Justification…Is it works or faith alone?

[Simplelogic]

I was recently challenged by a very polite advocate of faith alone doctrine. I decided to take him up on the challenge and I will be defending justification by works. Just so the readers understand, my positions will be based off of the Tanakh (Old Testament) as well as the words of Jesus.

I personally do not believe Paul to be one of Jesus' apostles but this will not be the topic of this debate. Nor will I debate the notion that Paul believed in the very "faith alone" doctrine which my opponent will be arguing for. He most certainly did. I am looking to see if "faith alone" can be proved from the OT or the words of Jesus.

I also realize that some of the debate will pertain to the word faith. Some see faith as a mental assent of some kind (which is usually expressed in creeds or doctrinal statements which outline the "correct way" to approach God) and others see faith or "faithfulness" as a mans ability to trust God keep His commandments. I will not reject the notion of "faith" as long as the definition pertains to the latter, not the former.

So here is my first question:

Can anyone name any place in the OT where a man was called righteous by God by ONLY having faith?

 

[Thana]

Habakkuk 2:4 - “See, the enemy is puffed up;
his desires are not upright—
but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness"

Genesis 15:6 - "And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness."

 

[InChrist]

I believe whether in the OT or the NT salvation along with justification and sanctification is always shown to be by faith and believing God. Anything contrary is of the flesh and not of God. This faith of the scriptures does not negate the reality that "faith" and believing God results in good works which He has prepared for believers beforehand (Eph. 2;10)

"This objection to Paul’s preaching of the gospel of justification by faith is thoroughly set aside by the example of Abraham, who was regarded as the father of the Jews. If Abraham was justified by faith, then surely Paul’s teaching is neither new nor unfaithful to the faith of Israel in the Old Testament age. As we shall soon see, it was not Paul who had departed from the ‘faith of our fathers’ but the Jews.
Abraham Was Justified by Faith, Not Works
(4:1-8)
Paul eagerly probed into the ‘roots’ of the Jews. What was the experience of Abraham in this matter of justification? Was he justified by faith or by works? “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?” (Romans 4:1). If Abraham were found to be saved by his works, then he would have something of which he could boast. And, of course, by implication there would be something in which the Jew could boast. The Jews did mistakenly suppose that Abraham was saved by works. Dr. A. T. Robertson informs us that the “rabbis had a doctrine of the merits of Abraham who had a superfluity of credits to pass on to the Jews.”20 But the Scriptures make it clear that Abraham could not boast before God because he was justified by faith, not works: “For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’” (Romans 4:3)."
6. An Old Testament Illustration of Justification by Faith (Romans 4) | Bible.org

 

[Sabour]

Can anyone name any place in the OT where a man was called righteous by God by ONLY having faith?

Just a minute. About that question, doesn't righteous mean doing good deeds? If one is called righteous than it may be meaning that he is someone who does righteous deeds. Isn't that true? If yes, I think the question doesn't really address the point you were raising.

 

[1robin]

I was recently challenged by a very polite advocate of faith alone doctrine. I decided to take him up on the challenge and I will be defending justification by works. Just so the readers understand, my positions will be based off of the Tanakh (Old Testament) as well as the words of Jesus.

I personally do not believe Paul to be one of Jesus' apostles but this will not be the topic of this debate. Nor will I debate the notion that Paul believed in the very "faith alone" doctrine which my opponent will be arguing for. He most certainly did. I am looking to see if "faith alone" can be proved from the OT or the words of Jesus.

I also realize that some of the debate will pertain to the word faith. Some see faith as a mental assent of some kind (which is usually expressed in creeds or doctrinal statements which outline the "correct way" to approach God) and others see faith or "faithfulness" as a mans ability to trust God keep His commandments. I will not reject the notion of "faith" as long as the definition pertains to the latter, not the former.

So here is my first question:

Can anyone name any place in the OT where a man was called righteous by God by ONLY having faith?

I will respond in full to your post tomorrow but your final question was so inviting I wanted to answer before I left.

New Living Translation
And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith.
Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.


BTW Paul agreed:

Romans 4:3
What does Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

C-U tomorrow.

 

[Simplelogic]

So it seems like this friendly battle is going to start with Genesis 15:6. I also saw Habakkuk quoted earlier which I will deal with in a later post.

