OT Salvation

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
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".

LeBuick
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?

I am not sure what you are asking - in Heb 11 we have examples of people that really were saved in the O.T.

They had to accept the Gospel invitation of the Holy Spirit -- "open the door" as we see in Rev 3.

And then they found acceptance with God - forgiveness of sins and the New Birth that Christ spoke of pre-cross in John 3.

Bob said
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.

Reading this passage as I believe you state would mean all of Israel is saved because of Abraham faithfullness.

I am not sure how I gave that impression -- I did not mean to.

Salvation is individual - not national, not tribal and not based on family or relatives.

LeBuick
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?

Yes - when the Bible says "The Gospel was preached to Abraham" it is not "Gospel about realestate" it is Gospel about the Messiah that would come through the line of Abraham "in you ALL the world will be blessed" -- And so he looked for a city "whose builder and maker was God" counting himself as nothing but a stranger on this earth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Exactly right -- only ONE Gospel Gal 1:6-11

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
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

LeBuick
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)?

Both those who express faith in the unseen past and those who express faith in the unseen future - are expressing faith.

With God (as we find in Romans 4) He counts those things that are not "as though they are".

So in the Gospels Christ never says "go your way and some day your sins WILL be forgiven" Rather Christ says "your sins ARE forgiven".

In the OT Enoch IS taken to heaven

In the OT Elijah IS taken to heaven

Forgiveness and salvation are real in the OT because God is not locked into time the way we are but the central reason they are forgiven is still and-always Christ.


17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. (KJV)

17(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; (NKJV)

17 (as it is written: "I have made thee a father of many nations"), in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead and calleth those things which are not, as though they were. (KJ21)

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
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
All this concludes to a works based salvation of obedience.

If you read the texts carefully consider the two-justifications model you will see that this is not the case. The works that are produced as Christ said in Matt 7 are the result of that first-justification and the born-again saved walk with Christ,.

The justification that is future (as described in Dan 7, Matt 7 and Romans 2) is not changing the salvation status of anyone - it is an objective, corporate legal statement where the good tree is certified - verified - seen by the good fruit that it produces.

In no case is the argument made that the tree "became a good tree by first producing good fruit".

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.

This is the very point that the two-justification model is presenting and preserving.

n Christ,

Bob

 

[LeBuick]

Forgiveness and salvation are real in the OT because God is not locked into time the way we are but the central reason they are forgiven is still and-always Christ.

I like this statement. Very good perspective.

 

[LeBuick]

If you read the texts carefully consider the two-justifications model you will see that this is not the case. The works that are produced as Christ said in Matt 7 are the result of that first-justification and the born-again saved walk with Christ,.

The justification that is future (as described in Dan 7, Matt 7 and Romans 2) is not changing the salvation status of anyone - it is an objective, corporate legal statement where the good tree is certified - verified - seen by the good fruit that it produces.

I don't see this second justification, Christ either knows you or he doesn't. You are either His or you're not. The first justification is when you belong and are known by Christ. Mat 7:21-22 clearly says there are some hanging around the Church, even doing "Church work" but failed to first get saved. The salvation they missed was the first justification. If they were justified, Christ would know them and they will enter the kingdom.

In no case is the argument made that the tree "became a good tree by first producing good fruit".

Correct, however, A "Good" tree has no choice but to produce "Good" fruit. You are correct, it didn't become a good tree because it produced good fruit, it was a good tree so had no choice but to produce good fruit.

Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

This is what I said, you are saved (a good tree) by grace through faith first. Just as the tree is good before it ever produced a single fruit, we are saved before we have do one single work. Good fruit is a sign that the tree is good and not a requirement for being a good tree. The tree doesn't produce good fruit to be a good tree, it is a good tree and can only produce good fruit.

We don't obey his word to be saved (to be a good tree), we obey his word because we are saved (because we are a good tree). Our minds were transformed and roots are planted in the rock of Christ so we have no choice but "... prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

 

[trustitl]

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

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I assume that means OT and NT.

Hebrews tells us how the OT saints were "saved".
Heb. 11:39 "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith"

Some of these were before Abraham so faith has always been mans only hope of salvations.

