The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum James Akin, Abraham and Justification......

AC,

Personally, I find James Akin's "proof" of an ongoing justification in the person of Abraham empty.

1. Hermeneutical: The NT interprets the OT; a basic tenet of biblical interpretation. Thus, Paul's propositional statement in Rom 4:3 takes precedence over Gen 15:6. All the text in Genesis says is that Abraham obeyed God in leaving his home with the promise of an inheritance offered. This is but of many instances of Abraham rendering obedience. There are many examples of Israelites who offered sacrifices to God and who did many other acts of obedience who perished in unbelief. Bare obedience does not equal saving faith.

2. Exegetical: Akin's reference to James as proving that Abraham was 'justified', i.e., was declared righteous (cp. Rom 4:3) is fallacious as any Protestant will testify. James is bringing up the matter of evidences of righteousness which flow from saving faith, not the imputation of righteousness upon the exercising of saving faith. There are many examples of what James is focusing upon in Scripture, e.g., Jer 3:11; Ezek 16:51,52; Matt 11:19; Lk 16:15 and Rom 3:4.

3. James Dunn: This is a most welcome inclusion to Akin's argument, i.e., to quote Dunn. Why? Because as those of us who are critical of NPP and Federal Vision know and some of us who have known from the beginning, these positions and others similar to them are nothing more than Roman soteriology in drag. Putting on different clothes has no effect on the individual wearing them. Here, a Roman Catholic shows himself to be in essential agreement with those most critical of NPP, FV, Shepherdism, et al in that he reveals that they are essentially in agreement with the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. Thank you Mr. Akin!