Saved in the Old Testament

Ready for a dance around scripture?

 

Now, why is it that a dispensationalist just can't set the "doctrines of man" aside long enough to accept the fact that those 7 listed above were looking for the Messiah that was to come to save them from their sins? Because, if they are believers before the cross as well as after the cross then they must be accepted as part of the "elect."

If that is something that can't be denied then the Jewish elect and the Gentile elect are one and the same.

If they then are one and the same then there was a continuation of the elect, composed of both Jew and Gentile, up until this day with no cessation.

If that finally gets through, then one suddenly is faced with the fact that "Well, then there must be no earthly kingdom either!"

Now, if there is no earthly kingdom of 1,000 years, then the Amillenialist just have it right after all!

WOW - the light dawns!

 

Honest mistake ... no problem at all. And I wasn't offended by it. It just seemed strangely inappropriate.

You have begged the question. First, I don't follow Darby, precisely. Second, there is no evidence that dispensationalism is "false teaching." It, for the most part, is a very rigorous exegetical conclusion. It sits well with only two kinds of people: Those devoted to a rigorous exegetical process without mercy and those who care not one whit to study the Scriptures. People in the middel find it troubling. To call it false teaching in line with end time prophecies is the utmost disrespect for the word of God and its teaching.l It si not surprising, but nonetheless distressing.

I share this frustration. It is one reason why I have almost quit this board a thousand times. IT is almost unbearable to see an almost complete lack of Bible knowledge and an almost complete unwillingness to study the Word.

Which brings me to your second post: Not one verse you cited among your seven tells anyone to believe in the Messiah for salvation. I, in fact, agree with every single verse. I agree that people were looking for a Messiah. But that is not hte point. The point is still the content of saving faith.

Completely misguided. I believe that OT believers are a part of the elect. I think it tragic that some do not. So your argumentation is completely inappropriate. I agree with you on that point. But again you ahve failed to demonstrate that they were told to believe in the Messiah for salvation. And that is the key. Don't get distracted from that point. To believe in a coming Messiah is one thing; to believe in a coming Messiah in order to be saved is another thing. We agree on the first; you have provided no biblical evidence for the second.

We should not obliterate biblical distinction. In the church age, all the elect are part of the church. And OT believers are a part of hte elect. But OT believers are not a part of the church, which is a clearly demonstrable exegetical point. Point being: The Elect is a large group; the church is a subset of the elect.

To deny is to deny the plain teachings of Scripture. Were the prophets wrong when they prophesied an earthly kingdom? I don't think so. And not only that, but your theological logic (theologic??) is miscontrued. Even if your above point was true (which I dispute), your second point does not logically flow. It is a non sequitur. The identification of the elect has absolutely no relevance to the nature of the kingdom.

Nope ... not yet ... see above.

Which is why I am passionately devoted to the study of the Scripture and refuse to accept, either from myself or others, sloppy exegesis and argumentation. The people of God deserve better than unsubstantiated claims and proof texting, especially when the texts have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

Well, surprise! surprise!

A classic case of a straw argument! You set it up so that their faith can't be legitimate because the black and white words are not there for you? Duh? Weren't there 400 years of nothing in writing?

Try the thief on the cross. Was there any words of exhortation for him to believe? Absolutely not! Yet, are you going to deny Christs words that what he said reflected his belief? All that thief said was "Thow art the Son of God!" Now, there is no comand in scripture to believe in the Messiah is there? But, what does Christ say? "Today, you will be with me in paradise!" You set up the straw argument that"content" is necessary or that black and white words have to fit your demands for proof, - while knee deep in evidence and proof all around you!

 

You make me laugh, TB. Honestly, you do. Do you know so little of theological argumentation and how to arrive at conclusions? Black and white is certainly not necessary. I am not asking for that. You haven't even approached an arguable case yet. There is one possible one, and I think it is very weak, but you haven't made it yet that I have seen, and if you did, you didn't make it very well, or I would likely have noticed it.

Secondly, you miss the point of progressive revelation. No one disputes that by the time of Mary, Joseph, Simeon, Anna, etc, they had far more revelation, even down to the person of hte Messiah and that the Messiah would die for sins. Adam and Eve had none of that. They were told that she would have a seed who would crush the serpent. But in that is nothing of sin, death, propitiation, expiation, resurrection, etc. It just isn't there to be be believed.

Thirdly, you completely miss the point. I have never argued that their faith wasn't legitimate. It was legitimate faith. The question has always been, what did they believe in order to be saved? The answer most assuredly cannot be Christ because they did not have sufficient revelation.

The thief on the cross is a great example. He saw the Messiah die for sin. That, by definition, is revelation necessary to be believed and he believed it. You have proven my point.

IN the end, this comes down to what the text actually says vs. what theologians have tried to say about it. You have, unwittingly to be sure, bought into a position that simply cannot actually be substantiated apart from a lot of presuppositions. You have done the same thing with amillennialism. In the end, it is okay since it does affect your salvation, nor the salvation of those in this age. But in the interest of theological accuracy, we need to be precise with what the text says and not import our NT ideas back to the OT times.

 

Hello esxcentric. Got tied up on a “Calvinist board” for a while.

I’m only basing what I posted on the Word of God, as are you. We have both said the same thing.

I said, and you said they were saved just like the Jew, so we agree on that point. But today we are not saved as they in that dispensation. Correct me if I am wrong, and if so, please do it by scripture, and I’ll be wrong.