Most Christians are trained to read the Bible backwards. Paul clearly uses this verse to make his case for faith alone and I will not refute that. I will challenge Paul's rendering of this verse because this verse doesn't say anything about Abraham having faith at all! I realize that this may come as a huge shock to many. We are so use to assuming NT quotes of the OT are valid interpretations that we never take the time to examine the original text itself.

The next few posts will be regarding this specific verse and I will be posting the work of my good friend who has the website: Yeshua/Jesus and Judaism versus Paul and Christianity

 

[Simplelogic]

"Abraham justified by faith?

Abraham's supposed justification by faith is Paul's ace-in-the-hole argument for faith apart from the works of the Law, both in the book of Romans and the book of Galatians. The following passages are from Romans and Galatians and contain his supposed direct quote from the book of Genesis.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Romans 4:1-3

...just as Abraham "Believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness". Galatians 3:6

So fundamental is Paul's use of Abraham as a proof-text example for his "apart from works" doctrine that James becomes fully aware of it and refutes it in his epistle.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." James 2:21-23

James' logic here is far superior to Paul's, but the disappointing thing about James' rebuttal is that he could have done a better job and perfectly squashed Paul's pet argument forever! One reason it is obvious that James is directly addressing Paul's doctrine is by virtue of the fact that James' quote from Genesis is identical to Paul's quotes... and in error, again! My guess is that James had copies of Paul's letters in front of him when he wrote his letter and he mistakenly assumed Paul had quoted Genesis accurately, probably because it sounded very close to what he remembered of it. So he used Paul's quote and went about refuting Paul's doctrine on other logical grounds. But in doing this, he appears to have agreed with Paul that Abraham was justified by faith. After all, that's what Paul's quote from Genesis appears to indicate. But James goes about arguing that Abraham's faith was a faith made of works, as opposed to Paul's faith without works. If James had gone down to the local Synagogue and scrolled through the book of Genesis to see if Paul's quote was perfectly accurate, there is little doubt he would have dealt with Paul's doctrine differently. The difference is subtle in appearance at first, but Paul's version is none the less extremely misleading. The accurate quote from Genesis is in the following passage.

Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:5,6

Notice the difference that here it says, "and he accounted it to him", as opposed to Paul's, "and it was accounted to him". Paul's quote rearranged the phrase and left out the pronoun "he". You may be thinking, "What's the difference? Aren't they still saying the same thing?" Answer; not at all! The question at hand is, to whom is this pronoun "he" referring? "

 

[Simplelogic]

Because Bible translators work from the assumption that Paul knew what he was talking about, they assume the particular pronoun here in Genesis is in reference to God. So they capitalized it to indicate that it was God who accounted something to Abraham. But in the Hebrew text there are no such distinctions made, nor are there any indicators in the word itself as to whom the pronoun refers. The Hebrew language makes much use of pronouns this way, and at times it can be confusing for English speaking people. We prefer to have the person identified more regularly. You may have noticed in the short passage above there are seven pronouns and Abraham isn't even named! We only know it's Abraham from two verses earlier! The Hebrew language assumes intelligence upon its readers to figure out to whom the pronouns refer from the context in which they are used. The first key to understanding the identity of the person this pronoun refers to comes from the fact that the sentence this phrase is found in begins by changing the subject of the sentence, from God to Abraham. Read the entire passage again and notice how it changes at "And he believed in the Lord..." Obviously this passage is not suggesting that the Lord believed in Himself! Therefore, at this point the subject changes and begins to refer to Abraham... and he believed in the Lord. Would it not be prudent to assume that the subject of the first clause of the sentence, Abraham, follows through as the subject of the second clause as well? This is proper Hebrew, as well as English, syntax. The experts agree. In Professor Victor P Hamilton's New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans 1990), in Vol. 1 page 425 we read:

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 Abraham (Rom. 4:3). But 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...

Now these are the honest and objective insights of a man who is unquestionably pro-Paul! Another excellent in-depth article concerning the "he" being in reference to Abraham and not God can be accessed at Jewish-Christian Relations website, article: www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=752

Therefore, the most accurate translation of Genesis 15:6 should read: And he (Abraham) credited it to Him (God) for righteousness. Or in other words, Abraham praised God for His righteousness in giving him the promise. Abraham had walked in God's Law and actually merited God's favor in this way, and he praised God for His righteousness in recognizing it and giving him the promise! This concept of meriting God's favor is something many Christians, especially Calvinist Christians, choke hard on. Merited favor impliesworks again. But this is exactly what happened here with Abraham. I will prove this is the truth, but first we need to note something God said in the same scene where He promised to multiply Abraham's descendants.