Faith is of no value. It is totally worthless. If I have faith a chair will hold me up and a leg is broken on the chair, my faith will not hold me up. We were created to live by faith just as our father Adam was. It has always been what God has been looking for. Here again, our faith is worthless. It is only of value because of the object of our faith. God calls it righteousness even though it isn't. Praise God! He puts on my account something that I have no claim to.

Romans 4 teaches us faith was reckoned or counted to Abraham for righteousness.

What was it that the OT saints believed? God.

Rahab was righteous. A righteous harlot. She didn't repent of her work as a harlot to get "saved". She didn't feel sorry for her sins and walk down an aisle. She didn't seek God with prayer and fasting. She believed God was going to tear Jericho apart.

They all believed God. What did they believe about him? "He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

What do we need to believe?
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

What makes the NT better than the old? They got a "good report" and lived waiting for their salvation. We get "the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1:26-27)

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan

There are now (post cross) and has always been (precross) two justification events.

1. 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.

2. 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".

The works that are produced as Christ said in Matt 7 are the result of that first-justification and the born-again saved walk with Christ,.

The justification that is future (as described in Dan 7, Matt 7 and Romans 2) is not changing the salvation status of anyone - it is an objective, corporate legal statement where the good tree is certified - verified - seen by the good fruit that it produces.

In no case is the argument made that the tree "became a good tree by first producing good fruit".

I don't see this second justification, Christ either knows you or he doesn't. You are either His or you're not.

It is clear in Romans 2 that it is future "WILL be Justified". that is the second form - it is objective, corporate and legal. It does not change your state from lost to saved.

It is clear from Matt 7 that it is future and it is clear from Dan 7 that it happens just before the 2nd coming.

It is not a question of "God not knowing" something -

Rather - like Job - God starts out delcaring the case -- but it is then SHOWN to be true just as Christ states in Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them".

LeBuick

The first justification is when you belong and are known by Christ.

That is correct. That is the one where your salvation state "changes" from lost to saved. It does not change in the second one.

Correct, however, A "Good" tree has no choice but to produce "Good" fruit. You are correct, it didn't become a good tree because it produced good fruit, it was a good tree so had no choice but to produce good fruit.

Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Christ is not dealing with the "choice of the tree" in Matt 7... Where deals with "choice" (as in Matt 18 and John 15) we see dire warnings against falling away -- warnings about forgiveness revoked and branches removed from Christ and burned in the fire.

But in Matt 7 he speaks more to the fact of what the good tree DOES. Choice is then motivated as we see in scripture by the dire warnings that follow and are ALSO part of Christ's teachings.

This is what I said, you are saved (a good tree) by grace through faith first. Just as the tree is good before it ever produced a single fruit, we are saved before we have do one single work. Good fruit is a sign that the tree is good and not a requirement for being a good tree. The tree doesn't produce good fruit to be a good tree, it is a good tree and can only produce good fruit.

That is all true and that is the first justification. But in Matt 7 Christ speaks to the future "Not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord WILL enter the kingdom of heaven... but he who DOES the will of My Father".

Christ points to a future time when judgment is made and the sheep and goats are separated based on works. The works merely reveal who is ALREADY justified - already saved. So although that future judgment does not change the salvation state of the individual -- it is still done on the "by their fruits you shall know them" basis -- which is Christ's point in Matt 7.

We don't obey his word to be saved (to be a good tree), we obey his word because we are saved (because we are a good tree). Our minds were transformed and roots are planted in the rock of Christ so we have no choice but "... prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

The first part of that statement is true. But the second part "no choice" is not the picture that we get in scripture when the dire warnings of Christ are included in His Gospel message specifically the "Forgiveness revoked" message of Matt 18, the "Cast out of the vine of Christ" message of John 15, the "Severed from Christ - fallen from Grace" message of Gal 5 and the "Removed for unbelief -- stand only by your faith" message in Romans 11.

Romans 11 is interesting in that he adds "but he is able to graft them in AGAIN if they do not continue in unbelief".

These are all very powerful motivation statements both pre-cross and post-cross that speak to the point of "no choice" or "persevere in choosing to stand firm".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The recent discussion on two-justifications stems from this statement from 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.

