don't think it's appropriate to read later documents back into earlier ones when it comes to establishing what people knew and when they knew it. You might be able to "get away with that" theologically, but not logically.
Well, it appears that you prefer to equate believing in the existing of God, and/or that God can (or ever has) reveal(ed) the truth to a man, with trying to "get away with" something... "theologically." Because if God can and ever has revealed the truth to a man, then it's perfectly reasonable and entirely logical to think that what He is able to reveal is accurate and true, regardless of whether what it refers to has already occurred thousands of years prior, or was yet to occur thousands of years in the future.
Just because it's not "your position" and belief, or that you can't see the coherency of it, doesn't mean that it's illogical. But, I suppose whenever anyone doesn't (or can't) recognize that their own systematizing and "awareness" of logic likewise resides (as it does for all of us) on a foundation of certain accepted premises, they are inherently (and inescapably) "right in their own eyes." In other words, some people are (at best) only able or willing to identify as logical when it fits with (or within) their own baseline presumptions.
7 hours ago, Raf said:
In other words, the fact that Titus says there was a promise of eternal life before this world/age began does not establish that those who lived through Genesis knew it. I think you concede that point, but I wanted to make it more explicit.
Yes, that's the issue. There just isn't much to indicate what all they might have known. Some things - said to be revealed later, for the first time - they must not have known. So, in a sense, it'd might be easier to add up what all they probably didn't know. However, as mentioned in the last post, I'm inclined to think it wasn't what or how much they knew that was the basis for salvation, but whether or not they accepted whatever God revealed as being true or "real."
7 hours ago, Raf said:
Regardless, we know Job believed in a life after this one, and we know he expected it for himself. We have no idea how he knew that or how he could "claim" it for himself, there being (probably) no "scripture" at all at the time he lived. But clearly it was an early belief.
Agree, we don't know how he knew it, or how all God might have operated in that day and time. At best, we might learn how God can and/or does operate in our own day and time and life, and how (or why) we believe (accept) that as being true or "real." Granted, there may be similarities. But there's sufficient reason to know that there's also some differences.
7 hours ago, Raf said:
If you believe all scripture to be inspired by God, then I agree that Titus gives you a Biblical answer, of sorts, to my questions. But if you don't (and I don't), then you have to go chronologically by what's written and when to determine when and how this belief in an afterlife (and, by extension, a belief in salvation and its "requirements") emerged.
I guess I might have a hard time wrapping my head 'round it too, if all I could go by or rely on was the chronological order it was written in. But if you think about it "logically"... what other reason can make a lick of sense why Abraham would be tested in the manner that he was when asked to offer Isaac as a sacrifice? Can you make any more sense out of that little(?) episode there in Gen. 22? (Because I can't.)
__________________
P.S. As for Willbur's puff of wind in the discussion, I've come to regard his last post as the only blurb he could spit out after pulling his foot out.
(snarky cuts both directions, ya knows...)
His snark was directed at the conversation. Yours was directed at him. See the difference? Good. Now knock it off.
I think I made myself very clear both by putting "get away with that" in quotes and by clarifying later that it does depend on how you approach the information. Yes, if you believe in God, you can Biblically use Titus to prove that Job knew salvation was available and how to receive it. But, as I said, I think you're conceding that you can't make the same argument without making that presupposition.
Sure, I don't disagree that how it is approached makes a difference. (Which seems so obvious and forthright, I'm nearly puzzled why you speak of it as a "concession" of some sort.)
What I objected to, however, was your claim that to handle it as I did wasn't "logical," or that it was akin to getting away with something significantly less than anything that could be deemed logical...
Yes, if you believe in God, you can Biblically use Titus to prove that Job knew salvation was available and how to receive it. But, as I said, I think you're conceding that you can't make the same argument without making that presupposition.
I think it is a pretty common supposition that discussing Biblical passages in a "doctrinal" capacity kind of implies a belief in God.
As a historical or cultural account, the Bible has little value even compared to works we know about like Josephus. I'm not saying you can't piece together things, but it doesn't seem to flow as a historical account - I mean look at all the problems even trying to come up with a "harmony of the gospels", something vp took advantage of in all of his little nit-picky collateral works to the end of trying to establish himself as some kind of expert on Jesus Christ. "If you can't trust them with how many were crucified, how can you trust them with the verities of eternal life" - sure I can remember some kind of quote like that through the PFAL classes, right?
With that said, I don't think this forum should exclude any viewpoints on the Bible regardless of belief systems.
As far as what the first exposure was to the afterlife, I mean if there is any truth to Bullinger's work, "The Witness of the Stars" probably would be a prior indicator of that through teachings than any of the scrolls were.
