Saved Without Knowing the Resurrection?

[John of Japan]

I agree. But it was still faith in that same Messiah. I know that there has to be some aspects of what has to be believed about that Messiah, his saving character, or the Pharisees would have all been saved, since they had some kind of "faith", albeit not saving.

But there are some very important points made about the cross that indicate we must proclaim it in Paul's writings. These indicate to me that the preaching of the atonement post-crucifixion must reference the cross of Christ:
1. It is the power of God for salvation (1 Corinthians 1:18).
2. We are reconciled to God by the cross (Ephesians 2:16).
3. The blood of the cross makes peace with the Father (Colossians 1:20).

My point is, that when we start adding these doctrines that have been worked out by the church over the ages, and accepted by Orthodox believers of all stripes, it does not mean that anyone has to believe them in their developed meaning to be a genuine believer. I just don't know exactly where that line is to draw.

My personal opinion is that One has to believe that Jesus, or Christ, saves you from your sins by atonement, without a highly developed understanding of what that atonement entails. Different people can present different texts, but I'd rather say that a genuine believer will eventually come to believe certain things.

1. Jesus is Deity.
2. Jesus was born of a virgin.
3. Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
4. Jesus rose bodily from the grave.
5. Jesus will come again.

I agree with these points.

 

[John of Japan]

Fundamentally, the idea of saying you must believe in "X, Y, and Z" to be saved is unstudied legalistic nonsense.... In summary, we must believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[percho]

Well said. However, we must take into account that the cross changed everything. Peter was saved under the OT meaning of salvation: "The just shall live by faith" in the coming Messiah, rather than the crucified and risen Christ.

More thoughts remember as I have stated, I know, no Greek, nor Hebrew and not to sharp with my native language, English. N MS style.

Before the cross
From LXX Hab 2:4 δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται

After the cross From Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38
δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται
δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται·
δίκαιός ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται

Why is after the cross - μου - is not quoted?
Is it because of the following?

And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed, so that the law became our child-conductor -- to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous, and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we,

Was the faith of Christ, Acts 7:52 the Just One, the fulfillment of Hab 2:4

Is it through the faith of Christ, we are made just and by which we will [future BTW] shall live?

 

[Piper]

But there are some very important points made about the cross that indicate we must proclaim it in Paul's writings. These indicate to me that the preaching of the atonement post-crucifixion must reference the cross of Christ:
1. It is the power of God for salvation (1 Corinthians 1:18).
2. We are reconciled to God by the cross (Ephesians 2:16).
3. The blood of the cross makes peace with the Father (Colossians 1:20).


I agree with these points.

I find myself agreeing with you a lot.

 

[John of Japan]

Good questions. You are making me think!

More thoughts remember as I have stated, I know, no Greek, nor Hebrew and not to sharp with my native language, English. N MS style.
Before the cross
From LXX Hab 2:4 δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται

After the cross From Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38
δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται
δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται·
δίκαιός ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται

The qualification from the human side is the same after the cross as before the cross. For salvation, there must be faith. Thus, we have that whole wonderful chapter of Hebrews 11, detailing many who had faith before the cross.

Why is after the cross - μου - is not quoted?

Is it because of the following?

And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed, so that the law became our child-conductor -- to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous, and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we,

This is a tough one. I'll say that the LXX has μου, actually meaning "my" rather than "his." Using "my" makes it particular to that individual. So the NT writers left that out under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to generalize the statement, and show that all must come by faith, not just Habakkuk. The NT writers did similar things in other passages to correct the LXX, which is a somewhat spotty translation.

Was the faith of Christ, Acts 7:52 the Just One, the fulfillment of Hab 2:4

Is it through the faith of Christ, we are made just and by which we will [future BTW] shall live?

We must have faith for God to justify us. This is true in both the OT and the NT eras. It has always been true and is true today. Note the following verses:

Rom. 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Rom. 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"
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."
Gal. 3:11 (which you already noted) "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
Gal. 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

 

[Van]

Emoticons?

Fundamentally, the idea of saying you must believe in "X, Y, and Z" to be saved is unstudied legalistic nonsense. God must credit your faith, as He knows your heart, and your commitment to follow God and your love of God are essential. If we do not believe in God, or believe God rewards those who seek Him, we certainly do not fit scripture's stated requirements. Further, if we do not believe Jesus performed His miracles by the power of God, that seems to fall short of God's required beliefs established after the resurrection. In summary, we must believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ​

 

[percho]

Good questions. You are making me think!

The qualification from the human side is the same after the cross as before the cross. For salvation, there must be faith. Thus, we have that whole wonderful chapter of Hebrews 11, detailing many who had faith before the cross.


This is a tough one. I'll say that the LXX has μου, actually meaning "my" rather than "his." Using "my" makes it particular to that individual. So the NT writers left that out under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to generalize the statement, and show that all must come by faith, not just Habakkuk. The NT writers did similar things in other passages to correct the LXX, which is a somewhat spotty translation.


