Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

DaveW

Christ In The Old Testament

Recommended Posts

So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol

 

For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is?

 

I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper.

 

But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical.

 

Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground.

 

Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body back under the law??

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism.

 

Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile.

 

God bless,

calvary

 

I had a feeling you'd avoid the question. I'll try once more.

 

Were the OT Jews redeemed by works of righteousness or by grace through faith alone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol

 

For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is?

 

I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper.

 

But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical.

 

Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground.

 

Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body back under the law??

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism.

 

Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile.

 

God bless,

calvary

Romans 14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, with an underlying agreement that we can clearly see Christ throughout the OT, when we look with the light of the NT writers.

 

The questions seem to include: (my brief answers)

 

Were the OT believers saved the same way as NT believers, i.e. by repentance & faith in Christ? (Even if they did not understand - is OUR understanding essential to OUR salvation?)

(Yes)

 

Were they born again and secure in their salvation?

(Yes)

 

Did they enter heaven at death?

(Yes)

 

Were they saved by obedience to the Law?

(No, but compliance showed salvation, as disobedience showed they were not saved)

 

Is possession of the Land essential to fulfilment of God's promises?

(No)

 

Was salvation of Gentiles on the same basis as Jews revealed in the OT?

(No - that's Paul's mystery)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his nameJohn 1:12
 
Word Origin & History

even 

O.E. efen "level," also "equal" (as in efeneald "of the same age"),from P.Gmc. *ebnaz (cf. Ger. eben, Goth. ibns). Etymologists areuncertain whether the original sense was "level" or "alike." Ofnumbers, from 1550s. Modern adverbial sense (introducing anextreme case of something more generally implied)
seems to have arisen 16c. from use of the word to emphasizeidentity ("Who, me?" "Even you," etc.) Sense of "on an equal footing"is from 1630s. Related: Evenly. Rhyming reduplication phrase evensteven is attested from 1866; even break first recorded 1911.Evenhanded attested from c.1600; even-tempered from 1875.
 
 
name 
O.E. nama, from P.Gmc. *namon (cf. O.Fris. nama, O.H.G. namo, Ger.Name, Du. naam, O.N. nafn, Goth. namo "name"), from PIE *nomn-(cf. Skt. nama, Avestan nama, Gk. onoma, onyma, L. nomen, O.C.S.ime, gen. imene, Rus. imya, O.Ir. ainm, O.Welsh anu). Meaning "one's reputation" is from c.1300. As a modifier
meaning "well-known," first attested 1938. The verb is from O.E.namian. Name-calling is from 1853; name-dropper first recorded1947. The name of the game "the essential thing or quality" is from1966; to have one's name in lights "be a famous performer" is from1929.
 
Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
 
When I got saved, I didn't understand the cross, the blood, repentance or a host of other things. I didn't know He was "the I Am", the "Prince of Peace" or "Immanuel". But I knew His name was Jesus, and I called on that name which is above every name. I don't know which of His names the men in Genesis 4, or Abraham, or Isaac or any of the others down through time. But it's a fact that they called on the name of the Lord in faith. 
Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a feeling you'd avoid the question. I'll try once more.

 

Were the OT Jews redeemed by works of righteousness or by grace through faith alone?

 

So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol

 

For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is?

 

I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper.

 

But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical.

 

Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground.

 

Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body backunder the law??

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism.

 

Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile.

 

God bless,

calvary

 

 

I made that bigger for you in case you missed it ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One grave error that most of the people that operate under the idea of "everyone is saved the same" or the ever delightful and ridiculous "looked forward to the cross" silliness is a lack of definition of righteousness. OT saints and their righteousness is not the same as our imputed righteousness. I could post dozens of verses that state emphatically that there were in fact righteous people in the OT, regardless of what Romans 3:10-23 says. 

 

The disconnect is is making everything the same when it is not. 

 

Things that are different are not the same. They never were and they never will be. 

 

God bless,

calvary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a feeling you'd avoid the question. I'll try once more.

 

Were the OT Jews redeemed by works of righteousness or by grace through faith alone?

