righteousness: God's or Abram's?, I argue that the Christian understanding of Genesis 15:6 is not consistent with the actual Hebrew. A correct interpretation of this verse is that Abram recognizes the righteousness of God. In other words, the verse is not about Abram's faith or righteousness, it is about God's righteousness.

To say that this is an important theological principle for Christians is an understatement. St. Paul bases much (all of?) his "justification by faith alone" on this, a widely misinterpreted Old Testament verse.

Here, for example, is the NRS version of this famous verse:

And he believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness. (Gen 15:6 - NRS)​

and here is my translation of the same verse,

Then he believed in the LORD and reckoned it to him [as] righteousness. (Gen 15:6 - mtp)​

I welcome comments and, especially, corrections and suggestions for improvement.

Blessings,

Coming into the discussion a bit late and because quite a few of the posts are a bit lengthy I haven't bothered to read many of them. So I'll get right to the point: What is Genesis 15:6 saying? Looking at the ERV version of the Bible, it says

"5 Then God led Abram outside and said, “Look at the sky. See the many stars. There are so many you cannot count them. Your family will be like that. 6 Abram believed the Lord, and because of this faith the Lord accepted him as one who has done what is right. 7 He said to Abram, “I am the Lord who led you from Ur of Babylonia.a]">[a] I did this so that I could give you this land. You will own this land.”
​

Two other versions put it equally clear:

Expanded Bible
Abram ·believed [put his trust/faith in] the Lord. And the Lord ·accepted Abram’s faith, and that faith made him right with God [ counted/credited it as righteousness; Rom. 4:3, 9, 22; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23].

New International Readers Version
Abram believed the Lord. The Lord was pleased with Abram because he believed. So Abram’s faith made him right with the Lord.
​

In short then; god accepted Abram because Abram believed god when he said that Abram's family will be uncountable like the stars in the sky.

Shorter yet; god accepted Abram because Abram didn't think god was lying; although, IMO it's hardly admirable. It points up the fact that god's favor is only gained by first doing one for him. Kind of a quid pro quo arrangement. God will do X for you only if you first do Y for him. For sure there's no selfless love on god's part going on here. But hey, it's his game and he gets to call the shots. And as it stands, it's one to well remember: Don't expect god to do anything for you unless you first prove yourself worthy by doing something for him.


.

​

 

[savagewind]

Greetings,

This is my first post and I wanted to make it interesting. So here goes:

In my essay, As It Is Written: Whose Righteousness: God's or Abram's?, I argue that the Christian understanding of Genesis 15:6 is not consistent with the actual Hebrew. A correct interpretation of this verse is that Abram recognizes the righteousness of God. In other words, the verse is not about Abram's faith or righteousness, it is about God's righteousness.

To say that this is an important theological principle for Christians is an understatement. St. Paul bases much (all of?) his "justification by faith alone" on this, a widely misinterpreted Old Testament verse.

Here, for example, is the NRS version of this famous verse:

And he believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness. (Gen 15:6 - NRS)​

and here is my translation of the same verse,

Then he believed in the LORD and reckoned it to him [as] righteousness. (Gen 15:6 - mtp)​

I welcome comments and, especially, corrections and suggestions for improvement.

Blessings,

I can coincide Paul's words with your point of view. A friend is a friend not because or service to him, but because of trust. Trust was made firm in Abraham and Paul says trust will be made firm in believers in Jesus also.

I don't think there is much argument for salvation by faith vs works and I never argue it because I believe 2 Timothy 2:14. I view faith and works opposite sides of the same coin.

I think that to clarify scripture isn't about the words. It is about meaning. I think meaning should be argued. Thank you for arguing it. It was interesting.

 

[Michael Peterson]

Matthew 28:19-20,
Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


I ask you to consider that the very last seconds before Jesus ascended out of sight he gave instructions to the Apostles, which we are to follow, which is to teach and baptize, I feel the need for Jesus to give these instructions are for us to obey.


The scriptures I gave earlier are all commands, such as Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16 which tells us in order to be saved, we must comply to it's instruction, that being to believe and be baptized, which results in being saved as we are imitating the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus death.

When we are baptized, as we go under the water, we imitate his death, as we are buried as Christ was, then, he arose to live forever and has paid the ultimate price for the sins of the world, so we to live forever because are sins, which Jesus died for have been washed, and now we are presentable to our Father as his child , also to live forever because of our obedience to his word. if you will notice that every time someone believed they were immediately baptized for the remission of their sins. How can one be saved without being baptized, if the baptizing washes away our sins?


1 Peter 3:21, King James Bible
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

@shava. I'm not sure what relevance Baptism has to the discussion of the validity of Genesis 15:6 so thank you for your time and your thoughts, but a discussion of the salvific nature of baptism probably belongs in another thread.

