Hebrews 11 makes it very clear that Abram (later, Abraham) exercised saving faith from the time he left his home to go wonder in Caanan. He was justified at least from the time of the call in Genesis 12.1-3 on. Yet I keep reading people
- who think that any appeal to the fact that believers are justified in various events at various times repeatedly is an attack on “the doctrine of justification, and
- who treat Genesis 15.1ff as if it was Abram’s initial act of faith by which he was justified.
The two mistakes depend on one another. (1) forces people to adopt (2) and (2) is then used to support (1).
But the whole idea is wrong. Any reading of the text that takes the sequence from Genesis 12 to Genesis 15 seriously, and that also has regard for the inspired commentary on these events in Hebrews 11, has to reckon that Genesis 15 is the record of a special test of faith–much like, though not as intense as, the test in Genesis 22.
Just as the Westminster Confession assures us that “God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified,” so also the Bible teaches that he continues to reckon as righteous and vindicate those that are justified. He does not do this by means of a mere assent, as James points out so emphatically in chapter 2 of his epistle, but on a basis of a true trust in God. This trust grows and matures as it passes through tests.
Biblical Horizons 
Good points.
In my assesment of James 2, the apostle seems to downplay any distinction whatsoever between faith and works of obedience. He says that what Abraham did was a fulfillment of the scripture, “Abraham believed” (vs 22-23). So faithful obedience is of the essence of justifying faith.
[…] Is Genesis 15 an attack on forensic justification? « Biblical Horizons […]
So how does this relate or correlate with the idea of an Initial and Final Justification?
Is Justification more about “the whole life considered” rather than an initial act of purely receptive, passive faith?
As I see Genesis 15.6, it isn’t an instance of forgiveness of sins, and therefore it is not an instance of what we tend to call justification to begin with. Which is our own loss, as it impoverishes the total biblical view of justification, which entails divine judgments on our behalf throughout life and into the final judgment. Abraham believed God, and that was accounted to him as righteousness – i.e. is was the righteous response God wanted in that situation, which was, in context, the deliverance of His Word of promise. When God speaks, the response God accounts as righteous is faith.
I think this comports well with the other instance of the phrase, viz, God accounting Phinehas’s act in killing the Simeonite and his fornication partner as righteousness (Psalm 106.30-31). If we take the language of “account as righteousness” to refer specifically and only to forgiveness-of-sins-justification, the Phinehas reference makes no sense whatsoever. But if that was the action God was looking for from Phinehas as His Levitical covenant partner in that situation, everything is perfectly crystal clear.
In view of that, it cannot be gainsaid that throughout our lives, we are placed repeatedly in situations of testing and God seeks our righteous response. The only possible such response to His Word of promise is faith; in other situations, He accounts other actions as appropriate and therefore “righteous.”
Incidentally, the above observations help show why one common Protestant reading of Romans 4 cannot be correct. On this view, “faith accounted as righteousness” does not mean what it says, i.e. that God counts faith as righteousness, but rather that God gives His own righteousness to faith, even though faith is not righteousness. In the words of Piper, it is “shorthand.” Not only does this not work with the grammar, it doesn’t work with the context of Genesis 15, which was not itself directly about the righteousness of God imputed to Abraham; it was about the fulfillment of the promises of offspring and land. But we see even further that the reading of Piper et al is utterly impossible on the analogy of Psalm 106.31; it would be utterly nonsensical to claim that Phinehas’s killing of the Simeonite and his partner was an instrumental means by which God gave him the righteousness of Christ. The Piper reading of the phrase is not merely strained; it is completely outside the realm of possibility.
Thanks for those helpful comments, Tim.
Recently I have been reading Brian Vicker’s book *Jesus Blood and Righteousness.* He compared these texts (Ps 106.31 & Gen 15.6) in a most unusual way in my reckoning:
“In comparison, the Phinehas text is different from Genesis 15:6 in that an established, covenantal setting is absent from the Genesis narrative.” … “Genesis 15:6 comes before a covenant is established, while the statement in Psalm 106:31 (as well as the recognition of the action in Num. 25:10-13) is made on the other side of an established covenant. Phinehas’s action is reckoned appropriately, that is, for what it is. Pinehas’s righteous action is counted as righteousness. On the other hand, Abraham’s faith is reckoned as something else–namely, righteousness.” (82)
I find it quite interesting that Abraham’s faith is seen as “something else” other than a righteous act (i.e., equivalent to Phinehas’s action in some way).
Don’t know if it contributes to the conversation. Just thought it a bit strange.
Bill
So Abraham’s faith was unrighteous? Yeah, a bit strange.
It’s strange, all right. The language of the promise of 12.2-3 is surely covenant language. Abraham was not an “outsider” in Gen 15.