OT Salvation

[LeBuick]

I have always believed OT salvation was a forward looking faith in the coming Messiah. We know Man has needed access to the tree of life from the moment we were exiled from the garden. I also divide the OT from Adam to Abram then Abraham to Christ. This division is by priesthood.

Heb 11 says many in the OT obtained righteousness via faith. My question on this topic, is righteousness the same as salvation?

 

[BobRyan]

There is only one sin problem -- it results in the sinful nature which brings the depravity mentioned in Romans 3 (call it what you will).

There is only one solution - the Gospel -- saved by grace through faith. In Heb 11 we see that this is what was going on with the OT saints.

In Heb 4:1 we see that this same good news was "preached to us just as it was to them".

in 1Cor 10 we see that the spiritual rock from which OT saints drank - was Christ.

in 1Cor 3 we find that there is no other foundation allowed by God for salvation -- than Christ.

In 1Thess 4 we find that the saints of all time are raised in the resurrection that occurs at the rapture -- the "first resurrection" --and those raised are ALL called "the dead in christ".

in Romans 11 we see that both Jew and Gentile are ALL grafted into that one tree - Christ.

In Romans 2 we see that both Jew and Gentile are saved and lost on the same basis and that "God is not partial".

OT salvation resulted in the New Birth as Christ points out pre-cross in John 3.

OT salvation had to deal with the sinful nature - the sin problem then just as it must deal with it today.

The foundation has always been Christ and just as Christ said BEFORE the cross "your sins ARE forgiven" and just as Enoch, Elijah and Moses really went to heaven - forgiven -- so today that SAME Gospel provides for forgiveness - real forgiveness through the blood of Christ.

in Romans 4 we find that God considers those things that are not yet taken place - as though they were.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Law "defines sin" as we see EVEN in the NT according to Romans 7 and Gal 3 and Romans 3 and Romans 6 and ...

But for the one who is saved "the Law is written on the tablets of the human heart" - Heb 8 (2Cor 3).

And James says we are to act and live as those who are to be judged by it.

This is the same - OT and NT

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: There is only one sin problem -- it results in the sinful nature which brings the depravity mentioned in Romans 3 (call it what you will).

HP: God was very specific in the OT concerning sin and the remedy for it. God never addressed the sin nature one time in giving the law, nor did God provide any remedy for any such ‘nature’ that I can find. If in fact that is the ‘only sin problem,’ point us to law and the remedy that deals with it as you would explain it is. Explain to us why there is total silence concerning such a ‘sin nature’ in the giving of the law if in fact it is the ‘only sin problem.’

 

[BobRyan]

Christ states- "pre-cross" that you need the New Birth to go to heaven in John 3.

He also states that an O.T scholar (such as Nicodemus) has to already know that.

Your argument is that He had no basis in fact to make this statement to Nicodemus.

Jeremiah already speaks of the New Covenant and New Heart with the Law written on the heart - many centuries before Paul quotes him in Heb 8.

Paul is actually quoting the O.T in Romans 3 when he speaks to the total depravity of the sinful nature.

In Gen 3 God starts this off by stating that He himself is supernaturally placing emnity in the hearts of mankind against the law of sin and against Satan.

David speaks to New Creation "CREATE in Me a clean heart oh God" -

I don't have time at the moment to go into this in exhaustive detail -- but this is good for a start on the ONE Gospel in all ages and the ONE sin problem in all ages.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Christ states- "pre-cross" that you need the New Birth to go to heaven in John 3.

HP: That is a given.

BR: He also states that an O.T scholar (such as Nicodemus) has to already know that.

Your argument is that He had no basis in fact to make this statement to Nicodemus.

HP: What are you speaking about? Do you think it might be proper to allow one to make an argument before you make one for him? Where have I said or insinuated any such thing?

BR: Jeremiah already speaks of the New Covenant and New Heart with the Law written on the heart - many centuries before Paul quotes him in Heb 8.