On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates..." Genesis 15:18

 

[Simplelogic]

Now comes the proof. Let's look at something God said to Abraham's son Isaac a number of years later. Notice that God makes reference to everything promised to Abraham on that same day in history, and most importantly, notice why God said He gave Abraham the promises.

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws." Genesis 26:3-5

Nowhere does God say anything to Isaac about Abraham's faith! The promises were all given because of Abraham's works! God gave Abraham the promises because Abraham was a righteous man and had merited the promise. Abraham was not justified by faith as Paul would have us believe. He was justified by works! God could not have made that fact more plain to Abraham's son Isaac.

 

[1robin]

So it seems like this friendly battle is going to start with Genesis 15:6. I also saw Habakkuk quoted earlier which I will deal with in a later post.

Most Christians are trained to read the Bible backwards. Paul clearly uses this verse to make his case for faith alone and I will not refute that. I will challenge Paul's rendering of this verse because this verse doesn't say anything about Abraham having faith at all! I realize that this may come as a huge shock to many. We are so use to assuming NT quotes of the OT are valid interpretations that we never take the time to examine the original text itself.

The next few posts will be regarding this specific verse and I will be posting the work of my good friend who has the website: Yeshua/Jesus and Judaism versus Paul and Christianity

I am unsure which if any posts are directed at me specifically or to anyone in general. I will answer this one but can you tell me which ones were meant for me. Do you know about using the quote button? If not I would be happy to explain it. It quotes a specific person to respond to and alerts them you have done so. Anyway here we go.

1. I was never trained to read the bible backwards. You may get that impression because we view the NT as sort of the primary authority and take it's themes and view the OT through them. Unless the NT is invalid that is all together right and proper to do so. The older a document the less reliable and the OT is far older, progressive revelation would of course make the later doctrines the most clear and detailed, prophecies become fulfilled, and study is far more developed on things that occurred in historic times. Also religions that cross race and national barriers are better understood than those that do not.
2. As for the verse about Abraham and his faith being enough I was unaware of the fact the Paul had quoted it (or at least had not recalled it), the only reason I included it was because the search engine provided it. I have always known of that verse as an emphatic and stand alone OT teaching that shows faith is the primary commodity of righteousness. I never look through Paul at that verse. That verse is so point blank, simple, and concise it is in no need of interpretation or redundancy.
3. You Did not make an argument against the verses being what you asked for in this post so I will look for it in a later one.

 

[Simplelogic]

I am unsure which if any posts are directed at me specifically or to anyone in general. I will answer this one but can you tell me which ones were meant for me. Do you know about using the quote button? If not I would be happy to explain it. It quotes a specific person to respond to and alerts them you have done so. Anyway here we go.

1. I was never trained to read the bible backwards. You may get that impression because we view the NT as sort of the primary authority and take it's themes and view the OT through them. Unless the NT is invalid that is all together right and proper to do so. The older a document the less reliable and the OT is far older, progressive revelation would of course make the later doctrines the most clear and detailed, prophecies become fulfilled, and study is far more developed on things that occurred in historic times. Also religions that cross race and national barriers are better understood than those that do not.
2. As for the verse about Abraham and his faith being enough I was unaware of the fact the Paul had quoted it (or at least had not recalled it), the only reason I included it was because the search engine provided it. I have always known of that verse as an emphatic and stand alone OT teaching that shows faith is the primary commodity of righteousness. I never look through Paul at that verse. That verse is so point blank, simple, and concise it is in no need of interpretation or redundancy.
3. You Did not make an argument against the verses being what you asked for in this post so I will look for it in a later one.

Actually, my previous comments proved without a shadow of a doubt that Gen 15 had nothing to do with Abraham's "faith" in the first place. Did you read all three posts. It is 100% clear that Abraham was counted righteous because of his obedience to YHVH's commandments.

 

[1robin]

"Abraham justified by faith?