Yes yes yes, but my question as it related to this thread was: when was the idea of "salvation" first expressed in the Bible. And you can answer that in one of two ways. If you go with the believer's perspective, you can cite Titus as evidence that it was there all along. And I would have no Biblical argument against that. But if you go the dispassionate historian's route, you can't use Titus as evidence of what people knew or believed hundreds/thousands of years earlier. (That's why I called it a concession, TLC, because you noted Titus but seem to agree with me that it doesn't prove earlier believers knew what the epistle to Titus would later say).
So I'm definitely NOT trying to sap Titus of Biblical authority. I'm just trying to see how early the idea of "salvation" is expressed in the Bible. Job is REALLY early, but there's no "how".
What is the earliest Biblical evidence of "do/think/believe/obey this, and you will be saved"? I don't know the answer to that, but if we're going to ask "The Gospel Whereby A Man Is Saved - Has It Changed?" can we agree that we need to first establish where such a promise began in the first place? Titus can give you a Biblical answer, but questioning whether Moses, Joshua, and even Job KNEW what was later written in Titus is still fair from a historical standpoint. Moses, after all, could not quote Titus. Where is it written in the OT that there even was such a thing as a "gospel whereby a man is saved"? What's the earliest reference?
I'm really not trying to argue or cast aspersions on anyone's belief. I hope you guys don't see it that way.
Chockfull, would we not need to establish that Moses, et al, agreed with Bullinger on the Witness of the Stars? I agree, if Bullinger is correct, that would be valuable info. But that's a big IF. I suspect most Christians don't even agree with Bullinger on his thesis.
I think it is a pretty common supposition that discussing Biblical passages in a "doctrinal" capacity kind of implies a belief in God.
As a historical or cultural account, the Bible has little value even compared to works we know about like Josephus. I'm not saying you can't piece together things, but it doesn't seem to flow as a historical account - I mean look at all the problems even trying to come up with a "harmony of the gospels", something vp took advantage of in all of his little nit-picky collateral works to the end of trying to establish himself as some kind of expert on Jesus Christ. "If you can't trust them with how many were crucified, how can you trust them with the verities of eternal life" - sure I can remember some kind of quote like that through the PFAL classes, right?
With that said, I don't think this forum should exclude any viewpoints on the Bible regardless of belief systems.
As far as what the first exposure was to the afterlife, I mean if there is any truth to Bullinger's work, "The Witness of the Stars" probably would be a prior indicator of that through teachings than any of the scrolls were.
Good point, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. But likewise to what's been alluded to previously, even if it were somehow or in someway "written in the stars" (so to speak), there's no way to know how much anyone might have read or understood of it. It might be that the "signs" of or in the heavens only came into view (i.e., being revealed and understood) at specific points or times in history.
Yes yes yes, but my question as it related to this thread was: when was the idea of "salvation" first expressed in the Bible. And you can answer that in one of two ways. If you go with the believer's perspective, you can cite Titus as evidence that it was there all along. And I would have no Biblical argument against that. But if you go the dispassionate historian's route, you can't use Titus as evidence of what people knew or believed hundreds/thousands of years earlier. (That's why I called it a concession, TLC, because you noted Titus but seem to agree with me that it doesn't prove earlier believers knew what the epistle to Titus would later say).
So I'm definitely NOT trying to sap Titus of Biblical authority. I'm just trying to see how early the idea of "salvation" is expressed in the Bible. Job is REALLY early, but there's no "how".
What is the earliest Biblical evidence of "do/think/believe/obey this, and you will be saved"? I don't know the answer to that, but if we're going to ask "The Gospel Whereby A Man Is Saved - Has It Changed?" can we agree that we need to first establish where such a promise began in the first place? Titus can give you a Biblical answer, but questioning whether Moses, Joshua, and even Job KNEW what was later written in Titus is still fair from a historical standpoint. Moses, after all, could not quote Titus. Where is it written in the OT that there even was such a thing as a "gospel whereby a man is saved"? What's the earliest reference?
I'm really not trying to argue or cast aspersions on anyone's belief. I hope you guys don't see it that way.
Well, I have to think that most thought that there was eternal life contained (somewhere) within the law (of Moses), as the whole Passover deal was act of salvation and a foreshadowing of the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. John 5:39.
That is, again, an observation made in retrospect. Is there any indication that this "foreshadowing" is what it meant to the people who were living through it?
Probably not, if it was hidden. Is there any doubt that God can have certain things written in such veiled language it insures that no one can or will understand the real meaning of it before its time (or in hindsight)? Maybe this is difficult to comprehend, but there is plenty of scriptural evidence that this occurred. Take, for example, what is written in Luke 18:31-34. (Which, in hindsight, doesn't have the slightest appearance of being "veiled." It reads as plain as day to us. Yet, none of his apostles understood it at the time.)