Peace and blessings to you,

 

[shava]

@shava. I'm not sure what relevance Baptism has to the discussion of the validity of Genesis 15:6 so thank you for your time and your thoughts, but a discussion of the salvific nature of baptism probably belongs in another thread.

Peace and blessings to you,

My apology my dear friend, as I should had paid more attention, and I wouldn't have caused this improper invasion of this thread, again, my apology.

 

[Michael Peterson]

Coming into the discussion a bit late and because quite a few of the posts are a bit lengthy I haven't bothered to read many of them. So I'll get right to the point: What is Genesis 15:6 saying? Looking at the ERV version of the Bible, it says

"5 Then God led Abram outside and said, “Look at the sky. See the many stars. There are so many you cannot count them. Your family will be like that. 6 Abram believed the Lord, and because of this faith the Lord accepted him as one who has done what is right. 7 He said to Abram, “I am the Lord who led you from Ur of Babylonia.a]">[a] I did this so that I could give you this land. You will own this land.”
​

Two other versions put it equally clear:

Expanded Bible
Abram ·believed [put his trust/faith in] the Lord. And the Lord ·accepted Abram’s faith, and that faith made him right with God [ counted/credited it as righteousness; Rom. 4:3, 9, 22; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23].

New International Readers Version
Abram believed the Lord. The Lord was pleased with Abram because he believed. So Abram’s faith made him right with the Lord.
​

In short then; god accepted Abram because Abram believed god when he said that Abram's family will be uncountable like the stars in the sky.

Shorter yet; god accepted Abram because Abram didn't think god was lying; although, IMO it's hardly admirable. It points up the fact that god's favor is only gained by first doing one for him. Kind of a quid pro quo arrangement. God will do X for you only if you first do Y for him. For sure there's no selfless love on god's part going on here. But hey, it's his game and he gets to call the shots. And as it stands, it's one to well remember: Don't expect god to do anything for you unless you first prove yourself worthy by doing something for him.

Thanks, Skwim for your response. I think it best if, in this reply, I simply point out that you do not address the validity of Gen 15:6. Rather, you simply cite Bibles that misinterpret Genesis 15:6 for the reasons I cite in the OP, and here in this post. So let's do this - for clarity's sake, I would ask you to consider the following sentence - a sentence that grammatically and semantically is identical to the actual Hebrew of vv 15:5-6.

Mr. Anderson, Jim’s father took his son to the Mercedes dealer and promised that, upon graduation from college, Jim would have the pick of any car on the lot. He knew his dad would keep his promise and thought him generous.​

Who is the subject of the verb 'thought' in the second clause?

Blessings,

 

[Skwim]

Thanks, Skwim for your response. I think it best if, in this reply, I simply point out that you do not address the validity of Gen 15:6. Rather, you simply cite Bibles that misinterpret Genesis 15:6 for the reasons I cite in the OP, and here in this post. So let's do this - for clarity's sake, I would ask you to consider the following sentence - a sentence that grammatically and semantically is identical to the actual Hebrew of vv 15:5-6.

Mr. Anderson, Jim’s father took his son to the Mercedes dealer and promised that, upon graduation from college, Jim would have the pick of any car on the lot. He knew his dad would keep his promise and thought him generous.​

Who is the subject of the verb 'thought' in the second clause?

Blessings,

Thanks for the response, but I've put as much energy into your issue as I care to . Good luck in your efforts to persuade.


.

 

[savagewind]

Thanks for the response, but I've put as much energy into your issue as I care to . Good luck in your efforts to persuade.


.

Haha Clarify. Oh these people on the internet how they pay attention. Like children.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I may not understand the point of your question - in which case I apologize. My confusion arises from the observation that many (most?) Jews and Christians devote much of their formal worship time reckoning God's righteousness just as Abram did, i.e., as a [positive] reaction to God's faithfulness. Indeed, we emulate Abram's reaction in most (all?) formal worship services by 'reckoning' God's righteousness when we recognize, praise, and glorify His faithfulness.

Perhaps, is it possible that your question centered on the word 'need'? If you did, perhaps you could press this point further. For example, nowhere have I read that God made these promises to Abram in hopes that Abram would think Him righteous. But, again, I may be missing something.

Blessings,

That's fine....no problem. I just don't agree. The context of the following verses, for one reason. (Vs.7,"Then he said, 'I am Yahweh....'"; obviously, "he" is not Abram.) Another is, Abraham could 'believe' Yahweh was righteous, but only God can give "credit", based on a person's faith. This specific understanding harmonizes with all that is written at Romans 4, Galatians 3, Hebrews 11, and James 2.

Take care.