Redemption comes only through the blood. Since the blood wasn't actually shed before it was shed the OT saint had to wait until their redemption was completed at the cross. Until that time they had to obey God and keep the sacrifices and when they died they were put on hold in Abraham's Bosom.  It's kind of the same principle as our bodies being redeemed. We have the promise of redeemed bodies and it is even spoken of already having occurred  (Romans 8:30) but the actuality won't happen until the rapture. We have to wait until then.

 

Like I said in my previous post EVERYONE is ultimately redeemed only by God's grace through the blood of the lamb but at that time the OT saint lived in his salvation was not complete. He still had to obey the law in the OT for his righteousness. This doesn't mean he was redeemed by his works though. The sacrifices were a temporary covering for sin and almost all things under the law was purged with blood (that verse is talking about the blood of ANIMALS).

 

Romans 3:24-26

 

[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
[25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
[26] To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

Christ's sacrifice declared God righteous for remitted sins in the past. The argument could have been made that God was unrighteous for remitting the sins of OT saints purely on the basis of the blood of animals. Yet Christ's sacrifice ultimately proved God righteous for doing so. "....through the forbearance of God" means that God "put up" with this temporary covering of the sins of the OT saints because he foresaw the sacrifice of his dear Son. Now God can be declared righteous for remitted sin and justifying souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol

 

For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is?

 

I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper.

 

But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical.

 

Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground.

 

Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body backunder the law??

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism.

 

Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile.

 

God bless,

calvary

 

 

I made that bigger for you in case you missed it ....

 

I would add Romans 2:5-16 to that.

 

[5] But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
[6] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
[7] To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
[8] But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
[9] Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
[10] But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
[11] For there is no respect of persons with God.
[12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

The Jew and Gentile BEFORE the cross. Clearly someone is being rendered eternal life on the basis of his good works. 

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One grave error that most of the people that operate under the idea of "everyone is saved the same" or the ever delightful and ridiculous "looked forward to the cross" silliness is a lack of definition of righteousness. OT saints and their righteousness is not the same as our imputed righteousness. I could post dozens of verses that state emphatically that there were in fact righteous people in the OT, regardless of what Romans 3:10-23 says. 

 

The disconnect is is making everything the same when it is not. 

 

Things that are different are not the same. They never were and they never will be. 

 

God bless,

calvary

I agree.

And "sons of God" is different from "angels".

 

 

Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

 

 

50And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

 

The common denominator is Grace through faith. Noah was saved because he believed God...same with the woman. You believe God's Word, no matter how much "light" you have. The Bible says in the Book of John that the "Word" was in the beginning and it says the "word" was God. I don't understand all that, but I believe that a true "son of God" will recognize more of "the truth"(there's Jesus again BTW) and accept it as it comes his way. Th OT believers definitely didn't know all we know now but just like where it says "Abraham saw my day and was glad", proves they believed "the truth". There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ...not past, present or future...none...zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke 1:6, And they were both righteous before God, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 

 

Luke 1 is still OT.

 

But Romans 3:10!!!! There is none righteous, no not one!

 

Therein lies the difference between how the OT uses the word righteous and how the NT uses it. 

 

For the good brethren that say righteousness under he law is the same as it is under grace don't know what they're saying. 

 

Duet. 6:25, and it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

That's not why you are righteous. 

 

Under NT grace, not by works of righteousness which we have done...

 

But that is not the case in the OT where there was no new birth. In the OT salvation is a combination of personal faith in what God told that man to do and the works are the proof of his belief (Abraham was justified by works! - say James)

 

Ever notice Job was called perfect and upright? That's the Holy Spirit commenting on the righteousness of Job. Paul would tell you that he was counting on his own righteous standing to be right with God, as a Jew. Philippians 3 he says that he has more confidence than other men, and that as touching righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 

Just like Zacharias and Elizabeth. 

 

That's not NT salvation. 

NT salvation is the righteousness of God without the law, .... but to him that worketh not, but beleiveth.... his faith is counted for righteousness...

 

So you have 2 groups of folks. Some teach that you have to do something right now to get saved, and there are those that say, NO!! but fail to rightly divide when it comes to OT, tribulation, the millennium. 

 

Ever wonder why the word faith only appears 2 times in the OT??