So, I'm inclined to think that if you insist on disallowing or excluding all observations made in retrospect, you simply aren't going to find much (or make much sense out of what is found.) That said, if Job is thought (or accepted) as being the earliest of the historical writings, Job 14 (to me, at least) lays out a pretty clear picture of his belief in an afterlife. But if casting Job aside, I also see a similar belief in what Moses wrote (if accepting that he did) about Abraham. There's no other reason (that I know of) that better or more logically explains why Abraham would do what he did (or rather, nearly did) with his only begotten son, Isaac. Perhaps that's because my mind is so conditioned to think of or see it from a perspective of what is written in other scriptures, nothing else makes any sense to me. But, that's how I see it... and after reviewing (and discarding) numerous other ways to look at it, I'm plum out of angles and can't "invent" some perspective from which to think of it.
We've been over this. Job lays out a belief in the afterlife with no explanation whatsoever of a "gospel" whereby a man is "saved." So while we can say that he believed himself to be saved, we cannot say why.
My question is not a difficult one. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Chronologically speaking, when is the first biblical reference to "salvation" by means of "believing" or "obeying" or "conforming to" or whatever the appropriate word is, accepting a "gospel"?
If you want to go with Titus, be my guest. But I don't consider that a satisfying answer. I can write a book tomorrow saying that Abraham knew I would become an unbeliever. That doesn't prove Abraham knew any such thing. Now if Moses wrote that Abraham knew I would become an unbeliever, we'd be in business.
Accepting something as a matter of faith is not the same thing as being able to demonstrate it objectively. I see "salvation" in Job in practical terms, but not articulated as such, and I see no "gospel whereby a man is saved." When does that pop up? Genesis? Where? Exodus? You can't use later documents to prove what earlier documents were hiding.
Okay then, perhaps you'll allow me to suggest something else. (Because phrased as you put it, the difficulty isn't so much in your question, as it is in what I think you might consider or allow as being a "gospel.")
As I see it, the first mention of a gospel (for salvation) is (concealed as it may be) in the reference to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, and Adam's response to it in verse 20. Granted, it is without a doubt, veiled language. Nevertheless, that's where it is written. There is no other reason for Adam to then start referring to her as "the mother of all living," except that he believed what God said about her (and her seed), and that alone (i.e., believing what God said) was (at that point in time) the basis for salvation.
How much did Adam know or understand about what was said?
I don't know.
But whatever it was, he evidently believed it, as indicated in his new name for her, "Eve."
So, it appears (to me) that whatever he knew or understood of it was "the gospel whereby a man is saved" until such a time as more was said or revealed.
As more was revealed, what could be believed also changed, thereby changing the basis for salvation.
Maybe you think I'm wrong. Maybe I am wrong. But, that's how I see it.
"Concealed" is the key word in your proposal there, seeing as I asked, multiple times, for something unambiguous.
Genesis 3:15 contains no promise of an afterlife. Nor does it say anyone who believes that promise will be saved. Genesis 3:20 discloses nothing about Adam believing something resulting in salvation. He believed Eve would have children. Ok. But that does not address my question in the slightest, in my personal opinion.
[My mission in this thread, by the way, is not to cast doubt on what the Bible teaches, but merely to ascertain it objectively. Whether I believe what the Bible teaches is irrelevant. I'm just trying to see what the Bible teaches on this subject in the first place].
Psalm 49:15, for example, is explicit when it comes to salvation, but not about how. Leviticus is explicit about animal sacrifices for atonement, but the promise of eternal salvation is not explicitly attached to it. It doesn't take much mental gymnastics to tie the two concepts together. But an animal sacrifice is not a gospel. It's a deed. It's works, by the most obvious definition of the word.
Slight addendum: Psalm 49:15, in context, strongly implies trusting in the Lord (Yahweh) for salvation. It doesn't say it explicitly, but it is implicit enough as to be undeniable (it says people who trust in wealth, themselves or others will perish. The implication that trusting in the Lord will "redeem me from the realm of the dead" is inescapable).
"Concealed" is the key word in your proposal there, seeing as I asked, multiple times, for something unambiguous.
Genesis 3:15 contains no promise of an afterlife. Nor does it say anyone who believes that promise will be saved. Genesis 3:20 discloses nothing about Adam believing something resulting in salvation. He believed Eve would have children. Ok. But that does not address my question in the slightest, in my personal opinion.
[My mission in this thread, by the way, is not to cast doubt on what the Bible teaches, but merely to ascertain it objectively. Whether I believe what the Bible teaches is irrelevant. I'm just trying to see what the Bible teaches on this subject in the first place].
Well, it seems to me that what you are looking for has changed, and the asking has evolved into something different than you first asked. What initially started off as the first indication of anything that can unequivocally be referred to as an afterlife, is now trying to establish not only when it might have first appeared, but what it was that led to it (i.e., the "gospel" for it) and who knew it. Not that it's uncommon for that to happen, or that I mind the change, but it's not like you've been asking "multiple times" for the same thing...
You can disagree that it doesn't contain a promise of an afterlife, but simply put, I don't believe that's Adam's perspective of it.