HP: So a prophet speaks about things yet to come. For some reason I do not find that strange.

BR: Paul is actually quoting the O.T in Romans 3 when he speaks to the total depravity of the sinful nature.

HP: I would be interested just where Paul speaks of a sinful nature in Romans 3. Between which two lines do you find such addressed?

BR: David speaks to New Creation "CREATE in Me a clean heart oh God" –

HP: I fail to see your point here and how that connects to the gospel message being one in the same from the OT to the NT. Millions of sacrificed animals cry out that there was a slight difference some where BR. Whatever God demands of man in a certain dispensation in order to receive forgiveness of sins, plays a part in what constitutes the gospel to him or her. Are you suggesting that the sacrificial system and ones obedience to it in the OT was optional or that it had no bearing on ones standing before God as a Jew?

If you, as a descendant of Abraham, lived in the OT dispensation subsequent to the law being given, what general right would you have had to tell the seeker of salvation, also a Jew, that all they needed to do was repent and exercise faith? Was not it the duty of every seeker of salvation, that was of the seed of Abraham, to follow as precisely as humanly possible, under the light they were given, the law and sacrifices just as prescribed by God?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

LeBuick: I have always believed OT salvation was a forward looking faith in the coming Messiah. We know Man has needed access to the tree of life from the moment we were exiled from the garden. I also divide the OT from Adam to Abram then Abraham to Christ. This division is by priesthood.

HP: There is no doubt that those that entered into a hope of eternal life in the OT did it via repentance and faith. Just the same, there were other conditions placed upon them, were there not, that without which forgiveness, at least as a general rule, would not be garnered. If one does not take that position, are we to say that the ceremonial law with all its demands were not obligatory on them but rather were simply optional? I believe one would have a hard time convincing Uzzah of that.

LB: Heb 11 says many in the OT obtained righteousness via faith. My question on this topic, is righteousness the same as salvation?

HP: No, but one cannot be righteous and not be in a right relationship with God. If one is righteous he could not be a sinner, so I would conclude that indeed they were in a right relationship with God.

No doubt faith was a condition of salvation in the OT. No one denies that so far that I have read. The question is whether or not those in the OT had other conditions they had to meet in order to be accepted by God. It would almost appear to me that God had certain conditions for the Jews to meet especially in regards to ceremonial law, that he might not have required at the hands of the few examples of the Gentiles evangelized in that dispensation.

It seems to me to be a over-simplification to simply say that there has only been one plan of salvation from the OT to the NT and that was simply comprised of repentance and faith. It would seem to me that there is a world of difference between what a Jew went through and we as NT believers are required to do in order to enter into and maintain a right relationship with God. Something was nailed to the cross that I do not see as optional for those in the OT, that was required out of them that is not required out of us. I am listening to see what some of the rest of you are thinking.

 

[LeBuick]

in 1Cor 10 we see that the spiritual rock from which OT saints drank - was Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

1Co 10:1 (KJV) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

Where I do agree the water from the rock offered a type of deliverance, I don't believe that deliverance was the salvation we speak of in this thread. Think of it this way, all of them drank from the water from the rock but according to vs 5, not all of them pleased God and many were "overthrown in the wilderness".

Even Noah or "blood over the door post" offered a type of deliverance, however, was it eternal security?

 

[LeBuick]

HP: There is no doubt that those that entered into a hope of eternal life in the OT did it via repentance and faith. Just the same, there were other conditions placed upon them, were there not, that without which forgiveness, at least as a general rule, would not be garnered. If one does not take that position, are we to say that the ceremonial law with all its demands were not obligatory on them but rather were simply optional? I believe one would have a hard time convincing Uzzah of that.

Again, interesting point, however no matter how obediant they were to the law, the law still had it's limitations. For one it could never "save" you in the since of eternal security. It also only covered sin and had no power against the guilty stain.

