Saved in the Old Testament

[trailblazer]

I will no longer use scripture like a ping pong ball with anyone - but that does not mean that I will not respond to something that obviously needs addressing. Converse with you? No.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Aaron says: Plenty of Scripture was supplied, Larry. Yes, but the problem is that none of the Scripture addressed the actual question of the content of faith for OT salvation. As long as we are addressing that question, then those verses are irrelevant. They are all true, but irrelevant as to the question at hand.

Blackbird says I believe with all my heart that Jesus was making it crystal clear---He was the God(Messias) even the Samaritans were looking for. I agree absolutely. I would go further and cite John 3 where Christ says that from the OT we can know that one has to be born again for salvation. But the same problem as above arises. Neither passage addresses the content of faith for salvation in the OT.

Benjamin says OK, Why where they looking for the Messiah? Does the OT say that?

Otherwise we have one of those dispensational-contextual, grammatical, historical, hermeneutical, whateverical, exegeses, huh?

Or if you know it in your heart you must prove it or confess dispensationalism is that it? Several questions need several answers. First, they were looking for a Messiah because the OT prophesied one. (Incidentally this is the same reason that we today should expect a coming earthly kingdom.) But the OT never says that content of faith for salvation is this coming Messiah. That is neither dispensational or whateverical or anything else. That is merely what the text says. And dispenstionalism doesn’t depend on that. I certainly don’t need to prove it. We are talking about what God has revealed to us.

The fact remains that not one person has given any biblical evidence that an OT believer was supposed to believe in a coming Messiah for forgiveness. That is the worst kind exegesis … It is reading into the text what we think ought to be there. Why do we have a problem with progressive revelation. Today, we freely admit (at least most of us) that we don’t know everything that is to come. In fact, we know very little of it and we respond in faith to what God has revealed to this point. Yet some of those same people insist that God didn’t OT believers on the basis of what he had revealed to them, but rather on the basis of what he has revealed to us later.

We must understand the nature of revelation in that it is progressive. Through subsequent centuries in the OT, more and more was revealed about God and his plans. What was “through a glass darkly” for Adam and Eve was more clear for Simeon and Anna and crystal clear for us. Yet not all had the same revelation. Consider even the disciples. They, having walked with Christ for three years and listened to his teaching still did not understand that he had to die. Now if the people walking day by day with him didn’t understand that, how in the world do you think those before them did? Did you think about that?

Too often we have people in our churches who never stop to think through what the text actually says. We live in the benefit of the full canon. Yet the OT people did not have that. They had piecemeal revelation that was limited. But too few stop to think about that and that is exactly where the problem is here. You have been told that OT people were saved by looking forward to the cross. Yet no one ever showed that to you from Scripture because it isn’t there. It is a cute little phrase that caught on and has no more real merit than “God helps those who help themselves.” It just doesn’t fit Scripture and that is our authority.

IN the end, no one is "unChristian" because of this. It is really an exercise in theology and thinking since we have clear revelation for what we are to believe today. But it does show just how lacking the teaching is in many of our churches.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by trailblazer:
First though, let’s start with the direct commandment God gives only to Adam – not Eve.

By giving it to Adam he was giving it to Eve. Headship and authority applies here. But this a great case in point. God didn't tell Adam to believe in a coming Messiah for salvation.

Now, it appears from some previous statements above that we cannot draw sound conclusions “if individuals were not directly informed in detail of what was expected of them, what they were to believe in or not believe in, if precise words were not used in a verse.” It is claimed that no scripturally sound conclusions can be drawn from the context because of the fact that it is not specifically laid out in black and white.

Who ever claimed differently? That is not at issue here.

So, if you use that principle and apply it to the above two verses literally – we are left having to draw the literal conclusion that “since scripture does not precisely say that Eve was told directly what the rules were, she should not be held responsible for her sin?” I don’t think so!

I don't either, and I think you have tried to force a conclusion on me that is the result of your lack of understanding what I am saying and a lack of critical thinking about the issue involved. Eve was clearly informed what right and wrong was. How do we know that? By reading the text. But that text says nothing about believing in a coming Messiah for salvation. And that is the difference. We must focus on what the text says.

Also, by the same token, are we left also to draw the literal conclusion that “since scripture does not precisely say that Cain and Abel were told directly what the rules of sacrifice were, Cain's sacrifice should have been acceptable to God? I don’t think so!