Might either of us ascertain the words of (our) salvation in what is there? No, I don't think so. I think it was specific to them, at that time. So much so, in fact, that intricate details of it aren't necessarily vital to know or understand. Namely because we don't know what their life (and thoughts) might have been like prior to that time, and what changes had just occurred in their minds as a result of eating that which God had instructed Adam not to eat. So, even if it were possible to more fully or completely flesh out "the gospel of Adam's salvation" (for lack of any better way to say it)... if it doesn't much apply or work to achieve salvation for any of us in this day and time, aside from possibly confusing or misleading some, what effect would it have?
Slight addendum: Psalm 49:15, in context, strongly implies trusting in the Lord (Yahweh) for salvation. It doesn't say it explicitly, but it is implicit enough as to be undeniable (it says people who trust in wealth, themselves or others will perish. The implication that trusting in the Lord will "redeem me from the realm of the dead" is inescapable).
This hits upon what appears may be the most important consistency to what an evolving/changing "gospel" entails. Believing, taking God at His Word, trusting in the Lord (how much difference is there between these, really?)
Psalm 49:15 certainly shows a knowledge of the concept of salvation from the writer's perspective. Psalms actually is filled with more. I'm not sure how you would consider Gen. 5:24 with Enoch - walked with God and God took him - kind of indicates a salvation there. But no "gospel" yet.
What about Hebrews 11 and doing a sort of forensic analysis from that? I guess that gets back to similar things like Job, right? They believed to salvation but no indication of gospel followed to get them to that point.
One of the things I'd bring up for consideration also - what is the value of focusing on the "gospel" of salvation to the exclusion of all other aspects of salvation? Perhaps the "gospel" only serves to document a relationship and the relationship is what is important as it pertains to salvation. Hence Jesus words to some with the essence of "get away from me I never knew you".
I know preachers always say "the only medicine you need is the gos - pill " but a lot of them also are posturing for power and authority over people. An over-emphasis on Bible fundamentalism puts the book as the power and not the Christ behind the book.
On the information contained in the stars, of course we would have to establish who knew what when, which at this point with the historical accounts we have available is pretty near next to impossible. We don't have Zoroaster's lab notes from Alexandria, or whatever.
Trying not to rush my answers here, but let me be clear about my take on this thread. We're asking whether the gospel whereby a man is saved has changed. In my opinion, in order to determine the answer to that question, we need to look at a few things.
First, when does the Bible first talk about being "saved"? I assume by the term that we're talking about some promise of an afterlife. That's why my initial question was about when that belief is actually first seen in the Bible. Chronologically, we appear to have an answer in Job, who makes an explicit reference to his expectation that he will be alive after he dies (whether it's immediate or later is not really germane to the discussion, so we ignore that).
Only after we determine the answer to that question do we get to the next one, logically, which is, "what must I do to be saved?" In other words, we can't really talk about the gospel whereby a man is saved until we've addressed the idea of salvation in the first place. They can happen at the same time, but you can't have a gospel of salvation without salvation.
So to say "what I am looking for has changed" is a little short-sighted. There's a natural progression to the questions I'm asking that relate directly to the topic of this thread.
As it stands, I see a clear reference to the general concept of salvation in Job, and a reasonably inferred "gospel of salvation" in Psalms. That gospel, I think, is not clearly outlined (Romans 10:9-10 is clearly outlined, for example). But I would be nitpicking beyond acceptable measure if I were to say it's not there in Psalm 49.
Clearly, up to this point, we have both salvation and a gospel whereby a man is saved: but the most I would be comfortable saying is that salvation in the Old Testament came about by trusting in the Lord (Yahweh). Trusting what? Entirely? Or a specific promise? What if you trusted one thing but doubted another? I don't know. There's no clarity on that, at least in that particular Psalm. Can the answer be found elsewhere? I'm sure, but I don't know it. Do you?
See? As one question is answered, new questions evolve. It's expected. It's part of the conversation.
Chockfull,
I'm going to pass on Enoch because I don't know that I can say with clarity what exactly happened in Gen. 5:24. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the traditional interpretation of that verse. If someone knows the original language and can add clarity about what it really means, I'll be enlightened. Until then, I remain agnostic on what that particular verse is even talking about. Is it salvation? I don't know. What happened? No clue. I'm not saying the verse makes no sense. I'm saying that it makes no sense TO ME, and that's on me. I'm no longer inclined to harmonize every verse that puzzles me, so I won't go looking for the answer. We definitely agree on one point, though: There's no "gospel" there.
With Hebrews 11, we get to the issue we mentioned earlier, which is that, depending on how you approach this information, we may not be able to say with certainty that the people living at the time of the events of Genesis knew the information that was recorded in Hebrews. Maybe. But believing that with certainty is a leap of faith, and I no longer take that leap. Not that I get to be the arbiter of truth. I'm only the arbiter of answers I find satisfying. You may find other answers satisfying. I won't judge. I'll just explain myself and see if we can find some common ground, at least when it comes to what the Bible actually says (and when it first said it).
