What is Justification by faith?

[Darrell C]

AS REQUESTED HERE ARE DARRELL’S OWN WORDS POSTED ON THE THREAD “Man’s Relationship to God Today”

And not a single word about men not being justified.

You cannot validate your charge and you need to at least admit this to yourself.

You are only going to make things worse for yourself. Which is what you do here.

A. HERE IS YOUR CLAIM:

Again, the Old Testament Saint was just as saved as we are by the Grace of God. Their Eternal Security was just as secure as ours. – Post 65

Its not my claim, it is the teaching of Scripture, which, I would add, you have falsely accused me of denying, just as you falsely charge me with denying the justification of the Old Testament Saint.

I cannot put it any simpler terms than I do above.

And still nothing about Old Testament Saints not being justified.

That is what you were asked to quote me on, Biblicist.


Continued...

 

[Van]

I have tried to explain this to him. It did no good, he will not even give it consideration, but simply makes up what he wants perfection to mean. He has recently elaborated on his previous statement no man has been perfected yet to a view that Scripture teaches men have always been perfected.

So you are right, he does deny it, but even worse...he redefines it so he can hope to maintain the error he is teaching, lol.

God bless.

Spot on Darrell C!! You may wonder why such an absurd position is pushed that is so unbiblical. The logic goes like this. The OT saints could not have obtained approval through faith unless they were altered by irresistible grace, according to the nameless doctrine. Regeneration before faith ring a bell? Therefore they were "quickened" or "made alive" before Christ died. How could this be accomplished? Why you take the "promised blood" and use it to regenerate, make alive, quicken the OT saints, so they can gain approval. And of course, if the promised blood is applied, the sin burden is washed away, and the OT saints are justified by the promised blood. then you redefine "perfected" so that they really did not have to wait in Abraham's bosom. If this concoction was not so sad, it might be viewed as over the top funny.

 

[Darrell C]

I will set back with the rest of the readers and watch these two annihilate each other's heretical views.

No, you will sit back in fear that your error might be exposed and your ego damaged...



And it will be, so sit back, be patient, your dishonesty is made very clear in this latest post.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Now watch this, Biblicist, you are trying to prove that my words are empty, and presenting it as a fulfillment of my challenge to you to provide a quote that shows I said Old Testament Saints were not justified.

In the next few statements you will wrest the context of what I have said:

B. HERE ARE YOUR EXPLANATIONS

They did not receive remission of sins.

As I said, you need to read Hebrews.

The vicarious deaths of animals was the only means of remission given to Old Testament Saints, and it was given until Christ died in the sinner's stead.

There is no "literal" remission of sins in the Old Testament on an eternal basis...that is why Christ had to die.

It is pulpit bred mythology that the Old Testament Saints received remission of sins. The above makes it absolutely clear...they did not. – Post 66

These are not my "explanations," amigo, they are simply Basic bible truths you reject.

You know full well when I say "they did not receive remission of sins" that is not me saying they didn't receive remission of sins at all, it is in a context of a discussion that distinguishes between Eternal Remission through Christ and the remission of sins provided through vicarious animal sacrifice.

Its right there in what I say in the above quote.

Funny how you charge others with wresting context and then present such blatant violation of context of an antagonist.

Now where in anything I say here do you see me saying the Old Testament Saint was not justified? The context is dealing with remission of sins, and is specific to the contrast drawn by the Writer of Hebrews between that which is temporal (and could not take away sins, which means, amigo, they were not forgiven on an eternal basis), and Remission which is Perfect.

The former has an animal dying, the latter is the Lord offering up Himself.

Now, again, please quote what it is that makes you think I teach Old Testament Saints were not justified?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

No, our salvation is nothing like the salvation of the Old Testament Saint in the sense that we receive remission of sins on an eternal basis, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and are born again...when we are saved in this Age. – Post 145

Again, the distinction between the Provision under the Law and in prior Ages to the Provision of Christ and the New Covenant.

I have done many posts making this distinction, and nothing I have said denies they were justified, or saved.

Just because you say my words are empty...doesn't make that true.