 

The rich young ruler comes up to Jesus, says Good master, WHAT GOOD THING shall I do, that I MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE? 

And Jesus says, believe on the me and you;ll be saved! Help yourself, it's a free gift!

 

Uhmmm.... no, he didn't say that did he? He didn't quote Ephesians 2:8-9. 

 

Jesus said, IF THOU WILT ENTER INTO LIFE KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS (Matthew 19)

The young man says he has and is, and Jesus never contradicts him. In fact Jesus says, be perfect, and have treasure in heaven. No plan of NT salvation. 

 

The practical applications are not lost on me, so don't sermonize the passage, just read it and believe it. The practical application does not annul the doctrine of what Jesus said. 

 

What is it that changes everything between Luke 1, Matthew 19, Romans 4, Philippians 3 is this. The vicarious atonement of Jesus for our sin and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the New Birth. 

The OT has no sacrifices to take away sin (Hebrews 10:4), and no one was ever regenerated by the Holy Ghost.

 

God accepted the good works of a man who believed Him UNTIL the man's sins were paid for by Jesus Christ on the cross. 

 

ROMANS 3:25

 

Did that avoid the question? Or are you going to answer with as much scripture? 

 

God bless, 

calvary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke 1:6, And they were both righteous before God, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 

 

Luke 1 is still OT.

 

But Romans 3:10!!!! There is none righteous, no not one!

 

Therein lies the difference between how the OT uses the word righteous and how the NT uses it. 

 

For the good brethren that say righteousness under he law is the same as it is under grace don't know what they're saying. 

 

Duet. 6:25, and it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

That's not why you are righteous. 

 

Under NT grace, not by works of righteousness which we have done...

 

But that is not the case in the OT where there was no new birth. In the OT salvation is a combination of personal faith in what God told that man to do and the works are the proof of his belief (Abraham was justified by works! - say James)

 

Ever notice Job was called perfect and upright? That's the Holy Spirit commenting on the righteousness of Job. Paul would tell you that he was counting on his own righteous standing to be right with God, as a Jew. Philippians 3 he says that he has more confidence than other men, and that as touching righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 

Just like Zacharias and Elizabeth. 

 

That's not NT salvation. 

NT salvation is the righteousness of God without the law, .... but to him that worketh not, but beleiveth.... his faith is counted for righteousness...

 

So you have 2 groups of folks. Some teach that you have to do something right now to get saved, and there are those that say, NO!! but fail to rightly divide when it comes to OT, tribulation, the millennium. 

 

Ever wonder why the word faith only appears 2 times in the OT??

 

The rich young ruler comes up to Jesus, says Good master, WHAT GOOD THING shall I do, that I MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE? 

And Jesus says, believe on the me and you;ll be saved! Help yourself, it's a free gift!

 

Uhmmm.... no, he didn't say that did he? He didn't quote Ephesians 2:8-9. 

 

Jesus said, IF THOU WILT ENTER INTO LIFE KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS (Matthew 19)

The young man says he has and is, and Jesus never contradicts him. In fact Jesus says, be perfect, and have treasure in heaven. No plan of NT salvation. 

 

The practical applications are not lost on me, so don't sermonize the passage, just read it and believe it. The practical application does not annul the doctrine of what Jesus said. 

 

What is it that changes everything between Luke 1, Matthew 19, Romans 4, Philippians 3 is this. The vicarious atonement of Jesus for our sin and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the New Birth. 

The OT has no sacrifices to take away sin (Hebrews 10:4), and no one was ever regenerated by the Holy Ghost.

 

God accepted the good works of a man who believed Him UNTIL the man's sins were paid for by Jesus Christ on the cross. 

 

ROMANS 3:25

 

Did that avoid the question? Or are you going to answer with as much scripture? 

 

God bless, 

calvary

 

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
 
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Calvary:

Ever wonder why the word faith only appears 2 times in the OT??

 

"Faith" in the OT is the translation of a word implying firmness or faithfulness.

 

When an active faith is intended, the KJV normally uses belief. Belie* occurs 45 times in the OT.

 

Your inference that saving faith is absent from the OT is invalid. Saving belief is taught.