Hebrews 11:10
For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
Is there a reference in Genesis that articulates the same thing. In Hebrews it looks like an ultimate salvation reference. If there's an equivalent verse in Genesis, we're in good shape... again, about the existence of salvation but not a "gospel."
Same goes for the remainder of Hebrews 11, where the idea of something amazing in the future is arguably there, with no indication that the people of the OT knew there was a distinct "gospel of salvation."
So back to the thread topic: Has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed?
I don't know. But I do know this: The concept of salvation and the gospel of salvation most certainly became more clear over time. We went from "there is/will be a life after this one" in Job to "the Lord will raise us from death to be with Him" in Psalms to "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe God raised him from the dead and you will be saved" in Romans. By the time of the church epistles (which were written before the gospels), salvation and eternal life were already interlocked, so no need to make sure they're talking about the same thing. They are.
The common denominator, as I see it, is that the gospel whereby a man is saved has always been "trust in the Lord (Yahweh)." In the OT, that meant one thing. Heck, in different parts of the OT, it probably meant different things. In the NT, it all ties in to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Trusting Jesus IS trusting Yahweh (whether you believe Jesus is God or not).
So the answer to "has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed?" is "Yes, it has changed in its specifics, but not in its generality. The gospel has always been Trust God and Be Saved. But what it meant to 'trust God' may have had a different answer at different points in time."
In my opinion.
So thank you both for addressing my questions and allowing me to nitpick my way here.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
38
3
2
34
Popular Days
Aug 12
8
Sep 9
6
Sep 23
6
Aug 19
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 38 posts
DontWorryBeHappy 3 posts
chockfull 2 posts
TLC 34 posts
Popular Days
Aug 12 2016
8 posts
Sep 9 2016
6 posts
Sep 23 2016
6 posts
Aug 19 2016
4 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
God is able to save to the uttermost all them which call upon His name. No specifics re:Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, Muhammad, Confucius, The Great Spirit of the Indigenous Americans, Sikhism, Christianity
Raf
Honest question, and I don't mean to be all "questioning faith atheist" about this one: Where is the first indication in the Bible of anything that can unequivocally be referred to as an "afterlife,"
TLC
No, I actually don't see it as being off topic (...and even if I thought it were, given it was the first response in days to the topic, I'd have no issue with discussing it.) It's certainly not p
TLC
Well, it appears that you prefer to equate believing in the existing of God, and/or that God can (or ever has) reveal(ed) the truth to a man, with trying to "get away with" something... "theologically." Because if God can and ever has revealed the truth to a man, then it's perfectly reasonable and entirely logical to think that what He is able to reveal is accurate and true, regardless of whether what it refers to has already occurred thousands of years prior, or was yet to occur thousands of years in the future.
Just because it's not "your position" and belief, or that you can't see the coherency of it, doesn't mean that it's illogical. But, I suppose whenever anyone doesn't (or can't) recognize that their own systematizing and "awareness" of logic likewise resides (as it does for all of us) on a foundation of certain accepted premises, they are inherently (and inescapably) "right in their own eyes." In other words, some people are (at best) only able or willing to identify as logical when it fits with (or within) their own baseline presumptions.
Yes, that's the issue. There just isn't much to indicate what all they might have known. Some things - said to be revealed later, for the first time - they must not have known. So, in a sense, it'd might be easier to add up what all they probably didn't know. However, as mentioned in the last post, I'm inclined to think it wasn't what or how much they knew that was the basis for salvation, but whether or not they accepted whatever God revealed as being true or "real."
Agree, we don't know how he knew it, or how all God might have operated in that day and time. At best, we might learn how God can and/or does operate in our own day and time and life, and how (or why) we believe (accept) that as being true or "real." Granted, there may be similarities. But there's sufficient reason to know that there's also some differences.
I guess I might have a hard time wrapping my head 'round it too, if all I could go by or rely on was the chronological order it was written in. But if you think about it "logically"... what other reason can make a lick of sense why Abraham would be tested in the manner that he was when asked to offer Isaac as a sacrifice? Can you make any more sense out of that little(?) episode there in Gen. 22? (Because I can't.)
__________________
P.S. As for Willbur's puff of wind in the discussion, I've come to regard his last post as the only blurb he could spit out after pulling his foot out.
(snarky cuts both directions, ya knows...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
His snark was directed at the conversation. Yours was directed at him. See the difference? Good. Now knock it off.
I think I made myself very clear both by putting "get away with that" in quotes and by clarifying later that it does depend on how you approach the information. Yes, if you believe in God, you can Biblically use Titus to prove that Job knew salvation was available and how to receive it. But, as I said, I think you're conceding that you can't make the same argument without making that presupposition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Sure, I don't disagree that how it is approached makes a difference. (Which seems so obvious and forthright, I'm nearly puzzled why you speak of it as a "concession" of some sort.)