HP: No, but one cannot be righteous and not be in a right relationship with God. If one is righteous he could not be a sinner, so I would conclude that indeed they were in a right relationship with God.

I don't follow your logic here, Abraham lied about his wife yet was righteous because of his faithfullness. This makes me conclude "could not be a sinner" means they commit sin but their sin's are forgiven???

It seems to me to be a over-simplification to simply say that there has only been one plan of salvation from the OT to the NT and that was simply comprised of repentance and faith. It would seem to me that there is a world of difference between what a Jew went through and we as NT believers are required to do in order to enter into and maintain a right relationship with God. Something was nailed to the cross that I do not see as optional for those in the OT, that was required out of them that is not required out of us. I am listening to see what some of the rest of you are thinking.

God chose a people to be His, yet they faild and broke every covenant He made with them. I guess I have trouble seeing the "Law" as ever being a means of salvation. As Bob said, it has always been the looking glass to make sin visible to us.

Here is my simplified one plan of salvation.

Ge 3:22 (KJV) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Rev 22:2 (KJV) In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Now the plan is about getting to the tree. What we need is a way...

Jn 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Now here is my curve ball, could I be wrong about obeying the law being sufficient for salvation?

Rev 22:14 (KJV) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

LeBuick: Now here is my curve ball, could I be wrong about obeying the law being sufficient for salvation?

Rev 22:14 (KJV) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

HP: I do not believe you are wrong about obeying the law. I simply believe you might not be seeing it clearly in the right sense. Certainly once we have sinned and became guilty before God, no amount of ‘keeping the law’ can atone for even the least sin. Just the same, no one, according to this Scripture has the right to the Tree of Life that does not keep the commandments of God. Our obedience is NOT thought of as ‘that for the sake of,’ or the ‘grounds of’ our salvation. Our obedience is thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ Our obedience is not meritorious in that we could somehow merit salvation by enough good works. Far from it. Our good works have no more saving power than that of a sacrificed animal. Still the same, God commands us to be obedient, without which no man shall see the Lord.

The Jews in the OT were commanded to fulfill certain conditions in order to receive forgiveness. Those commands were conditions of their forgiveness, and as they, in a repentant heart, fulfilled those conditions by sacrificing in accordance to the law, God gave them in some measure an assurance of their right standing before Him. The sacrificial system had no power to save in and of itself, the blood of bulls and goats had no power to save, yet I find no way that any Jew could maintain any hope of eternal life apart from the sacrificial system God implemented. They were commanded to do this and ye shall live, fail to do this and ye shall have no hope.

Although God has taken the sacrificial system of the Jews and nailed it to the cross, God has still left two conditions in place for man to fulfill in order to enter into a hope of eternal life. We are commanded to repent and exercise faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ, without which no man shall enter into the hope of eternal life. We do not ‘merit’ salvation on account of our willing participation in our salvation, but neither will we be saved apart from the formation of intents to repent and believe. We are not saved due to any act of the will of man, but neither will we be saved apart from our willing agreement to God's stated conditions. Do you recall the illustration of the man in prison?

Once man enters into that hope of eternal life by the repentance and faith, God has still yet another condition to maintain that hope until the end. The verse in Revelations you mention speaks clearly to that condition.

Rev 22:14 (KJV) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. “

Obedience unto the end is the third condition to see our hope turned to sight and to enter into the blessings in a final way from which God says there will be no reversal of, or revokcation of our standing before Him. We shall indeed live and reighn with God through out eternity! That is a blessed hope, and those that have that hope John says ‘1Jo 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”

May we be among those busy seeking to purify ourselves through the power and strength God has promised to afford us IF we seek Him with our whole heart!

 

[BobRyan]

1Co 10:1 (KJV) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

Where I do agree the water from the rock offered a type of deliverance, I don't believe that deliverance was the salvation we speak of in this thread. Think of it this way, all of them drank from the water from the rock but according to vs 5, not all of them pleased God and many were "overthrown in the wilderness".