 

 

 

Gen. 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

 

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

 

13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

 

Rom. 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

 

 

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

 

4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke 1:6, And they were both righteous before God, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 

 

Luke 1 is still OT.

 

But Romans 3:10!!!! There is none righteous, no not one!

 

Therein lies the difference between how the OT uses the word righteous and how the NT uses it. 

 

For the good brethren that say righteousness under he law is the same as it is under grace don't know what they're saying. 

 

Duet. 6:25, and it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

That's not why you are righteous. 

 

Under NT grace, not by works of righteousness which we have done...

 

But that is not the case in the OT where there was no new birth. In the OT salvation is a combination of personal faith in what God told that man to do and the works are the proof of his belief (Abraham was justified by works! - say James)

 

Ever notice Job was called perfect and upright? That's the Holy Spirit commenting on the righteousness of Job. Paul would tell you that he was counting on his own righteous standing to be right with God, as a Jew. Philippians 3 he says that he has more confidence than other men, and that as touching righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 

Just like Zacharias and Elizabeth. 

 

That's not NT salvation. 

NT salvation is the righteousness of God without the law, .... but to him that worketh not, but beleiveth.... his faith is counted for righteousness...

 

So you have 2 groups of folks. Some teach that you have to do something right now to get saved, and there are those that say, NO!! but fail to rightly divide when it comes to OT, tribulation, the millennium. 

 

Ever wonder why the word faith only appears 2 times in the OT??

 

The rich young ruler comes up to Jesus, says Good master, WHAT GOOD THING shall I do, that I MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE? 

And Jesus says, believe on the me and you;ll be saved! Help yourself, it's a free gift!

 

Uhmmm.... no, he didn't say that did he? He didn't quote Ephesians 2:8-9. 

 

Jesus said, IF THOU WILT ENTER INTO LIFE KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS (Matthew 19)

The young man says he has and is, and Jesus never contradicts him. In fact Jesus says, be perfect, and have treasure in heaven. No plan of NT salvation. 

 

The practical applications are not lost on me, so don't sermonize the passage, just read it and believe it. The practical application does not annul the doctrine of what Jesus said. 

 

What is it that changes everything between Luke 1, Matthew 19, Romans 4, Philippians 3 is this. The vicarious atonement of Jesus for our sin and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the New Birth. 

The OT has no sacrifices to take away sin (Hebrews 10:4), and no one was ever regenerated by the Holy Ghost.

 

God accepted the good works of a man who believed Him UNTIL the man's sins were paid for by Jesus Christ on the cross. 

 

ROMANS 3:25

 

Did that avoid the question? Or are you going to answer with as much scripture? 

 

God bless, 

calvary

 

This statement really bothered me. For it is twisting the passage way out of shape. You say Jesus NEVER contradicts him??? I see a very vivid contradiction. Lets look at the passage. I know I know, you said not to sermonize the passage, but it is a free country. First off the young man asked what good thing can I do. Now as Jerry posted, the blood of bulls and goats took away no sins. So him sacrificing could not save him. So what good thing could he do? Let's look at Jesus for a moment. When was he saved??? Oh wait a minute, he did not need to be saved. Why? Because he was perfect, never once did he break the law of God. He was sinless. What good thing did he do? He lived a perfect sinless life. Now back to the young man. He wants to get to eternal life on his own merit. He does not come to Jesus looking for salvation with a broken heart about sin. He comes in pride of what "I" can do. So Jesus answers him in accordance to his question. What can I do. So he tells him to do the same thing Jesus had, and was doing. Live a perfect sinless life. Keep the commandments. So the young man asks which of the commandments. This says that he was seeing himself as being perfect, for he wants Jesus to try to point out a flaw in him. Kind of like if you think I don't already keep them, point out one place I have failed. So Jesus names a few. Mat 19:18  He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19  Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man replies I have kept ALL these from my youth up. He sees himself as living a perfect life. Now as a side note, how many can say they have always honored their parents?? I cannot. I can say that my children do not, and they are only 2 and 4. I had a big argument with my 4 year old about whether her mother was her boss BEFORE she was 1. She would agree that I was her boss (that isn't always the case now) but would not give in that mommy was. After several minutes, she finally gave in. I do not believe for 1 minute that this young man always honored his parents. But he was so proud of his righteousness saving him, he could not see his flaws. So Jesus told him to sell what he had and give it to the poor. Why??? To show he did not live a perfect life. He did not keep the law in it's entirety. What laws did he break?? Well, I am not the judge, God is. But I can see some possibilities. It made him sad, because he had great possessions. He loved his fortune more than he loved the God who gave it to him. He had made it into an idol.