What I objected to, however, was your claim that to handle it as I did wasn't "logical," or that it was akin to getting away with something significantly less than anything that could be deemed logical...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think it is a pretty common supposition that discussing Biblical passages in a "doctrinal" capacity kind of implies a belief in God.
As a historical or cultural account, the Bible has little value even compared to works we know about like Josephus. I'm not saying you can't piece together things, but it doesn't seem to flow as a historical account - I mean look at all the problems even trying to come up with a "harmony of the gospels", something vp took advantage of in all of his little nit-picky collateral works to the end of trying to establish himself as some kind of expert on Jesus Christ. "If you can't trust them with how many were crucified, how can you trust them with the verities of eternal life" - sure I can remember some kind of quote like that through the PFAL classes, right?
With that said, I don't think this forum should exclude any viewpoints on the Bible regardless of belief systems.
As far as what the first exposure was to the afterlife, I mean if there is any truth to Bullinger's work, "The Witness of the Stars" probably would be a prior indicator of that through teachings than any of the scrolls were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes yes yes, but my question as it related to this thread was: when was the idea of "salvation" first expressed in the Bible. And you can answer that in one of two ways. If you go with the believer's perspective, you can cite Titus as evidence that it was there all along. And I would have no Biblical argument against that. But if you go the dispassionate historian's route, you can't use Titus as evidence of what people knew or believed hundreds/thousands of years earlier. (That's why I called it a concession, TLC, because you noted Titus but seem to agree with me that it doesn't prove earlier believers knew what the epistle to Titus would later say).
So I'm definitely NOT trying to sap Titus of Biblical authority. I'm just trying to see how early the idea of "salvation" is expressed in the Bible. Job is REALLY early, but there's no "how".
What is the earliest Biblical evidence of "do/think/believe/obey this, and you will be saved"? I don't know the answer to that, but if we're going to ask "The Gospel Whereby A Man Is Saved - Has It Changed?" can we agree that we need to first establish where such a promise began in the first place? Titus can give you a Biblical answer, but questioning whether Moses, Joshua, and even Job KNEW what was later written in Titus is still fair from a historical standpoint. Moses, after all, could not quote Titus. Where is it written in the OT that there even was such a thing as a "gospel whereby a man is saved"? What's the earliest reference?
I'm really not trying to argue or cast aspersions on anyone's belief. I hope you guys don't see it that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chockfull, would we not need to establish that Moses, et al, agreed with Bullinger on the Witness of the Stars? I agree, if Bullinger is correct, that would be valuable info. But that's a big IF. I suspect most Christians don't even agree with Bullinger on his thesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Good point, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. But likewise to what's been alluded to previously, even if it were somehow or in someway "written in the stars" (so to speak), there's no way to know how much anyone might have read or understood of it. It might be that the "signs" of or in the heavens only came into view (i.e., being revealed and understood) at specific points or times in history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I have to think that most thought that there was eternal life contained (somewhere) within the law (of Moses), as the whole Passover deal was act of salvation and a foreshadowing of the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. John 5:39.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That is, again, an observation made in retrospect. Is there any indication that this "foreshadowing" is what it meant to the people who were living through it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Probably not, if it was hidden. Is there any doubt that God can have certain things written in such veiled language it insures that no one can or will understand the real meaning of it before its time (or in hindsight)? Maybe this is difficult to comprehend, but there is plenty of scriptural evidence that this occurred. Take, for example, what is written in Luke 18:31-34. (Which, in hindsight, doesn't have the slightest appearance of being "veiled." It reads as plain as day to us. Yet, none of his apostles understood it at the time.)
So, I'm inclined to think that if you insist on disallowing or excluding all observations made in retrospect, you simply aren't going to find much (or make much sense out of what is found.) That said, if Job is thought (or accepted) as being the earliest of the historical writings, Job 14 (to me, at least) lays out a pretty clear picture of his belief in an afterlife. But if casting Job aside, I also see a similar belief in what Moses wrote (if accepting that he did) about Abraham. There's no other reason (that I know of) that better or more logically explains why Abraham would do what he did (or rather, nearly did) with his only begotten son, Isaac. Perhaps that's because my mind is so conditioned to think of or see it from a perspective of what is written in other scriptures, nothing else makes any sense to me. But, that's how I see it... and after reviewing (and discarding) numerous other ways to look at it, I'm plum out of angles and can't "invent" some perspective from which to think of it.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We've been over this. Job lays out a belief in the afterlife with no explanation whatsoever of a "gospel" whereby a man is "saved." So while we can say that he believed himself to be saved, we cannot say why.
My question is not a difficult one. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Chronologically speaking, when is the first biblical reference to "salvation" by means of "believing" or "obeying" or "conforming to" or whatever the appropriate word is, accepting a "gospel"?