Abraham's supposed justification by faith is Paul's ace-in-the-hole argument for faith apart from the works of the Law, both in the book of Romans and the book of Galatians. The following passages are from Romans and Galatians and contain his supposed direct quote from the book of Genesis.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Romans 4:1-3

...just as Abraham "Believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness". Galatians 3:6

So fundamental is Paul's use of Abraham as a proof-text example for his "apart from works" doctrine that James becomes fully aware of it and refutes it in his epistle.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." James 2:21-23

James' logic here is far superior to Paul's, but the disappointing thing about James' rebuttal is that he could have done a better job and perfectly squashed Paul's pet argument forever! One reason it is obvious that James is directly addressing Paul's doctrine is by virtue of the fact that James' quote from Genesis is identical to Paul's quotes... and in error, again! My guess is that James had copies of Paul's letters in front of him when he wrote his letter and he mistakenly assumed Paul had quoted Genesis accurately, probably because it sounded very close to what he remembered of it. So he used Paul's quote and went about refuting Paul's doctrine on other logical grounds. But in doing this, he appears to have agreed with Paul that Abraham was justified by faith. After all, that's what Paul's quote from Genesis appears to indicate. But James goes about arguing that Abraham's faith was a faith made of works, as opposed to Paul's faith without works. If James had gone down to the local Synagogue and scrolled through the book of Genesis to see if Paul's quote was perfectly accurate, there is little doubt he would have dealt with Paul's doctrine differently. The difference is subtle in appearance at first, but Paul's version is none the less extremely misleading. The accurate quote from Genesis is in the following passage.

Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:5,6

Notice the difference that here it says, "and he accounted it to him", as opposed to Paul's, "and it was accounted to him". Paul's quote rearranged the phrase and left out the pronoun "he". You may be thinking, "What's the difference? Aren't they still saying the same thing?" Answer; not at all! The question at hand is, to whom is this pronoun "he" referring? "

Instead of quoting each claim and responding (as I usually did when we used have the button for it) I will chronologically answer each post in a list of responses.

1. No doctrine Paul puts forth is based on this verse about Abraham. For the NT authors except where quoting Christ they almost always use OT quotes to reinforce their doctrinal claims. Not to found them. It is sort of like us concluding gravity exists because we see rain falling but referring to Newton in an doctrinal claim about gravity as reinforcement. So Paul's doctrine is derived wholly independent from the OT but uses the OT as reinforcement for it.

2. Paul said that if Abraham was justified by works he had reason to boast as a corollary with his teachings about salvation being a work of God and not man so that no man may boast. Can you imagine the impropriety that would issue from getting to heaven by merit and rightly saying "well look what I earned". Seems inherently contradictory with God's nature as a whole.

By the way I am trying to go chronologically but please point out if I miss something along the way.

3. Paul was highly educated in Jewish law. Probably more that the rest of the apostles combined. He was trained by the notorious Gamaliel and at least part of his audience were Jews. It is perfectly logical for him to say "X is true because of Y" and then use OT scripture as evidence of X and/or Y.

4. The idea that James refutes Paul is probably the most misunderstood claim made by anyone who denies what Paul taught. First of all even if they did conflict it is Paul not James (who denied Christ longer than any other and wrote only a fraction of what Paul did) who should be given by far the most weight. However I have studied this in detail. James does not describe how anyone is saved. He describes only what should be apparent in the life of anyone who has been saved. If a person be saved we should see them doing good works. James never says we should do good works to be saved. Every single accepted NT commentary claims this exact thing in great detail without exception. It must be kept in mind that each NT author had a unique task and audience. Sometimes they have over lapping magisterium but each has a unique purpose. It is exactly what I expect to find differing aspects accentuated in each book. However they cannot be picked apart and must form a consistent whole. Paul covers how salvation is obtained, James covers what salvation results in. James is a contrast between two types of faith. What theologians call head faith and saving faith. I have sympathy for the casual reader who spots what appears to be a surface conflict but serious study easily resolves this conflict and creates a harmonious whole using proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

5. Also there is zero evidence James was intended to counter anyone. He simply wrote what he was inspired to without reference to any other work. There is not any unique logic here. I feel certain what you see as superior logic is simply statements that on the surface could be misunderstood to be agreeing with your position. These are strictly theological revelations which have no logical component beyond internal consistency. However what logic there is, is in the opposite direction. Dr. Kripke who is an orthodox Jew and who happens to be one of the greatest logicians who ever has lived agrees with what I have stated here. Merit based salvation is a philosophical train wreck and creates and irreconcilable internal conflict in the bible. This is actually the issue I wanted to start with as all interpretations must first survive a reality check and merit models do not.

6. In fact it is so necessary and basic to first evaluate I am going to insert a post as soon as I can laying out the logical merits of each model. I apologize if I short-circuit the flow already established here but it is an imperative. I will do so as soon as I can but I have to leave early today. I would suggest you wait on that post before adding additional material but you may of course do as you think best. In the mean time you can evaluate the partial response given by me so far.