If he truely loved his neighbor as himself as he said he did, would he keep great treasures while seeing his neighbor live on the street hungry?? Or did he love himself so much more than he loved his neighbor that he did not care if his neighbor starved to death while he had a great feast and waisted much food for the fun of it????

  Did Jesus contradict him???? Very definitely.

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

No one lived good enough to bring themselves before a holy and righteous God besides Jesus who is God in the flesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
 
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

 

Jerry, I answered this in my posts which you must not have read. Notice also that Hebrews 9:22 does say that almost all things BY THE LAW are purged with blood. Most sins under the law were purged with the blood of bulls and goats but it was a temporary purging.

 

The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins PERMANENTLY but they were a temporary covering until Christ made the final atonement. It's all there in Hebrews. 

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, I answered this in my posts which you must not have read. Notice also that Hebrews 9:22 does say that almost all things BY THE LAW are purged with blood. Most sins under the law were purged with the blood of bulls and goats but it was a temporary purging.

 

The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins PERMANENTLY but they were a temporary covering until Christ made the final atonement. It's all there in Hebrews. 

 

Of course they were, but they them self, blood sacrifices, good works, did not saved them, its all about Christ, Christ is the only Savior of men, & no one will be saved except by going though Him, no matter what time period or age they live in. No one, absolutely no one will get to God except by going though Christ.

 

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

 

Ac 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

Yes, its all about Christ, mercy, & grace, & not of works, of self, it is a gift of God.

 

 

Yet even after saying all of that if you will please notice my reply was not directed towards your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree.

And "sons of God" is different from "angels".

 

 

Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

 

 

50And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

 

The common denominator is Grace through faith. Noah was saved because he believed God...same with the woman. You believe God's Word, no matter how much "light" you have. The Bible says in the Book of John that the "Word" was in the beginning and it says the "word" was God. I don't understand all that, but I believe that a true "son of God" will recognize more of "the truth"(there's Jesus again BTW) and accept it as it comes his way. Th OT believers definitely didn't know all we know now but just like where it says "Abraham saw my day and was glad", proves they believed "the truth". There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ...not past, present or future...none...zero.

 

 

 

 

I agree.

And "sons of God" is different from "angels".

 

 

Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

 

 

50And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

 

The common denominator is Grace through faith. Noah was saved because he believed God...same with the woman. You believe God's Word, no matter how much "light" you have. The Bible says in the Book of John that the "Word" was in the beginning and it says the "word" was God. I don't understand all that, but I believe that a true "son of God" will recognize more of "the truth"(there's Jesus again BTW) and accept it as it comes his way. Th OT believers definitely didn't know all we know now but just like where it says "Abraham saw my day and was glad", proves they believed "the truth". There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ...not past, present or future...none...zero.

 

 

Those verses are wonderful truths. Of course faith is a requirement tom please God, no one is suggesting it isn't. The main issue so many in this thread are defending is not even the issue. In fact, I honestly believe that most just post knee jerk reactions to what they perceive has been said, but in reality has not been said. 

 

I have not said any one has been saved by works. I have however said very plainly that OT persons had righteous standing before God apart from a belief in Jesus Christ. And I quoted scripture, not my opinion about it, that men had a righteousness before God because the WALKED IN HIS COMMANDMENTS, so what do men here do? They quote a verse as if that portion of the scripture undoes what another portion. !!?? 

In fact I posted Luke 1:6 that said as much in plain 6th grade english. 

But of course, instead of commenting on Luke 1 or Philippians 3 or Duet 32, people simply post other verses as if they can disavow what the BIble says. 

The Bible does not contradict it self. Only men make contradictions about it. 

The failure to rightly divide and recognize that God's dealings with men have in fact changed from time to time is crucial to understanding the BIble. 