If we look closely at the future justification model in Romans 2 we see that it is based on fruits (on works as Romans 2 describes it) "For not the hearers of the Law are just but the DOERS of the Law WILL be JUSTIFIED" and Paul says that this is in the future "on the day when according to MY GOSPEL God WILL JUDGE" -- the point is that the FUTURE justification spoken of here IS based on the "by their fruits you shall know them principle".

It is also true that this does not CHANGE the salvation state of the person because you have to already BE the new creation - BE the good tree - to have produced the good fruits that this FUTURE judgment will expose clearly.

Job had to already BE Job - before the trial and the test and the revelation of who he was -- he could not wait to BECOME job after the sky fell in on him.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It appears that no one has addressed the point I made concerning the relationship that existed between the Jew and their obedience to the ceremonial law instituted by God and his or her salvation. The remark was made that perpetrated this discussion that they were saved the same way in the OT as in the NT. For the most part we seem to agree that repentance and faith were required of those in the OT as well as those in the NT, but what about the conditions the law imposed upon those in the OT? Were the demands of the ceremonial law mere suggestions that had no weight as to ones standing before God?

Are we to believe that the ceremonial law simply held a relationship between the Jew and the land, or did the ceremonial law affect ones standing before God as well? Could one be clearly at odds with the demands of the ceremonial law, such as circumcision, and still claim to have a right relationship with God? Was the Jewish religion simply one of many ways to God, or the only way in the OT dispensation? Was God’s mercy equally extended to all in the OT or did God show favor to the descendants of Abraham during the OT ?

 

[TCGreek]

It appears that no one has addressed the point I made concerning the relationship that existed between the Jew and their obedience to the ceremonial law instituted by God and his or her salvation. The remark was made that perpetrated this discussion that they were saved the same way in the OT as in the NT. For the most part we seem to agree that repentance and faith were required of those in the OT as well as those in the NT, but what about the conditions the law imposed upon those in the OT? Were the demands of the ceremonial law mere suggestions that had no weight as to ones standing before God?

1. Then what are the NT counterpart for things that we do to have right standing with God?

2. Do you believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ to our account as the basis of our justification before God?

Are we to believe that the ceremonial law simply held a relationship between the Jew and the land, or did the ceremonial law affect ones standing before God as well? Could one be clearly at odds with the demands of the ceremonial law, such as circumcision, and still claim to have a right relationship with God? Was the Jewish religion simply one of many ways to God, or the only way in the OT dispensation? Was God’s mercy equally extended to all in the OT or did God show favor to the descendants of Abraham during the OT ?

3. If you have conceded that God only saves one way under both the Old and New Testaments, then what really are you asking?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
It appears that no one has addressed the point I made ..

TCG: 1. Then what are the NT counterpart for things that we do to have right standing with God?

HP: In place of the OT ceremonial law we have the fulfillment of that system in Jesus Christ the righteous. The conditions of repentance, faith, and continued obedience remain the same.

TCG: 2. Do you believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ to our account as the basis of our justification before God?

HP: As we fulfill the conditions of repentance and faith, and walk in continued obedience, God accepts that as the means by which He is able to governmentally treat us as if though we have not sinned. When we fulfill the conditions God demands, God applies the blood of Christ to our sin debt as demanded by the law.
Quote:

HP: Are we to believe that the ceremonial law simply held a relationship between the Jew and the land, ...

TCG: 3. If you have conceded that God only saves one way under both the Old and New Testaments, then what really are you asking?

HP: I have never stated that we are saved in the same way as say the Jews were in the OT. They had to comply with conditions that for us have been nailed to the cross. I see no way that any Jew could have received forgiveness in the OT unless he or she fulfilled to the best of their abilities and light the stated conditions of the law upon them. This included circumcision and the sacrifices as spelled out for starters.

I see in the NT that God had some conditions placed upon at least one that I do not believe He places on all. Jesus told the rich young ruler to go and sell all that he had and to give it to the poor in order to enter into eternal life. God alone knows why He demanded this out of that man, yet to my knowledge never demanded any such thing out of anyone else at least in the same way at the onset of one seeking salvation.