We must have faith for God to justify us. This is true in both the OT and the NT eras. It has always been true and is true today. Note the following verses:

Rom. 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Rom. 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"
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."
Gal. 3:11 (which you already noted) "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith."
Gal. 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Your thoughts to the following. My note/thought in [ ].
YLT Romans 5:19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, ['Father, to Thy hands I commit my spirit;'/ having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross] shall the many be constituted righteous. [just/justified]

Now I contend that obedience, of one, is the. obedience of faith, a phrase found twice in the NT and that faith being the faith of Christ and was the faith that came spoken of in Gal 3:23-25, the faith of Christ. And here is why I contend that to be so. The obedience .....................

Hebrews 5:7,8 YLT who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from [out of] death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, If that is not the obedience of faith then please tell me what is being described here. It was through the faith of Christ that he was raised from the dead and given glory through which the Holy Spirit came to be to indwell. See John 7:39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 17:5 'And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee; 1 Peter 1:21 who through him [Jesus] do believe in God, who did raise out of the dead, and glory to him did give, so that your faith and hope may be in God.

I believe it is the faith of Christ that is imputed not anything we think or of ourselves believe. I believe God the Father through the Son of God gives to the ones called the Spirit of Truth unto belief.

Now Consider the following verse in that context.
having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus [By the gift of the Spirit of Truth] did believe, that we might be declared righteous [Just] by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.' Gal 2:16 YLT with my notes

It also applies perfectly with all your verses quoted in thread 145

 

[percho]

Consider

Having been declared righteous [justified], then, by [out] [of] faith, [obedience unto death, even the death of the cross] we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

 

[percho]

My thoughts make a little more sense if this can also make sense.

Simeon did declare how at first God did look after to take out of the nations a people for His name, Acts 15:14
and didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.' Rev 5:10
After these things I will turn back, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down, and its ruins I will build again, and will set it upright -- Acts 15:16
Happy and holy is he who is having part in the first rising again; over these the second death hath not authority, but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. Rev 20:6
that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the nations, upon whom My name hath been called, saith the Lord, who is doing all these things. Acts 15:17

There is a purpose to what God is doing and it is relative to to the darkness of this age. When did it start, when does it end?

 

[John of Japan]

Emoticons?

Fundamentally, the idea of saying you must believe in "X, Y, and Z" to be saved is unstudied legalistic nonsense. God must credit your faith, as He knows your heart, and your commitment to follow God and your love of God are essential. If we do not believe in God, or believe God rewards those who seek Him, we certainly do not fit scripture's stated requirements. Further, if we do not believe Jesus performed His miracles by the power of God, that seems to fall short of God's required beliefs established after the resurrection. In summary, we must believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ​

Oh, the irony. Look at what I posted again.

 

[Van]

Oh, the irony. Look at what I posted again.

Another nothing burger. Look at what I posted again. Irony
Fundamentally, the idea of saying you must believe in "X, Y, and Z" to be saved is unstudied legalistic nonsense. God must credit your faith, as He knows your heart, and your commitment to follow God and your love of God are essential. If we do not believe in God, or believe God rewards those who seek Him, we certainly do not fit scripture's stated requirements. Further, if we do not believe Jesus performed His miracles by the power of God, that seems to fall short of God's required beliefs established after the resurrection. In summary, we must believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Did the OT saints believe in the mystery of Christ's resurrection in order to obtain approval by faith? Nope. See the OP

 

[Van]

Has "the gospel" been defined in this OP. Could a person be saved without knowing the gospel as presented by Paul? The OT saints obtained approval before Christ sacrificed His life as the Lamb of God.

 

[John of Japan]

Your thoughts to the following. My note/thought in [ ].
YLT Romans 5:19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, ['Father, to Thy hands I commit my spirit;'/ having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross] shall the many be constituted righteous. [just/justified]

Now I contend that obedience, of one, is the. obedience of faith, a phrase found twice in the NT and that faith being the faith of Christ and was the faith that came spoken of in Gal 3:23-25, the faith of Christ. And here is why I contend that to be so. The obedience .....................

Hebrews 5:7,8 YLT who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from [out of] death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, If that is not the obedience of faith then please tell me what is being described here. It was through the faith of Christ that he was raised from the dead and given glory through which the Holy Spirit came to be to indwell. See John 7:39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 17:5 'And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee; 1 Peter 1:21 who through him [Jesus] do believe in God, who did raise out of the dead, and glory to him did give, so that your faith and hope may be in God.

I believe it is the faith of Christ that is imputed not anything we think or of ourselves believe. I believe God the Father through the Son of God gives to the ones called the Spirit of Truth unto belief.

Now Consider the following verse in that context.
having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus [By the gift of the Spirit of Truth] did believe, that we might be declared righteous [Just] by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.' Gal 2:16 YLT with my notes

It also applies perfectly with all your verses quoted in thread 145

Near as I can tell without spending a lot of time with it, I agree with all of this. In particular, obeying the Gospel occurs twice in the NT: 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and 1 Peter 4:17. The Gospel must be obeyed.