The unfaithfulness of man (even of Christians) in the NT does not diminish the ministry of Christ or change the way the Gospel works in the Nt.

It also is not proof that the Gospel was "different" in the O.T.

Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Aaron, Noah, Miriam (prophets and leaders) Daniel, David and the HOST of those referenced in passing Heb 11 were saved on the same Gospel that we are -- and had to deal with exactly the same sin problem.

Even Noah or "blood over the door post" offered a type of deliverance, however, was it eternal security?

Deliverance from the flood or from Egypt is not eternal salvation - but those listed in Heb 11 DID get eternal salvation and were pleasing to God "by faith alone".

The mechanism of the Gospel - and the Christ of the Gospel was the same. Christ said "Abraham saw MY day and was glad" -- Paul admits in Gal 3 "the Gospel was preached to Abraham" right after Paul argues in Gal 1:6-11 THERE IS ONLY ONE Gospel.

My point is that the new birth, forgivenss, the sinful nature, the Christ of the Gospel - all of it had to work the same OT and NT for there to only be ONE Gospel.

And of course even to the extreme case of Enoch and Elijah taken directly to heaven without dying -- it worked in the OT!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Again, interesting point, however no matter how obediant they were to the law, the law still had it's limitations. For one it could never "save" you in the since of eternal security. It also only covered sin and had no power against the guilty stain.

Well said.

Lebuick

God chose a people to be His, yet they faild and broke every covenant He made with them. I guess I have trouble seeing the "Law" as ever being a means of salvation. As Bob said, it has always been the looking glass to make sin visible to us.

Preach it!

Here is my simplified one plan of salvation.

Ge 3:22 (KJV) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Rev 22:2 (KJV) In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Now the plan is about getting to the tree. What we need is a way...

Jn 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Paradise restored. As Christ said in Matt 5 the goal is for the saints to inherit the earth made new.

We see the same thing in Heb 11 and Romans 4 the promise given to Abraham that he would inherit the world.

This happens after the millennium according to Rev 21.

Now here is my curve ball, could I be wrong about obeying the law being sufficient for salvation?

Rev 22:14 (KJV) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

There are now (post cross) and has always been (precross) two justification events. One is when a person (OT or NT) comes to faith in Christ -- and is born again. As Romans 5 states it "having be justified by faith we HAVE peace with God". This is what we see the saints of Heb 11 having in their life time just as we have today as saved born-again Christians.

But there is also the Romans 2:13-16 FUTURE justification for both the OT and NT saints at which point according to Dan 7:21-22 "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints".

That future justification is done just as Romans 2:13 states "it is not the hearers of the law that are just but the doers of the law WILL BE JUSTIFIED".

Christ points to the same event pre-cross "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord but he who DOES the will of My Father" Matt 7. Christ argues that this is the person that "hears the Words of Christ and does them" instead of hearing and ignoring them by saying "pay no attention to what Christ said before the cross that is not for Christians to pay attention to".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LeBuick]

I agree, no impressed with the bulk of your responce with the exception of this minor detail.

Once man enters into that hope of eternal life by the repentance and faith, God has still yet another condition to maintain that hope until the end. The verse in Revelations you mention speaks clearly to that condition.

Obedience unto the end is the third condition to see our hope turned to sight and to enter into the blessings in a final way from which God says there will be no reversal of, or revokcation of our standing before Him. We shall indeed live and reighn with God through out eternity! That is a blessed hope, and those that have that hope John says ‘1Jo 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”

Obedience is clearly not a third condition of salvation. We are saved by grace through faith. We are then obedient because we are saved. When your father is the devil, you will seek the lust and obey the things which are of him (Jn 8:44). When your father is God, you will obey his word not of necessity but because a renewed mind is transformed from the world to "prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom 12:2).

Great response!

 

[LeBuick]

The unfaithfulness of man (even of Christians) in the NT does not diminish the ministry of Christ or change the way the Gospel works in the Nt.