I don't think so either, but again, not really the point. We are told by the text about this issue. The text contains nothing of the issue at hand in this thread. Perhaps in another thread you could bring these issues up and get someone to disagree with you. It certainly wouldn't be me.

Scripture certainly does indicate that they knew that the purpose of the sacrifice was for sin because in Gen 4:7 we read that Cain is told he is to rule over it – it is not to rule over him;

Cain is told to master sin so that it doesn't master him, but that does not tell us the purpose of the sacrifice. You made a huge jump that Scripture does not make. This comment you cite in in response to Cain's dejected countenance after his offering was rejected. It was not becuase of the sacrifice itself. This whole section on Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel is irrelevant to this discussion. It does not specify the content of saving faith.

You talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, but again, irrelevant. WE are not discussing whether sin needs a Savior. We agree on that. We are discussing teh content of saving faith.

You cite the Psalms, which are most often talking about physical protection from enemies and physical salvation, though spiritual is not completely omitted. But again, the content of saving faith is not specified there.

Go back and read the verses and ask your self, What does this verse tell someone without the NT to believe in order to be saved? Your verses cannot answer that question because they don't say. You must go read information David didn't have, and then transport it back to David's time. That is illegitimate exegesis.

We shouldn't be setting up false arguments like; "The Bible never says that they believed in a coming Messiah - for forgiveness"because the very word itself IS forgiveness! Messiah is merely the Jewish word for the Greek word Christ!

It's not a false argument. Think about it a little while and start reading the texts you are putting forth. None of them tell us what was to be believed for salvation. And what word do you mean is forgiveness?? Messiah is the Hebrew word for Christ to be sure, but it doesn't mean Savior; it means king. The reason the Jews stumbled over the Messiah was because their King was crucified in a very unKinglike fashion.

I hate to say it again, but your verses do not show the content of saving faith in the OT. It just isn't there. You can attack my Bible teaching but you can't refute it and you can't support your point. Nowhere in teh OT is a person told to believe in a coming Messiah for forgiveness of sins. They are told to bring the sacrifices in faith for forgiveness. Their faith was that God would accept the sacrifices for sin and forgive them.

Again, this comes down to actually reading the text rather than reading into the text. It is admittedly hard to do because we have the whole Bible and know so much more than they did. But we have to separate ourselves from that in order to understand the text.

I really hope that you will get to the actual text, rather than importing stuff from other texts in the NT. The truth remains that nowhere is the OT believe told to believe on the coming Messiah in order to be saved. It just isn't there.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Let's cool down both of you.

Trailblazer is correct, that O.T. saints were put their faith toward Jesus Christ just as Galatians chapter 3 tells the context about Abraham. He have the same faith, as many of them(O.T. saints) were in Abraham's seed through their faith. They were on the same boat just we are on the same both through our faith. There is no difference between O.T. saints' faith and our faith, both are same.

Faith means believing without see or sight. O.T. saints were saved by their faith, they believe that their Saviour shall saved them from sins - future. Just same as we have faith in Jesus Christ - backward.


Calvary already reconciled both O.T. saints and N.T. saints unity together on the same boat through by the faith only.

Pastor Larry, your arguement that is type of dispensationalism. Sorry to saying it.

I do not agree with dispensationalism doctrine.

God only have one plan of salvation through all ages from creation to the end of the world bease upon the faith only through Jesus Christ by Calvary.

I am not worry about O.T. saints, we are in year 2005 A.D. God already care all O.T. saints since post-Calvary 2,000 years. God knows where they are right now. Christ already bring all O.T. saints into the heaven after his resurrection. Right now, they are already belong to Christ's through their faith, just same we have faith on Jesus Christ through calvary. Both are no difference.

Jesus told Pharisees, that Abraham rejoiced to see Him. Christ already met Abraham shortly before the destruction of Sodom. Also, Christ already met Moses at the burning tree. Christ told Moses, ""I AM", obivous, Jesus Christ was there.

Let's make a simple: O.T. saints have their faith on prophecy toward Jesus Christ, just same we have our faith on history toward Jesus Christ.

The center of the Bible talking about Jesus Christ is Calvary. Very simple and plain.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
...O.T. saints were put their faith toward Jesus Christ just as Galatians chapter 3 tells the context about Abraham.