 

[Simplelogic]

Instead of quoting each claim and responding (as I usually did when we used have the button for it) I will chronologically answer each post in a list of responses.

1. No doctrine Paul puts forth is based on this verse about Abraham. For the NT authors except where quoting Christ they almost always use OT quotes to reinforce their doctrinal claims. Not to found them. It is sort of like us concluding gravity exists because we see rain falling but referring to Newton in an doctrinal claim about gravity as reinforcement. So Paul's doctrine is derived wholly independent from the OT but uses the OT as reinforcement for it.

2. Paul said that if Abraham was justified by works he had reason to boast as a corollary with his teachings about salvation being a work of God and not man so that no man may boast. Can you imagine the impropriety that would issue from getting to heaven by merit and rightly saying "well look what I earned". Seems inherently contradictory with God's nature as a whole.

By the way I am trying to go chronologically but please point out if I miss something along the way.

3. Paul was highly educated in Jewish law. Probably more that the rest of the apostles combined. He was trained by the notorious Gamaliel and at least part of his audience were Jews. It is perfectly logical for him to say "X is true because of Y" and then use OT scripture as evidence of X and/or Y.

4. The idea that James refutes Paul is probably the most misunderstood claim made by anyone who denies what Paul taught. First of all even if they did conflict it is Paul not James (who denied Christ longer than any other and wrote only a fraction of what Paul did) who should be given by far the most weight. However I have studied this in detail. James does not describe how anyone is saved. He describes only what should be apparent in the life of anyone who has been saved. If a person be saved we should see them doing good works. James never says we should do good works to be saved. Every single accepted NT commentary claims this exact thing in great detail without exception. It must be kept in mind that each NT author had a unique task and audience. Sometimes they have over lapping magisterium but each has a unique purpose. It is exactly what I expect to find differing aspects accentuated in each book. However they cannot be picked apart and must form a consistent whole. Paul covers how salvation is obtained, James covers what salvation results in. James is a contrast between two types of faith. What theologians call head faith and saving faith. I have sympathy for the casual reader who spots what appears to be a surface conflict but serious study easily resolves this conflict and creates a harmonious whole using proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

5. Also there is zero evidence James was intended to counter anyone. He simply wrote what he was inspired to without reference to any other work. There is not any unique logic here. I feel certain what you see as superior logic is simply statements that on the surface could be misunderstood to be agreeing with your position. These are strictly theological revelations which have no logical component beyond internal consistency. However what logic there is, is in the opposite direction. Dr. Kripke who is an orthodox Jew and who happens to be one of the greatest logicians who ever has lived agrees with what I have stated here. Merit based salvation is a philosophical train wreck and creates and irreconcilable internal conflict in the bible. This is actually the issue I wanted to start with as all interpretations must first survive a reality check and merit models do not.

6. In fact it is so necessary and basic to first evaluate I am going to insert a post as soon as I can laying out the logical merits of each model. I apologize if I short-circuit the flow already established here but it is an imperative. I will do so as soon as I can but I have to leave early today. I would suggest you wait on that post before adding additional material but you may of course do as you think best. In the mean time you can evaluate the partial response given by me so far.

1. I'm not sure what this means. Of course Paul was making the argument that Abraham was justified through faith, which the Hebrew scriptures prove that he wasn't. So what then do we do with Paul's premise if Paul's proof texts don't line up with the OT?

2. This notion of good works leading to boasting is completely false. Are you aware that a central theme to the Law of Moses was humility? This means that anyone who is boasting about anything is NOT following the Law. Here are two examples from the OT:

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

Notice also what it says about the man who gave us the Law.

Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth. Numbers 12:3

3. I don't believe Paul studied under Gamaliel.

4. James versus Paul

5. refer to the link in number 4 above

6. Not sure what you mean here. My original question was whether faith alone could be supported through the OT. Genesis 15 was put forward by you and others to make this case. It has been clearly proven that Genesis 15 has NOTHING to do with faith so I am still waiting for another proof text from the OT.

 

[Simplelogic]

. James does not describe how anyone is saved. He describes only what should be apparent in the life of anyone who has been saved. If a person be saved we should see them doing good works. James never says we should do good works to be saved. .

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:24

 

[1robin]

Actually, my previous comments proved without a shadow of a doubt that Gen 15 had nothing to do with Abraham's "faith" in the first place. Did you read all three posts. It is 100% clear that Abraham was counted righteous because of his obedience to YHVH's commandments.