 

[John of Japan]

Another nothing burger. Look at what I posted again. Irony
Fundamentally, the idea of saying you must believe in "X, Y, and Z" to be saved is unstudied legalistic nonsense. God must credit your faith, as He knows your heart, and your commitment to follow God and your love of God are essential. If we do not believe in God, or believe God rewards those who seek Him, we certainly do not fit scripture's stated requirements. Further, if we do not believe Jesus performed His miracles by the power of God, that seems to fall short of God's required beliefs established after the resurrection. In summary, we must believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Did the OT saints believe in the mystery of Christ's resurrection in order to obtain approval by faith? Nope. See the OP

Sorry that you did not get my point. In the red sections I referenced, and then again here, you said it was legalistic to "believe in" something, and then you said we must "believe in". That's all. Thus the emojis.

 

[John of Japan]

My thoughts make a little more sense if this can also make sense.

Simeon did declare how at first God did look after to take out of the nations a people for His name, Acts 15:14
and didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.' Rev 5:10
After these things I will turn back, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down, and its ruins I will build again, and will set it upright -- Acts 15:16
Happy and holy is he who is having part in the first rising again; over these the second death hath not authority, but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. Rev 20:6
that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the nations, upon whom My name hath been called, saith the Lord, who is doing all these things. Acts 15:17

There is a purpose to what God is doing and it is relative to to the darkness of this age. When did it start, when does it end?

This all looks good, and I'm sure I agree, but it appears to be straying from the OP.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Simply because an event is in the Gospels does not mean it is part of Paul's Gospel.

You got a little carried away there.

The fact that two passages (Acts 13; 1 Cor. 15) explicitly tell us the 4 elements that were in Paul's gospel were the same 4 events that are testified to in all 4 Gospels shows that those 4 elements in all 4 Gospels were in fact part of the gospel that Paul preached.

Furthermore, not only did Paul proclaim the gospel with those 4 elements, but he also revealed plainly that all the apostles preached the gospel exactly the same way as he did:

1 Corinthians 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

In this verse that comes after 1 Cor. 15:3-8 and directly refers back to 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Paul teaches us that all the apostolic company preached the gospel with the same 4 elements that he delineates in 1 Cor. 15:3-8.

There is no biblical basis to hold that the gospel that any of the other apostles preached or that Paul preached elsewhere other than in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13) or in Corinth (1 Cor. 15) did not include testimony to the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Christ.

 

[Van]

Sorry that you did not get my point. In the red sections I referenced, and then again here, you said it was legalistic to "believe in" something, and then you said we must "believe in". That's all. Thus the emojis.

Sorry that you did not get my point, your OP was false.

 

[John of Japan]

The fact that two passages (Acts 13; 1 Cor. 15) explicitly tell us the 4 elements that were in Paul's gospel were the same 4 events that are testified to in all 4 Gospels shows that those 4 elements in all 4 Gospels were in fact part of the gospel that Paul preached.

That's a huge leap. Again, just because it was in the 4 Gospels does not mean that it is part of the gospel Paul preached. You have said nothing convincing.

Furthermore, not only did Paul proclaim the gospel with those 4 elements, but he also revealed plainly that all the apostles preached the gospel exactly the same way as he did:

Baloney. The terms buried, burial, and bury do not occur any where in Acts, not even in Ch. 13, though v. 29 does say "sepulchre," though that term occurs nowhere else in Acts.

1 Corinthians 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

In this verse that comes after 1 Cor. 15:3-8 and directly refers back to 1 Cor. 15:3-8, Paul teaches us that all the apostolic company preached the gospel with the same 4 elements that he delineates in 1 Cor. 15:3-8.

Nope. You are forgetting how important context is in exegesis. The verses after your v. 11 are all about the resurrection, not the burial or the witnesses, 1 Corinthians 15:12 on.

There is no biblical basis to hold that the gospel that any of the other apostles preached or that Paul preached elsewhere other than in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13) or in Corinth (1 Cor. 15) did not include testimony to the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Christ.

And again, I dare you to find the burial in Acts. You can keep calling this an argument from silence, but it is a very powerful argument, and you have yet to refute it by anything but calling it an argument from silence.

And again, you are all alone in your definition of the Gospel. You have yet to give a single source other than yourself who teaches your version of the Gospel. But I have given definitions by great men of God who disagree with you: John R. Rice, Charles Spurgeon, Bob Sumner, Samuel Zwemer, and Ray Comfort. I could give may more, John R.W. Stott for one.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry that you did not get my point, your OP was false.

Thanks. I just got a great big laugh out of that. The OP asked a question, and you have not answered it. In fact, I am thinking you probably did not even read the OP carefully.

I said, "Again, in the book of Acts the resurrection of Christ was part of the Gospel presentations recorded there." Are you trying to tell me that you do not believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ is part of the Gospel, in spite of the clear teaching of Scripture???? If that is true, you are treading close to heresy.

You say that believing in something is legalism, but then you say we have to believe in something. Yeah, go with that.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

And again, I dare you to find the burial in Acts. You can keep calling this an argument from silence, but it is a very powerful argument, and you have yet to refute it by anything but calling it an argument from silence.

This is utter nonsense and shows your desperation in supporting your view. Acts 13 explicitly says that he was buried when it says, "They took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre" (Acts 13:29). It is ludicrous that you claim that burial is not in Acts simply because the word "burial," etc. does not show up concerning Christ.