And where exactly does Gal 3 say that Abraham believed in the Messiah to come??? Do you want to quote that part for us?

The truth is that Paul didn't say that. The Bible tells us that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness. It says nothing about him believing the Messiah.

Faith means believing without see or sight. O.T. saints were saved by their faith, they believe that their Saviour shall saved them from sins - future. Just same as we have faith in Jesus Christ - backward.

Perhaps you will do what no one else has been able to do ... Show us where Scripture says this. The fact that OT believers were saved by faith is beyond dispute. We all agree. The point is the content of their faith. What exactly did they believe?

Pastor Larry, your arguement that is type of dispensationalism. Sorry to saying it.

No need to be sorry. I am not ashamed of it. We typically have a very high view of Scripture and its authority and are reticent to accept as doctrine things that aren't found in Scripture. That is why we reject this idea here.

I do not agree with dispensationalism doctrine.

You should, but that is another issue for another thread.

Jesus told Pharisees, that Abraham rejoiced to see Him. Christ already met Abraham shortly before the destruction of Sodom. Also, Christ already met Moses at the burning tree. Christ told Moses, ""I AM", obivous, Jesus Christ was there.

Actually what Christ said was that Abraham rejoiced to see his day. It was a reference to Abraham's eternity and afterlife. It has nothing to do with the meeting on the plain before the destruction of Sodom. Christ was probably not at the burning bush. That was Yahweh. Typically, the Christophanies are those with bodily apppearance. The theophanies are things like the burning bush where there is no bodily appearance, but that is a minor point having nothign really to do with this conversation.

Let's make a simple: O.T. saints have their faith on prophecy toward Jesus Christ, just same we have our faith on history toward Jesus Christ.

You can try to make it simple, but you have to back it up with Scripture, and that you have so far been unable to do. Tell us where the Bible says that OT had to believe in the Messiah to come for salvation. Then we can talk.

The center of the Bible talking about Jesus Christ is Calvary. Very simple and plain.

That is simplistic at best. The central message of hte Bible is God's pursuit of his own glory through all things. Christ is certainly a central part of that, but not the total of it.

Again, we are down to the basic issue of revelation. Does Scripture actually say this? Or are people just reading into Scripture? It is clear that the latter is the case since no Scripture has been put forth. When this thread started I knew this would be the outcome because it always is. There is no place where Scripture supports your view.

 

[aefting]

I've been in San Francisco this past week and unable to realy participate. I have given passages in the past that support the idea that OT saints were saved by believing in what was revealed to them about the coming Messiah. Perhaps I will dig those up again if this topic stays hot. In the mean time, I wanted to mention this passage in Acts 19:4,

And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus. (ESV)"

Here is Paul talking about an Old Covenant prophet who told people to believe in the coming Messiah.

Andy

 

[rsr]

Repeatedly posting the same information on the same thread is a nuisance at best and does not advance the discussion.

 

[Greg Linscott]

Larry,

Would a treatment of the occurence of the term mystery in the NT be helpful here? Take Romans 16:25-26-

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Mystery as it occurs in the NT is something that was hidden in the OT, but revealed in the NT.

That is important to remember in what Pastor Larry is (correctly) teaching us. The OT saints did not have complete knowledge or full revelation as we enjoy today. Some truths were hidden in mystery. The fact salvation would be accessible to the Gentiles was one of them. Faith in a Messiah who would atone for their sins was another.

That doesn't make the application of what many of you are saying wrong- that Christ provided salvation for OT saints. But what Larry is saying is also true- They didn't know that. I'm not sure I could conclusively say that some might not have suspected it, but nowhere in the OT are the saints commanded to place their faith in a coming Messiah who would atone for their sins. Even the most blatant OT references to Christ in Isaiah 53 don't do that. Remember the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? He needed Phillip to tell him that this was about Christ:

Acts 8:34-35
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

 

[trailblazer]

I apologize if it is considered a nuisance.

However, Larry keeps asking for scripture. New scripture cannot simply be manufactured - it is either accepted or reject but new ones just can't be pulled out of the hat.

But, I will abstain per your request even though I don't see where progress is being made. This has been a circular discussion that has been going nowhere for some time now. Scripture gets put out and just gets avoided.

 

[Pastor Larry]

However, Larry keeps asking for scripture. New scripture cannot simply be manufactured - it is either accepted or reject but new ones just can't be pulled out of the hat.