You are teaching that remission of sins is equable between the Ages and Hebrews teaches explicitly that it is not.

You have still failed to justify your charge, and you are still viewed as slandering.

Now find a quote that justifies your charge.

And when you do, we will look at it just as we are with this "proof."


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.

Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...

...until the Cross.

And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed... – Post 157

Can you tell me, if you are trying to show yourself an honest debater...why you would leave off the rest of my statement?

Here is what I said:

God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.

Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...

...until the Cross.

And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed...

...is like saying we are not saved because our flesh has not yet been redeemed.

Link


Yet you post part of my statement in a desperate attempt to justify your false charges.

I told you before, Biblicist, this will only get worse for you. Set aside your pride and start dealing with the Doctrine.

And do I think anyone among your "friends" will acknowledge this point, and seek to help you from your current course of action?

Doubtful.

So you are still under a burden to quote me saying Old Testament Saints were not justified.

That you may have misunderstood a statement of mine is one thing, but after about three threads now of debating you, I can see that this is not the case. You are simply set on a course to slander, and whatever it takes to accomplish that you will resort to.

So quote me, Biblicist, I have nothing to fear in anything I have said, and I can again show you how it is not only relevant to the erroneous doctrine you teach, but where my Biblical Basis is found.

And by the way, this is a post that will likely be repeated. Wouldn't want anyone to miss such a clear picture of dishonest debate. I will likely import this to the thread you created to let those who agreed with you judge for themselves whether this is being dishonest in debate.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed... – Post 157

Dishonorable.

The simple fact is that the sin is forgiven through the Death of Christ, not in the past, as your doctrine teaches. – Post 124

Dishonorable.

It does not include the context in which it is stated, and does not draw the distinction between the two differing provisions for remission of sins.

However, if you would like to publicly state that the blood of bulls and goats brought about the same remission of sins on an eternal basis...

...do so now, and seek to restore your integrity as a debater.

And while your at it, still waiting for a quote in which I teach, either implicitly or explicitly...that Old Testament Saints were not justified.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

the only remission they received in their lifetimes was temporary, temporal, and had to be continually offered because they did not redeem the believer. – Post 99

Still nothing about justification.

Here is the Biblical Basis, offered to you many times, for the above statement:


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


I have also quote Hebrews 8 and 9, would you care to see them again?

I have pointed out that the New Covenant is the Covenant through which eternal remission was promised...and received:



Hebrews 10:15-18

King James Version (KJV)


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


That men received Eternal Redemption under the Law is carnal teaching, my friend.



Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

It is true, the Old Testament Saint was not justified by their own righteousness, righteousness was imputed based on obedience, faith, and works. – Post 63

I stand by that statement. I do not divorce works and obedience from the Record of Scripture.

While Paul makes it clear righteousness was not imputed based on works, but faith, and was not a wage or reward, that does not nullify the truth of James' teaching that Abraham was in fact justified by works. The contrast would be to teach James is in error, that Abraham was not justified by his works.

How do you reconcile that?

Faith was evidenced in their obedience. Abraham believed God but evidenced his belief by being willing to sacrifice his son.

Do we nullify Abraham's obedience to God for the sake of making sure no-one thinks we are teaching works-based salvation?

Consider:


Hebrews 4

King James Version (KJV)

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:


There is a correlation between faith and obedience, both explicitly as well as implicitly.

And to try to charge me with works-based doctrine only shows the level you will stoop to just to maintain the delusion of grandeur you so evidently suffer from.

If you actually understood my doctrine, Biblicist, you would not constantly be forced to create false arguments so you have someone to debate with which will not expose your error.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Now readers, of course these quotations won't make a bit of difference. Wait and see.

I hope they make a difference. Hopefully if anyone does read this exchange they will see you trying to justify yourself with partial quotes and false arguments, and perhaps...caution you.

But it appears I ma the only friend you have here, Biblicist.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

These are all absurd strawman arguments. However, for the present I will deal with only one and that one is the downfall of the whole positions of both Van and Darrell. Van says:

Hmm, interesting.