Well lets go back and first take the verse and then the context.

1. The verse.
New International Version
Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
New Living Translation
And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith.
English Standard Version
And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
New American Standard Bible
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
King James Bible
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Abram believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness.
International Standard Version
Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
NET Bible
Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty. GOD'S WORD® Translation
Then Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD regarded that faith to be his approval of Abram.
Jubilee Bible 2000
And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him for righteousness.
King James 2000 Bible
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
American King James Version
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
American Standard Version
And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.
Darby Bible Translation
And he believed Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him [as] righteousness.
English Revised Version
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Webster's Bible Translation
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
World English Bible
He believed in Yahweh; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.
Young's Literal Translation
And he hath believed in Jehovah, and He reckoneth it to him -- righteousness.
Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
By the way you can check every major commentary on that verse at that link and you will find every one of them interpret it as faith = righteousness.

Looks like we have 18 versions that span maybe one thousand years of biblical translation and not a single includes the words works, obedience, or merit. However lets go way back and see what the original language said.

Here is the original; 15:6 καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην

The word: 'aman is the word translated to believe. It is translated as "to believe" 44 times in the bible. It is never translated as obey, work, or merit a single time in the bible.
The word: tsĕdaqah is the word translated as "righteousness". It is translated as righteousness 128 times in the bible and never translated as reward or anything similar.

So without a single doubt the verse it's self says faith = righteousness. The rules of exegesis is that a verse says what it appears to say unless proven otherwise. Only then is a subsurface meaning examined. So you must prove that that verse does not mean what it says so the context is the issue at this point.

The context is that Abraham at this point had done no work for God beyond believing him what so ever. This was at the commission of Abraham's role as patriarch. He had yet to even set out in order to accomplish what God commanded. There were no works (or virtually none) which he had yet done to even mention. This verse takes place during the initial events where God is laying out what he wants and what he will do. Even Abraham's faith in this verse is not about a thing he will do but about a thing God will do. His faith is in God's ability to grant him sons even though he is so old and it has nothing to do with any work of Abraham even in anticipation.

So instead of the context supplying any justification for claiming faith actually means works it in fact proves beyond doubt that faith meant faith.

Just as an illustration of how complex the Hermeneutics can get and how exact an interpretation can be I provide the following.

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 6. - And he believed in the Lord. The hiphil of the verb aman, to prop or stay, signifies to build upon, hence to rest one's faith upon; and this describes exactly the mental act of the patriarch, who reposed his confidence in the Divine character, and based his hope of a future seed on the Divine word. And he counted it to him. Ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ (LXX.), which is followed by nearly all the ancient versions, and by Paul in Romans 4:3; but the suffix ך (a feminine for a neuter, as in Job 5:9; Psalm 12:4; Psalm 27:4; vide Glass, ' Phil,' lib. 3. cp. 1:19), clearly indicates the object of the action expressed by the verb הָשַׁב, to think, to meditate, and then to impute (λογίζομαι), followed by לְ of pers. and acc. of the thing (cf. 2 Samuel 19:20; Psalm 32:2). The thing in this case was his faith in the Divine promise. For righteousness. צְדְקְהְ - εἰς δίκαιοσύνην (LXX.); neither for merit and justice (Rabbi Solomon, Jarchi, Ealiseh), nor as a proof of his probity (Gesenius, Rosenmüller); but unto and with a view to justification (Romans 4:3), so that God treated him as a righteous person (A Lapide), not, however, in the sense that he was now "correspondent to the will of God both in character and conduct" (Keil), but in the sense that he was now before God accepted and forgiven' (Luther, Calvin, Murphy, Candlish), which "passive righteousness, however, ultimately wrought in him an "active righteousness of complete conformity to the Divine will" ('Speaker's Commentary').
Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Sorry but I just do not see even the possibility of any argument against that verse meaning what it says.
I routinely grant a thing is arguable if it is even a little bit true but this seems so utterly cut and dried as to be absolute. Can you tell me which post it is you feel you did prove otherwise? I am in a hurry and might have missed it.

 

[Simplelogic]

Well lets go back and first take the verse and then the context.