Without recognizing the divisions, or dispensations or administrations or stewardship of God, one falls into silly doctrines like, 

sons of God always means a born again believer. Or men looked forward to the cross and were saved by that. Or men called upon the name of the Lord to be saved, when no such verse exists that says what they called upon him for or what the result was of that calling. 

 

OT persons got saved. They did so because of their righteousness before God through obedience to His word. 

 

Your argument is not with me, it's with the author of that book, 

 

God bless, 

calvary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they were, but they them self, blood sacrifices, good works, did not saved them, its all about Christ, Christ is the only Savior of men, & no one will be saved except by going though Him, no matter what time period or age they live in. No one, absolutely no one will get to God except by going though Christ.

 

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

 

Ac 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

Yes, its all about Christ, mercy, & grace, & not of works, of self, it is a gift of God.

 

 

Yet even after saying all of that if you will please notice my reply was not directed towards your reply.

Jerry, they had to obey the law and perform the sacrifices. The would go to hell if they didn't. 

 

Like I said, ultimately everyone is saved by the faith of Christ and throught his shed blood on the cross but until that time those in the OT who had their sins temporarily covered by the blood of bulls and goats had to wait in Abraham's Bosom. If you want to talk about being saved "by looking forward to the cross" this is how they did it, by obeying God and performing the sacrifices. God covered their sin through his forbearance until Christ made the final sacrifice. Then the righteousness and blood of Christ was applied retroactively to the OT saints and they could enter heaven. If they were saved like we are today then why bother with all the sacrifices and such?

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Mitchell,

 

Luke 1:6, And they were both righteous before God, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 

 

Luke 1 is still OT.

 

But Romans 3:10!!!! There is none righteous, no not one!

 

Therein lies the difference between how the OT uses the word righteous and how the NT uses it. 

 

Yet is not Romans 3:10-ff quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures, which would then make the statement of Romans 3:10 an Old Testament truth equally as well as a New Testement truth?

 

Furthermore, does not Romans 3:19-20 speak concerning "them who are under the law" (which would include the Israelites in the time of the Old Testament, from Moses forward), saying, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before GodTherefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh [no, not even one] be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

 

Finally, are we to understand from Luke 1:6 that Zacharias and Elisabeth were savingly justified before God because they walked obediently "in all the commandments of the Lord blameless"?  Are we to understand that the Lord our God imputed their obedience "in all the commandments of the Lord" unto their eternal account for righteousness?  Are we to understand that they actually walked "in all the commandments of the Lord" with absolutely perfect blamelessness, continuing perfectly without any failure whatsoever "in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"?

 

Consider Galatians 3:10-12 -- "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

 

Consider also James 2:10 -- "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, they had to obey the law and perform the sacrifices. The would go to hell if they didn't. 

 

Like I said, ultimately everyone is saved by the faith of Christ and throught his shed blood on the cross but until that time those in the OT who had their sins temporarily covered by the blood of bulls and goats had to wait in Abraham's Bosom. If you want to talk about being saved "by looking forward to the cross" this is how they did it, by obeying God and performing the sacrifices. God covered their sin through his forbearance until Christ made the final sacrifice. Then the righteousness and blood of Christ was applied retroactively to the OT saints and they could enter heaven. If they were saved like we are today then why bother with all the sacrifices and such?

 

Not so.

 

The sacrifices did not save them.  It was a repentant heart that saved them,  see psalm 51.

 

24  By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter;
25  Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26  Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
 

Moses knew of Jesus.  He renamed Oshea the son of Nun as Jesus. 

 

Nu 13:16  These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luke 1:5-6
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.
 
There is a comma that separates  "And they were both righteous before God" and "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless".  The comma separates two clauses and two independent thoughts...
 
Clause #1 - And they were both righteous before God (God saw them as righteous)
 
(Comma)
 
Clause #2 - walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Man saw them as blameless in their keeping the law and ordinances of God)
 
Remember that Paul claimed the same thing for himself...
 
Philippians 3:4-6
4   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.
 
Yet, this same Paul made it clear that the law couldn't save anyone or make anyone righteous in the sight of God...he even quoted two Old Testament passages when making this argument...
 
Galatians 3:11-12
11   But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith1.
12   And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them2.
 