We can safely assume that no one is saved apart from repentance and faith, but that does not necessitate all as having the same conditions placed upon them in total, nor is that the clear testimony of Scripture. If one would say, all must come in by way of repentance and faith, we are in agreement. If one says that all come in ‘the same way,’ without addressing conditions placed upon certain groups or individuals at specific times, I would see that as being in gross error. Clearly we are blessed in our dispensation and do not have the conditions for our standing before God so encumbered by ceremonial law as did the Jew of the OT. We indeed have something to shout about!

 

[LeBuick]

It appears that no one has addressed the point I made concerning the relationship that existed between the Jew and their obedience to the ceremonial law instituted by God and his or her salvation.

I don't believe the law was ever a means to salvation (Gal 3:11). It identified or highlighted their sin and was the means to judgment/justice which is certian death. There was no pure obediance the law for all had to confess their sin's to the scapegoat each year. We were redeemed by Christ from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13).

I do know there was salvation in OT (see Mt 27 below) but I believe salvation in the OT was based on a foreward looking hope in the coming messiah. Job put it best when he said, "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: (Job 19:25)"

Mt 27:52 (KJV) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

LB: I don't believe the law was ever a means to salvation (Gal 3:11).

HP: That depends on the sense in which you are speaking. If you are saying that the law was never nor could it be the grounds for salvation, I agree. If you are saying that one could have been saved without fulfilling the demands and conditions of the law, on say a Jew, I disagree. One needs to keep in mind that conditions of salvation, regardless of what they are or to whom they are addressed, are never thought of as ‘that for the sake of’ but rather are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ Your comments so far have not set this clear distinction forth that I can see. Forgive me if I am wrong.

LB: It identified or highlighted their sin and was the means to judgment/justice which is certian death. There was no pure obediance the law for all had to confess their sin's to the scapegoat each year. We were redeemed by Christ from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13).

HP: What do you mean by there was no ‘pure obedience?” Are you suggesting that no one could fulfill God’s law, or that God demanded an impossibility out of man? There are clear passages that refute such an idea. Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” De 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

LB: I do know there was salvation in OT (see Mt 27 below) but I believe salvation in the OT was based on a foreward looking hope in the coming messiah. Job put it best when he said, "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: (Job 19:25)"

HP: I will agree, but we cannot diminish their responsibility to the law and its conditions that it placed upon them during the time those conditions were commanded of them and as such obligatory upon them if but for a time. Remember, that once again conditions are always thought of in the sense of not without which, not that for the sake of.

 

[LeBuick]

What do you mean by there was no ‘pure obedience?” Are you suggesting that no one could fulfill God’s law, or that God demanded an impossibility out of man? There are clear passages that refute such an idea.

Correct, I am saying that no one but Jesus was able to completely live according to the law. He was the only Man with no sin. I guess you can say that God demanded an impossibility but the truth is the law served to make sin visible for the man. If man was not convinced he was a sinner, he would have no need for a saviour. If the law could save us or make us righteous then Jesus came and died for nothing.

You don't have to take my word about no one being Justified by the law, scripture is clear on this point;

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

LB: I am saying that no one but Jesus was able to completely live according to the law.

HP: Was Paul a liar when he made this statement? Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”? Even in the OT God testified that His servant Job was a perfect man. In the NT we have the examples given of Zacharius and Elizabeth. Lu 1:5 ¶ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” What about Nathanael? Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

How can you say that none were able to live according to the law and without blame before the Lord when Scripture flatly refutes such a remark?

 

[LeBuick]

HP: Was Paul a liar when he made this statement? Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”?

You have to keep reading, he counted all that as dung to be with Christ.

Php 3:4 (KJV) Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Further, as you read this passage you will find Paul had thought that Christianity was heretical and blasphemous. Because Jesus did not meet his expectations of what the Messiah would be like, Paul had assumed that Jesus' claims were false and therefore wicked (Acts 26:9). He later says this frame of mind caused him to be the Cheif of all sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).

Even in the OT God testified that His servant Job was a perfect man.

Ever wonder why Job didn't die for our sins?

Job 23:1 (KJV) Then Job answered and said,
2 Even to day is my complaint bitter: my stroke is heavier than my groaning.
3 Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat!
4 I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments.
5 I would know the words which he would answer me, and understand what he would say unto me.