And I quote:

I have noticed the repeated use of a very dishonest debate tactic. The tactic is taking a statement from an opponent and isolating it from the context in which it is found and then proceeding to dismantle it without regard to the actual context it is placed in by their opponent.

Amigo, what is good for the goose is truly good for the gander.

Readers, here is where the whole position by van and Darrel breaks down and collapses and it is easy to demonstrate they are in error when they imagine a dichotomy between justification and imputed righteousness.

Where have I done that?

Again...give a quote Biblicist.

Since this is the ultimate bottom line upon which both Van's and Darrell's whole theory rests,if they are wrong here they are wrong in all the little diversions they want us to take up valuable time with.

My bottom line rests on one element of a very complex issue?

Absurd.

And that you correlate my doctrine with false arguments that you cannot even produce a single quote to justify it with makes it even more absurd.
I'm not even sure how you can possibly think that my doctrine rests upon a single issue, much less how you delude yourself that my doctrine can be dismantled by s singular issue.

And that is what upsets you...you frequently dismantle your own positions yet you cannot touch a singular point of my own doctrine.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I am not trying to convince either Van or Darrell because that is a fools errand. God alone is capable for doing that. I am simply exposing their error and this truth fully exposes their error.

It is apparent you have no desire to talk with Darrell or Van, you simply want to speak at them, lol.

Jiminy crickets.

So tell me again, exactly which error of mine have you...exposed?

You're supposed to be exposing my error of teaching Old Testament Saints were not justified, remember?

How's that going for you, Biblicist. How much time have you spent reviewing our discussions?

Surely you have found something where I explicitly or even implicitly teach Old Testament Saints were not justified.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

This one's for you, @percho:

God has a "soul" and it is not blood and man was made in the image of God and God does not have a body or "breath" but "is spirit."

Then we must make the term soul mean something other than a reference to a person in totality, because when God created man...He didn't give man a soul, He made man a living soul.

Again, pulpit bred teachings that do not cover the full scale of what Scripture means when it refers to the soul.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Both Van and Darrell deny the inherent Biblical content of the term "justify" in order to maintain their false theories.

So please provide a quote that justifies your charge towards me.

You've had all day to do that.

Therefore, it is "by faith" that both the righteousness of God and remission of sins are obtained. The term "justify" is inherently inseparable from that condition of having the righteousness of God and remission of sins or else they are still under "condemnation" for having "sinned and come short of the glory of God." The Jews believed this content meaning of justify was by a mixture of faith plus works (as Darrel believes) but Paul claims that the righteousness of God and remission of sins, which is the Biblical content meaning of justification "before God" was by faith.

Please quote me where I say that justification in a salvific context is a mixture of faith plus works. Then, you can address what I also say in that discussion concerning works and faith in regards to salvation.

You are not properly representing what I say, which is a dishonest debate tactic, so the next time you snivel about dishonest debate tactics keep in mind you are a hypocrite.

I can Biblically support men being justified by works, and that does not mean I teach men are saved by works.

But because I draw a distinction between the state of the Old Testament Saint who was saved by Grace through Faith, and the born again believer in relationship with God through the New Covenant, and you cannot comprehend that, you equate the two.

But this gives an opportunity to look at what the Jew Believed, including the disciples, which differs greatly from what the Apostles believed after Pentecost. Again, which is just one element of my doctrine you have sought to "expose," lol.

You can't do it, Biblicist. The strength of my Doctrine is based on numerous irrefutable Basic Bible Truths. That is why you resort to false arguments.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Van and Darrell want to separate this "righteousness" and "remission of sins" from the term "justify."

So quote where I do this.

You seem to think just because you say something it is going to be accepted. That is the problem with some people, and their reaction to opposition to the supposed authority they think themselves to have is usually the same: emotional outburst.

Well guess what...I am not one who takes any man's word for granted, all are subject to the same standard, they must back up what they say with Scripture. I don't care if you are a Pastor, a Pope, or a deli meat salesman. You are not above the same test everyone else is subject to.