1Habakkuk 2:4
2Leviticus 18:5 and Ezekiel 20:11
 
In almost every instance; in which, the word "blameless" is used in the entire Bible (15 times), it's being used in relation to man being blameless in the eyes of other men.  Of those 15 times that "blameless" is used, only twice does it "appear" to refer to being blameless before God...
 
1 Corinthians 1:8
Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
However, these verses don't stand alone.  When taking all of 1 Corinthians into view...with all of the trouble they had in the church of Corinth...I think Paul was trying to encourage them to live blamelessly in the eyes of others UNTO the end (or the day of our Lord Jesus Christ).  It was probably hard to find ANYONE in the church at Corinth who could be referred to as being blameless.  Also, the verse from 1 Thessalonians doesn't stand alone.  In the preceding 11 verses of 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul is giving instructions to the church on how to act and treat their fellow believers...so that they will be blameless UNTO the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
We all (as children of God) should strive to live blamelessly in the eyes of others...
 
Philippians 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
 

We still sin, we still fall short, yet we should try to live as blamelessly as possible...so as not to bring reproach on Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those verses are wonderful truths. Of course faith is a requirement tom please God, no one is suggesting it isn't. The main issue so many in this thread are defending is not even the issue. In fact, I honestly believe that most just post knee jerk reactions to what they perceive has been said, but in reality has not been said. 

 

I have not said any one has been saved by works. I have however said very plainly that OT persons had righteous standing before God apart from a belief in Jesus Christ. And I quoted scripture, not my opinion about it, that men had a righteousness before God because the WALKED IN HIS COMMANDMENTS, so what do men here do? They quote a verse as if that portion of the scripture undoes what another portion. !!?? 

In fact I posted Luke 1:6 that said as much in plain 6th grade english. 

But of course, instead of commenting on Luke 1 or Philippians 3 or Duet 32, people simply post other verses as if they can disavow what the BIble says. 

The Bible does not contradict it self. Only men make contradictions about it. 

The failure to rightly divide and recognize that God's dealings with men have in fact changed from time to time is crucial to understanding the BIble. 

Without recognizing the divisions, or dispensations or administrations or stewardship of God, one falls into silly doctrines like, 

sons of God always means a born again believer. Or men looked forward to the cross and were saved by that. Or men called upon the name of the Lord to be saved, when no such verse exists that says what they called upon him for or what the result was of that calling. 

 

OT persons got saved. They did so because of their righteousness before God through obedience to His word. 

 

Your argument is not with me, it's with the author of that book, 

 

God bless, 

calvary

 

No, it isn't a knee jerk action, its a Bible truth that your denying. While using Scriptures out of context to try & prove people can be saved in different manners.

 

The Bible is about Jesus the only Savior of mankind from beginning to end.

 

I'm surprised at your stand on this issue. And it seems you've made up you mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there are a lot of words in this thread that are to little effect.  My question is: Does it matter? Seriously, does it matter?

 

Since we no longer live in the Old testament, and, if saved, the old covenant no longer applies, Jesus having fulfilled the law, being the end of the law for us.

 

We spend a lot of time fighting and passing hidden slights back and forth at things that just don't matter. NO matter what conclusion we come to, even if we somehow miraculously ALL came to one accord, thw fact is, we are to spend our time on preaching the NEW covenant.  Why strive about words to no profit? The OT is there for our ensample, so we might see how the Lord dealt with those who have come before us.

 

We know the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. We know no one was justified by the law. We know that if one wants to follow the law, he must follow the whole law or be cursed. So we know that law could not bring salvation-it was designed to point us to faith-when faith CAME, (implying it was not in force before the way it is after Christ), then the schoolmaster was no longer needed.

 

Anyways, just my own two cents worth. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so.

 

The sacrifices did not save them.  It was a repentant heart that saved them,  see psalm 51.

 

24  By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter;
25  Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26  Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
 

Moses knew of Jesus.  He renamed Oshea the son of Nun as Jesus. 

 

Nu 13:16  These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.

 

Amen. Some people leaves out God's mercy & grace by saying, "they had to obey the law and perform the sacrifices & if they didn't they would go to Hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 48 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...