It also is not proof that the Gospel was "different" in the O.T.

Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Aaron, Noah, Miriam (prophets and leaders) Daniel, David and the HOST of those referenced in passing Heb 11 were saved on the same Gospel that we are -- and had to deal with exactly the same sin problem.

Agreed, my only point was are we truely interpeting verse 4 correctly as OT salvation in the light of verse 5? You previously used this verse as an example of OT salvation. My point, some drank from the water that came from the rock but were not saved (according to verse 5).

Deliverance from the flood or from Egypt is not eternal salvation - but those listed in Heb 11 DID get eternal salvation and were pleasing to God "by faith alone".

The summumation of Heb 11 is clearly stated in v6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him:" When you say those listed in Heb 11 "DID get eternal salvation" was it because of the examples listed in Heb or did they have to gain a saving relationship with Christ?

The mechanism of the Gospel - and the Christ of the Gospel was the same. Christ said "Abraham saw MY day and was glad" -- Paul admits in Gal 3 "the Gospel was preached to Abraham" right after Paul argues in Gal 1:6-11 THERE IS ONLY ONE Gospel.[/quote]

Reading this passage as I believe you state would mean all of Israel is saved because of Abraham faithfullness. This would discard the belief that each person must accept Christ as their personal saviour. I believe the key to this passage is v8.

Gal 3:6 (KJV) Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

v8 is only highlighting that the promise to Abraham was part of the Gospel. Are you implying that to believe in the promise was to believe also the Gospel?

My point is that the new birth, forgivenss, the sinful nature, the Christ of the Gospel - all of it had to work the same OT and NT for there to only be ONE Gospel.

And of course even to the extreme case of Enoch and Elijah taken directly to heaven without dying -- it worked in the OT!!

in Christ,

Bob

I agree only one Gospel, question, how did a Gospel save when the object of that salvation had yet to be sacrificed? Or are you implying it was enough to believe in the promise so that once dead you would still rise with the Church in the last days (ressurection)?

 

[LeBuick]

Paradise restored. As Christ said in Matt 5 the goal is for the saints to inherit the earth made new.

We see the same thing in Heb 11 and Romans 4 the promise given to Abraham that he would inherit the world.

This happens after the millennium according to Rev 21.

So you believe the Church will inherit new Jerusalem??? And that New Jerusalem is paradise? If so, where did the theif on the cross and Jesus go that day? He also called that paradise. He furthermore said I go to prepare a place. If that place is here, where did he go?

There are now (post cross) and has always been (precross) two justification events. One is when a person (OT or NT) comes to faith in Christ -- and is born again. As Romans 5 states it "having be justified by faith we HAVE peace with God". This is what we see the saints of Heb 11 having in their life time just as we have today as saved born-again Christians.

But there is also the Romans 2:13-16 FUTURE justification for both the OT and NT saints at which point according to Dan 7:21-22 "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints".

That future justification is done just as Romans 2:13 states "it is not the hearers of the law that are just but the doers of the law WILL BE JUSTIFIED".

Christ points to the same event pre-cross "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord but he who DOES the will of My Father" Matt 7. Christ argues that this is the person that "hears the Words of Christ and does them" instead of hearing and ignoring them by saying "pay no attention to what Christ said before the cross that is not for Christians to pay attention to".

in Christ,

Bob

All this concludes to a works based salvation of obedience. See my above post, I don't believe one has to be obedient to be saved, I believe we are obedient because we are saved.

 

[skypair]

Just when did the notion of a coming redeeemer come into play? If all were required to 'have faith' as we, what were they required to have faith in? Was there a point in time where this concept was introduced into the world? By what means did this concept take root in the minds of men......and WOMEN TOO Scarlett O? !! :laugh:

As always, Scriptural evidence is most helpful. :thumbs:

Gen 3:15 -- when God said "and her seed shall bruise his head."