And I have tried your spirit, Biblicist, and found it wanting. Dishonorable, in fact.

God acts according to his eternal purpose of redemption rather than according to time and space fulfillment's of prophecy. Van ties God's redemptive applications to historical events instead of God's eternal purpose of redemption. Therefore, it is received by faith whether before or after the cross based upon the promise of God. It is "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13;20) and "the blood shed before the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8). It's application is not dependent upon the historical event but upon the veracity of God's promise that this event would occur as God "calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Rom. 4:17).


However, both Darrell and Van will vehemently deny this last paragraph above as truth.

Not vehemently, because the truth is, biblicist, most should be able to see the utter absurdity of your teaching by now. It is hypocritical, uses dishonest debate tactics, and has a habit of not only changing to suit your current understanding, but at times can be seen to seek to teach two opposing views.

And with that, think I'll go do something that will be profitable, cut some grass.

Still waiting for a quote that justifies your charge.

How appropriately titled this thread has turned out to be.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

These are all absurd strawman arguments. However, for the present I will deal with only one and that one is the downfall of the whole positions of both Van and Darrell. Van says:





Readers, here is where the whole position by van and Darrel breaks down and collapses and it is easy to demonstrate they are in error when they imagine a dichotomy between justification and imputed righteousness. Here is the unanswerable evidence:

1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Paul is not arguing about whether Abraham was justified or not, but he is arguing that he was not "justified by works" but by something else. The only other option offered in this entire context to "works" for justification is "by faith." Notice verse 5 and the only two possible options provided "worketh not BUT believeth."

The Jews believed that righteousness was obtained "by works" in addition to "faith" or faithfulness to God's commandments, such a person they regarded as "godly." Paul is refuting that idea as he claims that righteousness and remission of sins is obtained "by faith WITHOUT WORKS" and by one who is "ungodly" with regard to his own person by the standard of God's own righteousness or glory ("fall have sinned and COME SHORT OF THE GLORY of God"). Thus Abraham was not Justified by works but obtained righteousness and remission of sins by faith alone WITHOUT works.

In Paul's mind, justification before God IS based wholly upon being righteous and without sins and therefore to be "justified" must be inclusive of being righteous and without sin before God or one is not justified "before God." Therefore, imputed righteousness and remission of sins are irrefutably inseparable from justification before God.

Van is denying the obvious and manufacturing a dichotomy that does not exist in Romans 3-4. Everything else he bases his arguments on are mere distractions from the real issue. When the real issue is seen, meaning Justification before God IS being righteous and without sin then all the other distractions can be properly addressed.

Since this is the ultimate bottom line upon which both Van's and Darrell's whole theory rests,if they are wrong here they are wrong in all the little diversions they want us to take up valuable time with.

Any objective Bible student can easily and clearly see what I am saying here is absolute indisputable truth. I am not trying to convince either Van or Darrell because that is a fools errand. God alone is capable for doing that. I am simply exposing their error and this truth fully exposes their error.

There is no point in following any other rabbit trail. This issue settles it once and for all. If they are wrong here they are wrong altogether.

In Paul's mind justification is not obtained by works but by faith and what faith obtains is justification or what is defined as imputed righteousness and remission of sins. Abraham is the model of justification by faith both THEN and NOW and no matter how many times Van may deny Abraham was FULLY and COMPLETELY justified Paul places indisputable evidences that Van will never attempt to approach honestly or objectively. Those evidences are aorist and perfect tense verbs and narrowly confined within the time of uncircumcision which proves it was a COMPLETED action. Moreover, the perfect tense takes the reader back to the POINT of faith, which is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE provided by Paul in contrast to "by works." This demonstrates it is a completed action at the point of faith in the promised gospel provision. As a completed action it inherently includes application at that very same point in time and so such a person can be called "The Blessed Man" - vv. 6-8.

What a blessing the "ignore" option is! As I said before, it is a fools errand to try to convert those who rant and rave. I will leave that to God. However, for those who have an objective frame of mind let's pick up where we left off.