1. The verse.
New International Version
Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
New Living Translation
And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith.
English Standard Version
And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
New American Standard Bible
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
King James Bible
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Abram believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness.
International Standard Version
Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
NET Bible
Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty. GOD'S WORD® Translation
Then Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD regarded that faith to be his approval of Abram.
Jubilee Bible 2000
And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him for righteousness.
King James 2000 Bible
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
American King James Version
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
American Standard Version
And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.
Darby Bible Translation
And he believed Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him [as] righteousness.
English Revised Version
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Webster's Bible Translation
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
World English Bible
He believed in Yahweh; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.
Young's Literal Translation
And he hath believed in Jehovah, and He reckoneth it to him -- righteousness.
Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
By the way you can check every major commentary on that verse at that link and you will find every one of them interpret it as faith = righteousness.

Looks like we have 18 versions that span maybe one thousand years of biblical translation and not a single includes the words works, obedience, or merit. However lets go way back and see what the original language said.

Here is the original; 15:6 καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην

The word: 'aman is the word translated to believe. It is translated as "to believe" 44 times in the bible. It is never translated as obey, work, or merit a single time in the bible.
The word: tsĕdaqah is the word translated as "righteousness". It is translated as righteousness 128 times in the bible and never translated as reward or anything similar.

So without a single doubt the verse it's self says faith = righteousness. The rules of exegesis is that a verse says what it appears to say unless proven otherwise. Only then is a subsurface meaning examined. So you must prove that that verse does not mean what it says so the context is the issue at this point.

The context is that Abraham at this point had done no work for God beyond believing him what so ever. This was at the commission of Abraham's role as patriarch. He had yet to even set out in order to accomplish what God commanded. There were no works (or virtually none) which he had yet done to even mention. This verse takes place during the initial events where God is laying out what he wants and what he will do. Even Abraham's faith in this verse is not about a thing he will do but about a thing God will do. His faith is in God's ability to grant him sons even though he is so old and it has nothing to do with any work of Abraham even in anticipation.

So instead of the context supplying any justification for claiming faith actually means works it in fact proves beyond doubt that faith meant faith.

Just as an illustration of how complex the Hermeneutics can get and how exact an interpretation can be I provide the following.

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 6. - And he believed in the Lord. The hiphil of the verb aman, to prop or stay, signifies to build upon, hence to rest one's faith upon; and this describes exactly the mental act of the patriarch, who reposed his confidence in the Divine character, and based his hope of a future seed on the Divine word. And he counted it to him. Ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ (LXX.), which is followed by nearly all the ancient versions, and by Paul in Romans 4:3; but the suffix ך (a feminine for a neuter, as in Job 5:9; Psalm 12:4; Psalm 27:4; vide Glass, ' Phil,' lib. 3. cp. 1:19), clearly indicates the object of the action expressed by the verb הָשַׁב, to think, to meditate, and then to impute (λογίζομαι), followed by לְ of pers. and acc. of the thing (cf. 2 Samuel 19:20; Psalm 32:2). The thing in this case was his faith in the Divine promise. For righteousness. צְדְקְהְ - εἰς δίκαιοσύνην (LXX.); neither for merit and justice (Rabbi Solomon, Jarchi, Ealiseh), nor as a proof of his probity (Gesenius, Rosenmüller); but unto and with a view to justification (Romans 4:3), so that God treated him as a righteous person (A Lapide), not, however, in the sense that he was now "correspondent to the will of God both in character and conduct" (Keil), but in the sense that he was now before God accepted and forgiven' (Luther, Calvin, Murphy, Candlish), which "passive righteousness, however, ultimately wrought in him an "active righteousness of complete conformity to the Divine will" ('Speaker's Commentary').
Genesis 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Sorry but I just do not see even the possibility of any argument against that verse meaning what it says.
I routinely grant a thing is arguable if it is even a little bit true but this seems so utterly cut and dried as to be absolute. Can you tell me which post it is you feel you did prove otherwise? I am in a hurry and might have missed it.

The Hebrew syntax indicates otherwise. All of the verses you quoted are from interpreters who allowed Paul's rendition of the text to determine Gen 15.

Not to mention that YHVH Himself tells us exactly why Abraham was considered righteous!

 

[Simplelogic]

Looks like we have 18 versions that span maybe one thousand years of biblical translation and not a single includes the words works, obedience, or merit. However lets go way back and see what the original language said.