If you want to go with Titus, be my guest. But I don't consider that a satisfying answer. I can write a book tomorrow saying that Abraham knew I would become an unbeliever. That doesn't prove Abraham knew any such thing. Now if Moses wrote that Abraham knew I would become an unbeliever, we'd be in business.
Accepting something as a matter of faith is not the same thing as being able to demonstrate it objectively. I see "salvation" in Job in practical terms, but not articulated as such, and I see no "gospel whereby a man is saved." When does that pop up? Genesis? Where? Exodus? You can't use later documents to prove what earlier documents were hiding.
Well, you CAN. But why?
Whatever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay then, perhaps you'll allow me to suggest something else. (Because phrased as you put it, the difficulty isn't so much in your question, as it is in what I think you might consider or allow as being a "gospel.")
As I see it, the first mention of a gospel (for salvation) is (concealed as it may be) in the reference to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, and Adam's response to it in verse 20. Granted, it is without a doubt, veiled language. Nevertheless, that's where it is written. There is no other reason for Adam to then start referring to her as "the mother of all living," except that he believed what God said about her (and her seed), and that alone (i.e., believing what God said) was (at that point in time) the basis for salvation.
How much did Adam know or understand about what was said?
I don't know.
But whatever it was, he evidently believed it, as indicated in his new name for her, "Eve."
So, it appears (to me) that whatever he knew or understood of it was "the gospel whereby a man is saved" until such a time as more was said or revealed.
As more was revealed, what could be believed also changed, thereby changing the basis for salvation.
Maybe you think I'm wrong. Maybe I am wrong. But, that's how I see it.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Concealed" is the key word in your proposal there, seeing as I asked, multiple times, for something unambiguous.
Genesis 3:15 contains no promise of an afterlife. Nor does it say anyone who believes that promise will be saved. Genesis 3:20 discloses nothing about Adam believing something resulting in salvation. He believed Eve would have children. Ok. But that does not address my question in the slightest, in my personal opinion.
[My mission in this thread, by the way, is not to cast doubt on what the Bible teaches, but merely to ascertain it objectively. Whether I believe what the Bible teaches is irrelevant. I'm just trying to see what the Bible teaches on this subject in the first place].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Psalm 49:15, for example, is explicit when it comes to salvation, but not about how. Leviticus is explicit about animal sacrifices for atonement, but the promise of eternal salvation is not explicitly attached to it. It doesn't take much mental gymnastics to tie the two concepts together. But an animal sacrifice is not a gospel. It's a deed. It's works, by the most obvious definition of the word.
My search continues.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Slight addendum: Psalm 49:15, in context, strongly implies trusting in the Lord (Yahweh) for salvation. It doesn't say it explicitly, but it is implicit enough as to be undeniable (it says people who trust in wealth, themselves or others will perish. The implication that trusting in the Lord will "redeem me from the realm of the dead" is inescapable).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
But, did people who were alive when Psalm 49:15 was written attach the same meaning to salvation as is attached to it today?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can tell you didn't look up the verse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So "salvation" was my word, using it in the context of this conversation, not the Psalmist's.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, it seems to me that what you are looking for has changed, and the asking has evolved into something different than you first asked. What initially started off as the first indication of anything that can unequivocally be referred to as an afterlife, is now trying to establish not only when it might have first appeared, but what it was that led to it (i.e., the "gospel" for it) and who knew it. Not that it's uncommon for that to happen, or that I mind the change, but it's not like you've been asking "multiple times" for the same thing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You can disagree that it doesn't contain a promise of an afterlife, but simply put, I don't believe that's Adam's perspective of it.
Might either of us ascertain the words of (our) salvation in what is there? No, I don't think so. I think it was specific to them, at that time. So much so, in fact, that intricate details of it aren't necessarily vital to know or understand. Namely because we don't know what their life (and thoughts) might have been like prior to that time, and what changes had just occurred in their minds as a result of eating that which God had instructed Adam not to eat. So, even if it were possible to more fully or completely flesh out "the gospel of Adam's salvation" (for lack of any better way to say it)... if it doesn't much apply or work to achieve salvation for any of us in this day and time, aside from possibly confusing or misleading some, what effect would it have?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
This hits upon what appears may be the most important consistency to what an evolving/changing "gospel" entails. Believing, taking God at His Word, trusting in the Lord (how much difference is there between these, really?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Maybe not. Consider Zacharias view of salvation in Luke 1:68ff.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Psalm 49:15 certainly shows a knowledge of the concept of salvation from the writer's perspective. Psalms actually is filled with more. I'm not sure how you would consider Gen. 5:24 with Enoch - walked with God and God took him - kind of indicates a salvation there. But no "gospel" yet.
What about Hebrews 11 and doing a sort of forensic analysis from that? I guess that gets back to similar things like Job, right? They believed to salvation but no indication of gospel followed to get them to that point.