This is the fundamental problem. The Scripture you have put forth in no way advances your cause. Posting it two or three times certainly doesn't help. We are left to see that you have no biblical support. There is not even one passage that commands an OT person to believe in a coming Messiah for salvation. You either accept that or reject it. You cannot, as you say, manufacture new Scripture. When it isn't there, it isn't there.

Scripture gets put out and just gets avoided.

Which Scripture have I avoided? I have dealt with every single passage you have put forth. Not one of them says that an OT person was required to believe in the coming Messiah for salvation. I have repeatedly asked you for biblical support and you offer none. You cite verses that do not address that point.

If you have support, then post it. So far, the support you have given does not say what you need it to say.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Greg Linscott:
Would a treatment of the occurence of the term mystery in the NT be helpful here? Take Romans 16:25-26-

I think that is a good point. There was certainly OT revelation about the coming Messiah, about his death and resurrection, etc. (1 Peter 1:12-13). But the point is that nowhere is that truth made the object of saving faith.

Remember the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? He needed Phillip to tell him that this was about Christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Acts 8:34-35
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

</font>[/QUOTE]Another great point ...

 

[Daniel David]

Larry, in the promise God made to Abraham regarding the seed (singular) through whom the nations would be blessed, you don't think he had knowledge that this would be the redeemer?

 

[Benjamin]

[But the OT never says that content of faith for salvation is this coming Messiah. That is neither dispensational or whateverical or anything else. That is merely what the text says. And dispenstionalism doesn’t depend on that. I certainly don’t need to prove it. We are talking about what God has revealed to us.

The fact remains that not one person has given any biblical evidence that an OT believer was supposed to believe in a coming Messiah for forgiveness. That is the worst kind exegesis /QUOTE]

I see your points and can’t dispute them. I wonder about where not being able to prove something like that might lead, but the truth is the truth and I appreciate it.

Didn’t mean to sound derogatory with the use of whateverical, it came from a humorous response to a reflection of myself with those words in my vocabulary. On the contrary I’m finding these words to be productive tools. As per dispensationalism I cautiously approach theological methods after being frustrated from finding myself going down the wrong paths lead there by presupposed opinions and teachings. Romans 12:2 became a favorite verse of mine years ago.

From the previous Gospel study I found I was searching in vain trying to prove a presupposed belief that the people in the OT must have had an understanding of salvation through the coming Christ in order to believe they were covered, because that is the only way salvation was to come, but did they know the Messiah was coming to pay for there sins? Not in the scripture. No, wouldn’t even make sense that they did for lots of reasons. It was also painful looking at the word Gospel in plural and I had to ask myself why; and where did the idea come from that word was above and beyond being thought of as anything but singular. I even remembered back to when I first read the bible of how I was feeling left out or not included “yet” though picking up on the hints because I’d heard the “good news” already, but anxiously awaiting to see the proof. I had wondered “why” Jesus was made manifest to us and not to them, but obviously He had a picture to complete so we could see more clearly.

Why do we have a problem with progressive revelation.

If the OT people didn’t see things clearly, the NT people didn’t see things clearly when the picture was right in front of their eyes, now people today still trying to see clearly what happened and what comes next? Now that we have progressively learned of God’s plan from the beginning are we suppose to have it all figured out up to the end? Is the picture complete now? Will we see things more clearly later, pre-mid-post, the hard way, the easy way, oops made a mistake!, got faith?, of a mustard seed?, good fruit or trees getting chopped down. Did I not tell you……………WE WANT TO KNOW NOW!

 

[trailblazer]

The question was asked earlier in the discussion; "Where are they told to have faith in a future redeemer?" Another time it is said "that scripture does not tell us what the "content" of OT believers salvation in the future redeemer was, as if we have to know that "content." We don't. And that's the whole point. All that we need to know for our salvation has been given to us. All that any human being, Jew or Gentile of the OT, needed to know to be saved or condemned was given by God in the Garden of Eden and immediately after the fall. End of story! Think about it! Had God NOT providided sufficient information - whatever that was that satisfied HIS requirements that needed to be met for him to sentence ANYONE to eternal salvation or eternal condemnation on the DAY OF JUDGMENT, then he would be in contradiction of HIMSELF as then it could be said that he is an unjust judge!