Here is the original; 15:6 καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην

This is not the original. This is the original:

And he (Abraham) believed - וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן
In Yehovah - בַּֽיהוָ֑ה
and he (Abraham) counted it - וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ
to him - לּ֖וֹ
for righteousness - צְדָקָֽה

 

[Simplelogic]

Many of the translations you quoted actually agree with the Hebrew!! Here they are:
New International Version
Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
English Standard Version
And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
King James Bible
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Jubilee Bible 2000
And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him for righteousness.
King James 2000 Bible
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
American King James Version
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
American Standard Version
And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.
Darby Bible Translation
And he believed Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him [as] righteousness.
English Revised Version
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Webster's Bible Translation
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
World English Bible
He believed in Yahweh; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.

The "he" is in reference to Abraham according to Hebrew syntax. All of the translations which added a capitol "He" or "the Lord" are in error.

 

[1robin]

Now comes the proof. Let's look at something God said to Abraham's son Isaac a number of years later. Notice that God makes reference to everything promised to Abraham on that same day in history, and most importantly, notice why God said He gave Abraham the promises.

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws." Genesis 26:3-5

Nowhere does God say anything to Isaac about Abraham's faith! The promises were all given because of Abraham's works! God gave Abraham the promises because Abraham was a righteous man and had merited the promise. Abraham was not justified by faith as Paul would have us believe. He was justified by works! God could not have made that fact more plain to Abraham's son Isaac.

I had not read this last post when I replied previously to my last post. However this cannot be a commentary on the early Genesis 15:6 events because in those events the promise was already transacted in it's entirety. IOW God had already guaranteed what he told Abraham he would do as a condition of the faith God said Abraham had already demonstrated. The best you can say for what you add in at this point is that this was to provide some clarity on an early teaching but it does not say that, so what does this verse mean to this discussion?

1. To begin with these are temporal rewards and not the eternal righteousness spoken of back in Genesis 15.
2. God makes all kinds of bargains with man. Some are conditional and temporal, some conditional and permanent, some automatic and non-conditional, etc... Righteousness is a legal standing pertaining to he eternal qualifications before God. Land, wives, sheep or what have you are usually conditional and temporal.
3. What you need to show is that God in Gen 26 is talking of the same things he is talking about it Gen 15.
4. There was only one promise based on faith made in Genesis 15 and one direct result. The first was descendants, the second righteousness.
5. Notice that the rewards you list from Abrahams obedience are not descendants but of the land granted to them. There is no mention of descendants being a reward for obedience and certainly no mention of the righteousness credited to Abraham. Both of these things already existed and were permanent gifts resulting from faith. The rest (or much of it) of what you list is rewards for obedience and were not the gifts given because of faith.

So IOW you have two entirely unique events here. Almost nothing being in common between them except the people involved some times. One events was the gift of righteousness before God granted by faith, another a promise of descendants to an old man granted by faith, and a whole list of rewards for obedience which depended on faith but were not direct products of it. Any time you see a surface inconstancy like you did here always check thoroughly. God usually got it right and we have missed something.

 

[1robin]

This is not the original. This is the original:

And he (Abraham) believed - וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן
In Yehovah - בַּֽיהוָ֑ה
and he (Abraham) counted it - וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ
to him - לּ֖וֹ
for righteousness - צְדָקָֽה

I got the Greek from the original. I even intended to post the original. I give the Greek because it was the most descriptive language in history and I have had a lot of debates with Greek scholars. I however did include and define the original Hebrew words which are the subjects of this debate. Looking at the way you translated the verse above it is no longer even coherent. It has Abraham crediting Abraham with righteousness which makes no sense. The originals could not have said that. That makes no sense. Let me copy it again and make sure to retain the Hebrew.

15:6
וְהֶאֱמִן בַּֽיהוָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לֹּו צְדָקָֽה׃
And he believed

h539
אָמַן 'aman
in the LORD;

h3068
יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah
and he counted

h2803
חָשַׁב chashab
it to him for righteousness.

h6666
צְדָקָה tsĕdaqah

I know I got the Hebrew that time because everything was right justified and hard to fix. That second "he" is not Abraham but God. The one way you know an interpretation is not correct is when it makes the verse meaningless. Also no biblical version I have ever seen and the teams of Hebrew scholars they employed have ever suggested the second he was Abraham. That would have produced one of the biggest scandals and mysteries in the OT if it had. I have to believe that was a mistake on your part. There is no way you believe Abraham credited Abraham with righteousness. Regardless I am out of time today. With the exception of this "he" issue you have made some good (but not in my opinion persuasive) efforts so far, but I have not even opened with my core claims yet. They take too long and I am pressed for time currently. Have a good weekend.

Notice above the second he is directly translated as Yĕhovah not Abraham.