This "gospel" was preached throughout the OT and was called "the gospel of the kingdom." It was not the object of faith but led to trust in the "Promisor" of that coming kingdom --- God.

skypair

 

[skypair]

HP: Yes, I agree that in a vague sense there was the mention of a Redeemer, although do you really believe that they understood the real import of that prophesy at that time?

So much so that at Babel, they made out Semiramis to be the "woman" and Tamuz to be her "seed." They thought to "get ahead of God" by instituting the kingdom themselves!

If that was all that was needed, why the law as given to the children of Israel with all its detail? What do you see as the purpose of all the ceremonial law if they already understood of a coming Redeemer and all they had to do was repent and have faith in that which they knew? Why the sacrifices and the offerings? Were they just optional, sort of ‘do if you so feel inclined,’ if they had already repented and exercised faith? Could one have a certain hope of eternal life outside of the sacrificial exercises once it was established as partaken of in accordance to the law?

The law was given to show that they WOULDN'T enter the Redeemer's kingdom as they were -- sinners.

The ceremonial prefigured Messiah, mostly in His suffering, with the hope of their recognition of Him as opposed to ones like Tamuz who were offered by men.

Why sacrifice there in that way? Could one have simply sacrificed at home and played the role of priest themselves as one had repented and exercised faith? Where was the priest for Adam or Cain? Why was not the same specified offerings necessitated for them that say was for the children of Israel?

The Spirit had not been given to men under the old covenant. A priestly order and the cleansings thereof pointed to our need of spiritual cleansing by the Spirit before we could labor in the presence of God.

skypair

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Paradise restored. As Christ said in Matt 5 the goal is for the saints to inherit the earth made new.

We see the same thing in Heb 11 and Romans 4 the promise given to Abraham that he would inherit the world.

This happens after the millennium according to Rev 21.

So you believe the Church will inherit new Jerusalem??? And that New Jerusalem is paradise? If so, where did the theif on the cross and Jesus go that day? He also called that paradise. He furthermore said I go to prepare a place. If that place is here, where did he go?

In Luke 23

The theif makes the request "remember me When you come into your kingdom"

Jesus said 'truly I say to you today you Shall be with Me in Paradise"

Paradise is only mentioned 3 times in scripture.

Luke 23.
2Cor 12
Rev 2

It has not "moved" -- it is the same place it has always been since the fall of man.

I believe it is consistent to say that when Christ comes into His Kingdom - the theif will be with Him in Paradise -- and not before.

in John 20 Christ said at His resurrection "I have not yet ascended to the Father".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

Were men saved in the OT? If so, how were they saved? This should prove to be a very enlightening thread.:thumbs:

At the heart of OT salvation is what Paul explains in Romans 3:20-5:1: Everyone who has ever been saved or will ever be saved, is saved in the same way Abraham was saved. Period.

 

[BobRyan]

In ref to the 1Cor 10 statement that OT saints (such as those listed in Heb 11) all "drank from the same spiritual rock - Christ"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
The unfaithfulness of man (even of Christians) in the NT does not diminish the ministry of Christ or change the way the Gospel works in the Nt.

It also is not proof that the Gospel was "different" in the O.T.

Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Aaron, Noah, Miriam (prophets and leaders) Daniel, David and the HOST of those referenced in passing Heb 11 were saved on the same Gospel that we are -- and had to deal with exactly the same sin problem.

LeBuick
Agreed, my only point was are we truely interpeting verse 4 correctly as OT salvation in the light of verse 5? You previously used this verse as an example of OT salvation. My point, some drank from the water that came from the rock but were not saved (according to verse 5).

My argument is not that all people in the OT or even all in ISrael - although clearly those listed in Heb 11 were.

My argument from 1Cor 10 is that it is the same Christ, the same rock the same water of life the same salvation being offered in the OT as in the NT and that we have both the succeeding examples (Heb 11 comes to mind) and the failing examples given in the NT where people rejected that salvation - just like we have in the OT.

in Christ,

Bob