It is no different in our society today. There has to be a law on the books that says I cannot speed on the highway before the judge fines me for traveling at the speed I was traveling at. That law also has to be stated publicly before it can be said that I have transgressed that law! That's the way it goes.

For me to not pay the price for having transgressed that law, all I have to know is that somewhere, sometime, someday, someone will forgive me if I repent of my sin. And that is all ANYONE needed from Adam to the last believer!

[ February 20, 2005, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: trailblazer ]

 

[HankD]

I think the wrong question is being asked.

There certainly was an expectation of the Messiah before the coming of the Lord. This is established early on in the Book of John which presents several men who were looking for the Messiah and specifically those to whom Jesus would eventually reveal Himself as the Messiah, the Son of God.

John 1
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus...
43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Pastor Larry correctly says:

There is not even one passage that commands an OT person to believe in a coming Messiah for salvation. You either accept that or reject it. You cannot, as you say, manufacture new Scripture. When it isn't there, it isn't there.

Likewise in the NT there isn't a specific passage which teaches that one must believe in the Trinity or the virgin birth, etc in order to be saved, the focus and object of faith being Jesus Christ. However most Trinitarians would say that these doctrine (and others) are essential doctrines of salvation.

The better question in my mind then is, was the belief in the coming Messiah presented in John Chapter 1 one of the OT fundamentals of the faith, an essential element of OT faith (similar to NT Trinitarianism) rather than the Messiah as a direct object of faith for salvation?

I'm inclined in that direction. It has historically been so in Judaism.

HankD

[ February 20, 2005, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[HankD]

As a scriptural commentary on John 1:45:

John 1
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

"of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote"

Acts 3
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

"of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote"

Acts 8
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

HankD

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by trailblazer:
[QB] The question was asked earlier in the discussion; "Where are they told to have faith in a future redeemer?" Another time it is said "that scripture does not tell us what the "content" of OT believers salvation in the future redeemer was, as if we have to know that "content." We don't. And that's the whole point. All that we need to know for our salvation has been given to us. ]

True, we don't have to know it, but why isn't knowing it a good thing? Why wouldn't this knowledge be beneficial?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, in the promise God made to Abraham regarding the seed (singular) through whom the nations would be blessed, you don't think he had knowledge that this would be the redeemer?

To clarify, the seed promise was two fold: a great nation (many) and a blessing (through one). To answer the direct question, I don't know. I do know that he was never told to have faith in that coming Messiah for salvation, and that is the point. He believed God and it was counted to him. There is no evidence that he believed coming Messiah who would forgive his sin through death.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by trailblazer:
The question was asked earlier in the discussion; "Where are they told to have faith in a future redeemer?" Another time it is said "that scripture does not tell us what the "content" of OT believers salvation in the future redeemer was, as if we have to know that "content." We don't. And that's the whole point. All that we need to know for our salvation has been given to us. All that any human being, Jew or Gentile of the OT, needed to know to be saved or condemned was given by God in the Garden of Eden and immediately after the fall. End of story! Think about it! Had God NOT providided sufficient information - whatever that was that satisfied HIS requirements that needed to be met for him to sentence ANYONE to eternal salvation or eternal condemnation on the DAY OF JUDGMENT, then he would be in contradiction of HIMSELF as then it could be said that he is an unjust judge!

It is no different in our society today. There has to be a law on the books that says I cannot speed on the highway before the judge fines me for traveling at the speed I was traveling at. That law also has to be stated publicly before it can be said that I have transgressed that law! That's the way it goes.

For me to not pay the price for having transgressed that law, all I have to know is that somewhere, sometime, someday, someone will forgive me if I repent of my sin. And that is all ANYONE needed from Adam to the last believer!

I can agree with this to a very large degree. I would stop short of saying that All that any human being, Jew or Gentile of the OT, needed to know to be saved or condemned was given by God in the Garden of Eden and immediately after the fall. End of story! Quite clearly we needed more information. How do we know that? Because God kept giving us more. In that protoevangelium, we are told nothingn of active and passive obedience, nothing of imputation, nothing of propitiation, etc. The basics were there.

But it is true that that is all Adam and Eve needed to know.

 

[Daniel David]

I agree Larry. I just think that he knew more than we might give credit for. I think Romans 4:5 is the answer. To him who does not work, but believes in the God who justifies the ungodly, to him it is credited for righteousness.