Animals sacrifices did not remit sins in any manner except by type. This is demonstrated in Hebrews 10:1 ("shadow") and especially in Hebrews 11:4 where the very first instance of animal sacrifices is noted in Scripture. Let's look at the text again:

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. - Heb. 11:4

Let's dissect this passage. Abel participated in the offering "by faith." Meaning, he had previous instruction as Biblical faith is never a leap in the dark or blind faith but always is in response to God's revealed will. The only possible contextual reference is the example of God in Genesis 3 where God obviously sacrificed animals to make coats for Adam in Eve after having confronting them with their sin and presenting the gospel of Christ to them in Genesis 3:15. The coats symbolized being clothed in the righteousness of God (preincarnate Christ - Jehovah our Savior) being provided in conjunction with the preached gospel by God himself. This example and instruction was either directly conveyed to Abel by God or through his parents as he acted "by faith."

And yes, the gospel at whatever stage of revelation is totally sufficient as the object of redemptive faith. The pre-cross gospel directs the person to believe "on him" or "in him" or "upon his name" and that is significant. The pre-cross gospel of Christ says, "verily verily I say unto you whosoever believeth UPON HIM THAT SENT ME hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death unto life" (Jn. 5:24)

Redemption was presently obtained ("hath everlasting life") when faith is "UPON HIM" or "in him" or "on him" (Rom. 4:5) or "on HIS NAME" (Acts 10:43) because it was trust in the PERSON of God foremost who was the one making the promise of the good news to perform what he had promised in the gospel. The pre-cross is issue was NOT about HOW it would be provided but that God said it was presently sufficient to obtain present salvation.

Now, some of our opponents have jerked Hebrews 11:39-40 completely out of context. In the context thereis no word about justification, regeneration, progressive sanctification but only about the end of salvation or something not found on this present earth and that is glorification:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Here are the promises of which they sought but did not obtain, and still have not obtained. These are promises not found on this present earth or in heaven, but on a new earth yet to come. Being made "perfect" has to do with glorification on a future earth. Note the words "a city which hath foundations, whose builder and makers is God....they were strangers and pilgrims ON THE EARTH...they seek a country...they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly." He is referring to Revelation 21-22:3 when the New Jerusalem comes down on earth and thus a "heavenly COUNTRY".

Neither they or we have yet been made "perfect" in glorification and at the time Hebrews 11:39-40 they STILL were not made perfect but must wait until WE share that moment with them:

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Notice there is no mention of regeneration, justfication, progressive sanctification found in this chapter. The writer is saying they still have not obtained this promise of being made "perfect" and "WITHOUT US" will not be made perfect.

They were made POSITIONALLY perfect by justification by faith WITHOUT WORKS. They were regenerated and progressive sanctification can be seen in their recorded lives. They did go to heaven at death but they have not yet been made "perfect" with regard to the coming heavenly "country" and city "without us."

(continued)

 

[The Biblicist]

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. - Heb. 11:4

So, Abel acted by faith on previous revelation. That revelation was the gospel of Christ. We know this because Jesus said that Abel was the "first prophet" and Peter said "all the prophets given witness that whosoever believeth upon his name shall receive remission of sins."

Now, what purpose did the sacrifice accomplish? Our friend claims it was through this sacrifice that sins were temporarily remitted. However, that is not what the Bible teaches here or in Romans 4:6-8. Paul says this sacrificed "obtained witness that he WAS righteous." As long as the sin issue remains there can be no one seen as "righteous" by God. The sacrifice did not "obtain temporal remission of sins" but rather obtained "witness that he WAS" already righteous before he offered up the sacrifice, because the very act was "by faith." The sacrifice only provided a "witness" or a "shadow" of the gospel of Christ where true righteousness and remission of sins had already been "obtained."

Our detractor says this was temporary. It is true that in the temple SERVICE or SANCTUARY the day of atonement had to be repeated every year as the type was never sufficient "once" offered because it was a type and so the type had to be repeated every year until Christ came then it was fulfilled. But that had to do with the SANCTUARY service not the individual believer. David describes not the TEMPORARY but the possession of ETERNAL remission of sins by saying that God had separated his sin as far as the East is from the west and cast it into the deepest sea to remember it NO MORE! That is the most precise description of eternal permanent remission of sin that can possibly be voiced.