Keep in mind Job knew the way of salvation and his hope was not in the Law. Also, most bible historians believe Job was long before the law of Moses.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

In the NT we have the examples given of Zacharius and Elizabeth. Lu 1:5 ¶ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

Yep, even with all those good things on their side they too were made of flesh and had sin. Keep this in mind, saying they lived blamelessly does not mean that they were sinless, but that they loved God and obeyed him, and did their very best to live according to all the commandments.

What about Nathanael? Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

Sorry Bud, he too had sin. I do like when Nathanael says, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?

If you break down the word guile (dolos) you will find it means deceit, cunning, falsehood. So Nathanael was a good guy and was void these bad characteristics, I don't think it means he was without sin.

How can you say that none were able to live according to the law and without blame before the Lord when Scripture flatly refutes such a remark?

Sorry to break the news but all means all;

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

So anyone deamed righteous got there one way;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Moses = Smote the rock
Abraham = Lied and said his wife was his sister
Noah = Got drunk on wine

Need I go on?

Ps... The closest I think you will come is Enoch but again, he lived before the Law of Moses.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Was Paul a liar when he made this statement? Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”? Even in the OT God testified that His servant Job was a perfect man. In the NT we have the examples given of Zacharius and Elizabeth. Lu 1:5 ¶ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” What about Nathanael? Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

How can you say that none were able to live according to the law and without blame before the Lord when Scripture flatly refutes such a remark?

Paul states "ALL my righteousness is as filthy rags". Paul's argument is that when it comes to earning salvation - he couldn't do it based on works.

OR are you saying that Paul did not sin prior to becoming a Christian - but after becoming a Christian he began a life of sin?

In Paul's statement above he is speaking from the standpoint of a Pharisee and is stating that by the rules of the Pharisee --he was blameless. This was how they viewed themselves at that time. They did not say "we are saved by works but none of us are good enough" rather they imagined that it was "working".

But Paul makes it clear that in terms of the absolute perfection demanded by the law "By the works of the law shall NO FLESH" (not just "no NT flesh") be justified".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It appears that no one has addressed the point I made concerning the relationship that existed between the Jew and their obedience to the ceremonial law instituted by God and his or her salvation. The remark was made that perpetrated this discussion that they were saved the same way in the OT as in the NT.

For the most part we seem to agree that repentance and faith were required of those in the OT as well as those in the NT, but what about the conditions the law imposed upon those in the OT? Were the demands of the ceremonial law mere suggestions that had no weight as to ones standing before God?

Things that are true in BOTH OT and NT.

1. The Word of God can NOT be broken.
2. The BIBLE (yes all of it) is the Word of God given to men.
3. BY GRACE you are saved through faith and that not of works.
4. The depravity and sinful nature of man is such - that ONLY through the New Birth can we WALK in the Spirit and follow God.
5. God's Commands are never "merely suggestions".
6. Part of the New Birth - New Covenant walk with God -- is having the LAW of God "written on the tablets of the human heart".

Things in the OT that change in the NT.

Laws (civil) in the OT that are based on a theocracy end when the theocracy ends.

Laws (ceremonial) in the OT that are based on (originate in - and celebrated by) shadow-animal-sacrifices (predictive law) end when the sacrifice of Christ to which they point - takes place.

Are we to believe that the ceremonial law simply held a relationship between the Jew and the land, or did the ceremonial law affect ones standing before God as well?

Rebellion against God is "not the way to heaven".

God tells Jonah to go and witness - he must go.

God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son -- he must do it.

God tells Moses to stand toe-to-toe with Pharoah -- he must do it.

There is no "salvation in open rebellion" against the Word of God - not then - - and not today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP --

Job, Noah, Anna, Zacharias, Nathaniel etc are all "blameless" and "Righteous" in the eyes of God but only in the context of the Gospel -- just as is the case with all those listed in Heb 11 who walk by faith not by sight.

It is only true in the Gospel context -- God is not saying "these people need no forgiveness, no savior, no Messiah".

The bottom line friends is that "ONE Gospel" in both OT and NT - has HUGE implications!

in Christ,

Bob