One of the things I'd bring up for consideration also - what is the value of focusing on the "gospel" of salvation to the exclusion of all other aspects of salvation? Perhaps the "gospel" only serves to document a relationship and the relationship is what is important as it pertains to salvation. Hence Jesus words to some with the essence of "get away from me I never knew you".
I know preachers always say "the only medicine you need is the gos - pill " but a lot of them also are posturing for power and authority over people. An over-emphasis on Bible fundamentalism puts the book as the power and not the Christ behind the book.
On the information contained in the stars, of course we would have to establish who knew what when, which at this point with the historical accounts we have available is pretty near next to impossible. We don't have Zoroaster's lab notes from Alexandria, or whatever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Trying not to rush my answers here, but let me be clear about my take on this thread. We're asking whether the gospel whereby a man is saved has changed. In my opinion, in order to determine the answer to that question, we need to look at a few things.
First, when does the Bible first talk about being "saved"? I assume by the term that we're talking about some promise of an afterlife. That's why my initial question was about when that belief is actually first seen in the Bible. Chronologically, we appear to have an answer in Job, who makes an explicit reference to his expectation that he will be alive after he dies (whether it's immediate or later is not really germane to the discussion, so we ignore that).
Only after we determine the answer to that question do we get to the next one, logically, which is, "what must I do to be saved?" In other words, we can't really talk about the gospel whereby a man is saved until we've addressed the idea of salvation in the first place. They can happen at the same time, but you can't have a gospel of salvation without salvation.
So to say "what I am looking for has changed" is a little short-sighted. There's a natural progression to the questions I'm asking that relate directly to the topic of this thread.
As it stands, I see a clear reference to the general concept of salvation in Job, and a reasonably inferred "gospel of salvation" in Psalms. That gospel, I think, is not clearly outlined (Romans 10:9-10 is clearly outlined, for example). But I would be nitpicking beyond acceptable measure if I were to say it's not there in Psalm 49.
Clearly, up to this point, we have both salvation and a gospel whereby a man is saved: but the most I would be comfortable saying is that salvation in the Old Testament came about by trusting in the Lord (Yahweh). Trusting what? Entirely? Or a specific promise? What if you trusted one thing but doubted another? I don't know. There's no clarity on that, at least in that particular Psalm. Can the answer be found elsewhere? I'm sure, but I don't know it. Do you?
See? As one question is answered, new questions evolve. It's expected. It's part of the conversation.
Chockfull,
I'm going to pass on Enoch because I don't know that I can say with clarity what exactly happened in Gen. 5:24. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the traditional interpretation of that verse. If someone knows the original language and can add clarity about what it really means, I'll be enlightened. Until then, I remain agnostic on what that particular verse is even talking about. Is it salvation? I don't know. What happened? No clue. I'm not saying the verse makes no sense. I'm saying that it makes no sense TO ME, and that's on me. I'm no longer inclined to harmonize every verse that puzzles me, so I won't go looking for the answer. We definitely agree on one point, though: There's no "gospel" there.
With Hebrews 11, we get to the issue we mentioned earlier, which is that, depending on how you approach this information, we may not be able to say with certainty that the people living at the time of the events of Genesis knew the information that was recorded in Hebrews. Maybe. But believing that with certainty is a leap of faith, and I no longer take that leap. Not that I get to be the arbiter of truth. I'm only the arbiter of answers I find satisfying. You may find other answers satisfying. I won't judge. I'll just explain myself and see if we can find some common ground, at least when it comes to what the Bible actually says (and when it first said it).
Hebrews 11:10
For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
Is there a reference in Genesis that articulates the same thing. In Hebrews it looks like an ultimate salvation reference. If there's an equivalent verse in Genesis, we're in good shape... again, about the existence of salvation but not a "gospel."
Same goes for the remainder of Hebrews 11, where the idea of something amazing in the future is arguably there, with no indication that the people of the OT knew there was a distinct "gospel of salvation."
So back to the thread topic: Has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed?
I don't know. But I do know this: The concept of salvation and the gospel of salvation most certainly became more clear over time. We went from "there is/will be a life after this one" in Job to "the Lord will raise us from death to be with Him" in Psalms to "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe God raised him from the dead and you will be saved" in Romans. By the time of the church epistles (which were written before the gospels), salvation and eternal life were already interlocked, so no need to make sure they're talking about the same thing. They are.
The common denominator, as I see it, is that the gospel whereby a man is saved has always been "trust in the Lord (Yahweh)." In the OT, that meant one thing. Heck, in different parts of the OT, it probably meant different things. In the NT, it all ties in to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Trusting Jesus IS trusting Yahweh (whether you believe Jesus is God or not).
So the answer to "has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed?" is "Yes, it has changed in its specifics, but not in its generality. The gospel has always been Trust God and Be Saved. But what it meant to 'trust God' may have had a different answer at different points in time."
In my opinion.
So thank you both for addressing my questions and allowing me to nitpick my way here.
Link to comment
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.