David claimed that he was the Blessed man because his remission of sins were so permanent that sin "will not" be imputed to him any time in the future due to already having been remitted (Rom. 4:6-8).

Finally, his sacrifice is described as "gifts" that God continues to testify, and therefore his witness "yet speaketh" beyond the cross. His sacrifice was a gift to God. It was the means by which to publicly express his faith in the gospel unto God. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are also public expressions of our salvation and they also provide a "witness" that those who observe them are already righteous by justification and thus their sins remitted.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now some want to deny justiication occurred at all before the cross simply because they are woefully ignorant of what justification is "before God." It IS the remission of sins and it IS the righteousness of God imputed to them.

Others want to claim they were justified by faith plus obedience "under the Old Covenant" when the Bible repeatedly tells them that faith plus works under this covenant could NEVER justify anyone, "no flesh" and was never designed to do so.

The confuse the TEMPLE ceremonial services that provided a temporary picture of an anticipated and yet unfinished Christ provision UNDER THE OLD COVENANT with individual salvation by faith without works under "the blood of the everlasting covenant."

David was born under the old Covenant but he did not ascribe any of his personal hope of salvation or present relationship to God by that covenant. Instead, he claimed that God had made a personal "everlasting covenant" with him not based upon his person or righteousness before God:

Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow. 2 Sam. 23:5

He admits his house is not acceptable to God, in other words there is no righteousness acceptable about him or his house to make such a covenant. His whole salvation rests upon God's provisions not his provisions - "ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation; and all my desire." As a seed planted in the ground it had not been made manifest and would not until Christ comes again when up from the ground David would arise in a new body. Peter says that David knew he was speaking of Christ as his "Lord" and redeemer and hope for his own resurrection in Psalm 16 and it is based upon that gospel of Christ he based his own hope of resurrection from the dead. However, as the writer of Hebrews says, being thus made "perfect" did not happen and will not happen "without us" in the same resurrection and perfection of our salvation.

Isaiah makes this promise to David a little more clearer that it had do with his personal salvation under "the everlasting covenant" of grace:

1 ¶ Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

Under the Old Covenant administration here the "everlasting covenant" of grace is offered as the basis for PERSONAL salvation even "the sure mercies of David" spoke of in 2 Sam. 23:5.

However, Peter makes it even clearer that this was precross faith in Christ whereby personal salvation was obtained was faith in a living redeemer who would give them victory over death:

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

Peter says that David knew this was referring to Christ's resurrection and not his own (Acts 2) and his faith was in this Christ for his own resurrection from the dead. Job expressed his hope of resurrection from the dead precisely the same way - "I KNOW my redeemer liveth" and even after his own body dissolved, he said he would see his redeemer in his own body.

The Old Covenant administration was based upon anticipation of Christs coming rather than its fulfillment. As such, its continuance beyond the cross repudiated the gospel to both old and New testament gospel believers. However, the Old Covenant administration NEVER HAD anything to do with personal present tense salvation. Personal present tense full application of salvation was based entirely upon "the blood of the EVERLASTNG covenant" or God's eternal purpose of Grace that is never restricted to time and space but rests completely upon the veracity of God's person and promises.

 

[The Biblicist]

TO THE READERS:

I will not even bother reading the posts by Van, Darrell and Percho. If you think I need to address a potential problem to my position, I will be glad to address it to you. Other than that, I will continue posting evidences for my view.

 

[blessedwife318]

TO THE READERS:

I will not even bother reading the posts by Van, Darrell and Percho. If you think I need to address a potential problem to my position, I will be glad to address it to you. Other than that, I will continue posting evidences for my view.

I have read all the post in here and I admire your patience. But there must come a time when we must stop putting pearls before swine. I would say that on the debate thread passive aggressive and gaslighting should be included as I have seen plenty of that on this thread.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk