Its one thing to go backward to look for the progression. It's another to go backward and wedge knowledge into the past based on the future. My opinion.
Well, I'm wondering whether the main reason (at least a big part of it) for your aversion to "working backwards" is evident in the very narrow and limited choice you just presented. Sure, I'm quite aware that the door was left open to think as you did when I spoke of it (i.e., trusting in the Lord) as "evolving" into what we have today. I'm also reasonably familiar with certain things commonly taught or associated with progressive revelation. But, to put it bluntly, I didn't say what is in place today is a "progression" of all that happened or was in effect before it. Furthermore, I took intentional and specific care when I spoke of questioning "what the situation was or might have been prior" (to that which is in effect now.) Things changed. And at times, radically so. As I see it, perhaps the biggest and most universal mistake (if it isn't too politically incorrect to call it that) made in the church of the body is not wedging knowledge (of what is known in the present) into the past, but rather, is of wedging what is known of the past into the belief and practices of the present. Maybe I don't see or think of certain things the way most folk do, but neither do I think my manner and perspectives are super special or totally unique. They just aren't as common or as typical as most of what you find around nowadays.
But we're (obviously) looking at it from different angles, and aren't even close to being on the same wavelength.
Though I've tried adjusting the dial, it seems you take that as me only complicating the matter, rather than tuning in to it.
If your dead set on ONLY looking at it from one direction (wherein exists little or no traction), perhaps it'll remain stuck in the mud.
I guess I've always been a bit more tenacious than to leave it at that.
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
You can't establish a message of salvation that would be known to the people living at the time of Genesis by using documents that were not written until a couple thousand years later. The people living at the time of Genesis could not possibly have known that.
There's nothing complicated about that. At all. Even a little. If you want to know what the people of a certain time knew or believed about salvation, then you have to limit yourself to the information that was available to them at that time. You don't get to say, "Well, the apostle Paul ssid Abraham liked Mallomars" and expect it to just be taken for granted as true unless there's something in Genesis yo indicate that, yeah, Abe liked Mallomars.
Relying on the New Testament to tell what the believers of the Old Testament knew and believed is retconning. It is intellectually dishonest.
To the best of my knoeledge, you can go through the first five books of the Bible, at least, without the slightest indication that there was any such thing as a gospel of salvation. So if you really want to know if it has changed, the most Biblically forthright answer from where I sit is: yeah, it's changed. At first there was none.
I can and I will, but honestly, it has passed the point of being annoying that I constantly have to clarify something that was not unclear in the first place, and that the subject has now become about my being "dead set" on looking at something from a logical perspective.
So here's a different way to ask the same damn question (sorry, but we passed being annoying the third or fourth time I was accused of being stubborn about how I'm handling this topic).
Looking at the Bible chronologically in the order that the stories take place, what is the first inkling that we have that "salvation" or "eternal life" is even a thing? And, following up on that logically, at what point is it clear, Biblically AND chronologically, that there is a "gospel" of salvation that is clearly articulated?
Best answers we have come up with until this point is that there's a reference in Job to the expectation of a life after this one, and there are Psalms that seem to indicate (to my satisfaction at least) that "trusting in the Lord" is what "entitles" (I'm struggling to come up with a better word) a person to eternal life.
I know you can look at certain verses in the New Testament that seem to indicate the people in Genesis knew certain things, but there is nothing in Genesis to reflect that, and the people who lived at the time of Genesis did not have access to the New Testament. Yeah, you can say "God said it, that settles it," but from a historical perspective, that doesn't fly. Answer the question the way a Jew would: They don't accept the New Testament as authoritative the same way Christians don't accept the book of Mormon's claims about Jesus as authoritative or the Koran's claims about Abraham as authoritative.
Where is the gospel of salvation in the OT? If we're going to ask how it's changed, we have to approach it honestly, and that means approaching it chronologically. I'm willing to assume Adam knew the substance of Genesis 3:15 even though he wasn't there to hear that promise (or, at least, there's no indication he was). To deny he knew it would be nitpicking. But Genesis 3:15 says nothing about restoring man to immortality. That promise comes later (at the latest by Job). I'm willing to accept that the people of Genesis had the same expectation as Job even though there's no connection between the stories, again because it fits chronologically and I'm looking at this chronologically. And I say this knowing that Genesis-Deuteronomy were written centuries after the events described and not knowing at all when Job was written. To avoid that argument, I'm taking the timing of the stories AS THEY OCCUR at face value.
What I'm not willing to do is accept that the people of Genesis knew what was written in Hebrews some thousand or two years later. That's ret-conning. It may satisfy the question from a theological standpoint, but it doesn't hold water chronologically.
This should not be difficult. And it's not about ME or my being "dead set" against anything. It's about approaching the material on its own merits and not allowing ANY preconceived notions to take precedence.
Is there a gospel of salvation in Genesis? Where? Exodus? Where? Leviticus? Where? Joshua, Judges, Ruth? Where do we first see the people of God actually believing in something that we can call "salvation" according to how we define it today?
Sorry I misunderstood your post, WW. If you can think of a better way to phrase my questions, have at it. I need to pass the point of finding this thread irritating.
And by the way, I've already refuted my own preconceived notions by looking at the material honestly and following up on vague suggestions to uncover verses that addressed my questions with less ambiguity. Still willing to see more.
Shortening my reply (I had an internet outage at an inconvenient time, as if there's a convenient one).
If we take it as a given that the Bible is accurate, then we accept the verses that state that God kept some information to Himself, and does so as a policy. (That's sensible for any planner, and standard operating procedure for anyone who's studied "the Art of War.") Therefore, some things have not been revealed now, and some things were revealed later than some people might want them revealed. (Let me know if you need the verses, that's what I'm skimping on. I can cite them later.)
So, the question pertaining to this subject is- what did He reveal concerning salvation, to whom did He reveal it, and when did He reveal it?
If we take it as a given that the Bible is inaccurate, then we view the book as an account of what someone believed at the time each book was written. The question then becomes what does it reflect about what was believed at the time, who believed it, and when was it believed?
The questions overlap and take us to the same verses in the OT looking for the answers.
The only problem with "what did God reveal and when did He reveal it" is, hypothetically, if Hebrews says the people of the OT knew something, then that settles the question from the believer's perspective but not the historical. So we'll see if that becomes an issue.
Also, let me quibble with the wording of "If we take it as a given that the Bible is inaccurate."
That is not my position and it is not relevant. It would be more correct to say "If we do not take it as a given that the Bible is accurate." That gives the book room to be accurate in some places, inaccurate in others, each piece standing on its own. ALL of it can be accurate and it wouldn't change the outcome.
"We view the book as an account of what someone believed at the time each book was written. The question then becomes what does it reflect about what was believed at the time, who believed it, and when was it believed?"
Where I come from, we call that "common ground." Whether you believe it or not is not the point. An unbeliever cannot argue that the people of the time could not know that information because it's RIGHT THERE. Even the Shelliak would have to agree. :)
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
You can't establish a message of salvation that would be known to the people living at the time of Genesis by using documents that were not written until a couple thousand years later. The people living at the time of Genesis could not possibly have known that.
Well, I guess maybe I don't get why at times you seem to have the inconsistencies that you do.
If you believe what you just said, then why would you possibly be concerned with or bother to refer to what anyone living at the time of Genesis (i.e., anyone before Moses, excepting the Book of Job) might have known or thought? Wouldn't you likewise see whatever Moses wrote as retconning whatever (probably oral) stories or traditions existed before his time?
On 9/20/2016 at 7:21 PM, Raf said:
There's nothing complicated about that. At all. Even a little. If you want to know what the people of a certain time knew or believed about salvation, then you have to limit yourself to the information that was available to them at that time.
Or is it that since we plainly have and know nothing prior to what Moses wrote, do you suppose his words should be excluded from any similar labeling?
On 9/20/2016 at 7:21 PM, Raf said:
Relying on the New Testament to tell what the believers of the Old Testament knew and believed is retconning. It is intellectually dishonest.
Then how different is relying on Moses to tell what the believers before him knew and believed any less "intellectually dishonest." (Your words, not mine.)
On 9/20/2016 at 7:21 PM, Raf said:
To the best of my knoeledge, you can go through the first five books of the Bible, at least, without the slightest indication that there was any such thing as a gospel of salvation.
Would it matter if there was, Raf? Because I think that the "good news of salvation" that Moses delivered to the nation of Israel was perceived at the time (and perhaps is still viewed similarly today for many that call themselves Jews) primarily (if not entirely) as the deliverance from the hand of their enemies. And to view it in any other fashion - regardless of whether it were true or not of anything greater or more "spiritual" - might be deemed as being "intellectually dishonest" (ala retconning). Though, by the same token, the gospel that Moses delivered could likewise be deemed a retconning of what others before him may have thought or believed about salvation. Why bother to value or trust what Moses said about Abraham any more than what Jesus or Paul might have said about him, if you don't believe the source of what is written as being revelation from God?
Looking at the Bible chronologically in the order that the stories take place, what is the first inkling that we have that "salvation" or "eternal life" is even a thing? And, following up on that logically, at what point is it clear, Biblically AND chronologically, that there is a "gospel" of salvation that is clearly articulated?
Although in this day and time "salvation" and "eternal life" are commonly regarded as being somewhat one and the same, it appears to me that previously there may be more of a distinction involved. Perhaps this is what is producing some of the confusion that you find so irritating. Looks to me like two different questions (with two different answers.)
First of all, I deliberately limited the scope of my questions because I'm trying to seek common ground. Failure to do so would unnecessarily derail the thread (if I were to, for example, challenge the authorship of Genesis and its date, then we're no longer talking about what the Bible teaches. We would be firmly in "Questioning Faith" territory, and that is not my goal). That might explain what you see as inconsistencies in my position. There's nothing inconsistent. I'm simply yielding points to find common ground.
So, the question pertaining to this subject is- what did He reveal concerning salvation, to whom did He reveal it, and when did He reveal it?
If we take it as a given that the Bible is inaccurate, then we view the book as an account of what someone believed at the time each book was written. The question then becomes what does it reflect about what was believed at the time, who believed it, and when was it believed?
The questions overlap and take us to the same verses in the OT looking for the answers.
The phrasing of the first question seems to lock onto "progressive revelation" and doesn't appear to allow any room for whatever is perceived as salvation to change, aside from timing and what was (or is) revealed about it. (However, the second question might, if the meaning of salvation were allowed free course.)
TLC said: "Would it matter if there was, Raf? Because I think that the "good news of salvation" that Moses delivered to the nation of Israel was perceived at the time (and perhaps is still viewed similarly today for many that call themselves Jews) primarily (if not entirely) as the deliverance from the hand of their enemies."
I'm not quite sure I understand the point of asking a question and then immediately answering it. If salvation in the early Old Testament did not refer to eternal life, then it's not what we're talking about on this thread.
There are plenty of references to God imputing righteousness unto people in Genesis, but none that equate that action with eternal life, and the promise of eternal life is what we're talking about, isn't it? Where is there such a "gospel" in the Old Testament? We have, at best, hints of one, and (at this point in our admittedly cursory look at the book), we don't get to a "gospel of salvation" that we can articulate until Psalms, and that one is a tad vague. It's good enough for me. I'm not being picky. But it seems to me that's an awful long time to go without a gospel of salvation.
Assuming Job to take place contemporaneously with Genesis, we have some clue that a restoration to life after death was an expectation. But no how?
Has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed? Yeah. First there was none articulated. At some point, early, it was expected of believers (and trusting God as a precondition can be inferred solely on the basis that it makes sense on its face. Evidence of that precondition would be nice, but it doesn't strain the imagination even a little even without an explicit verse reference).
TLC wrote: "The phrasing of the first question seems to lock onto "progressive revelation" and doesn't appear to allow any room for whatever is perceived as salvation to change."
But that makes total sense for the purposes of our conversation. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but when you say "the gospel whereby a man is saved," YOU are not referring to deliverance from our enemies, are you? If not, then any OT references to salvation that can be defined as "deliverance from our enemies" is off-topic, not relevant to the point YOU were raising.
So if God says, "Do this and I will save you," and He is NOT talking about eternal life, then that statement would not be relevant to the point you were trying to raise.
"Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness."
In the New Testament, that statement is related to salvation/resurrection/eternal life. In the OT, there is no hint of that. We see no indication that Abraham expected a life after this one, and the BEST we can do is conjecture that if Job expected it, Abraham could too. Fine. I accept that (within the confines of this thread in this forum).
We seem to have forgotten that I already answered the questions I raised, becoming fixated instead on what my alleged preconceived notions are and the horrible unfairness of not using documents that were written in 100 AD to determine what someone could or should have known in 1600 BC, barring some corroborating, contemporaneous evidence. That's what's irritating about this line of discussion. We're done. We were done a WHILE ago.
I'm not quite sure I understand the point of asking a question and then immediately answering it. If salvation in the early Old Testament did not refer to eternal life, then it's not what we're talking about on this thread.
Well, it was my way of looking for more than a yes or no response, which also might account for (or at least take into consideration) the remarkably different way that salvation was presented to or viewed as by the nation of Israel.
On 9/23/2016 at 7:29 AM, Raf said:
There are plenty of references to God imputing righteousness unto people in Genesis, but none that equate that action with eternal life, and the promise of eternal life is what we're talking about, isn't it?
Evidently what is written isn't always understood or perceived the same way. What was the reason for the law that was given, and what effect did it have? Clearly not everyone saw or thought of it the same way, as noted in John 5:39. There's some number of scriptures (after Genesis) that refer to a resurrection, involving righteousness and judgment. And it certainly wasn't something new to Martha in John 11:24. Even though there is no clear or definitive indication that righteousness in and of itself equated to living forever (as even Abraham died, of whom it is said that God imputed righteousness to), it does appear to be essential in the judgment that is yet to come (not the only reference by any stretch, but Hebrews 9:27 is simple enough.) Yeah, I know I've moved out of Genesis with some of this, but if the righteousness that is of the law was only seen or thought of in that day and time as something that would simply keep them alive and "status quo" (I.e., breathing) for as long (or as abundantly) as possible on this earth... do you honestly think it would have had as much effect as it did? (Sure, there were undoubtedly those that took the law as being nothing more than that. And they died in the wilderness. But that's beside the point.)
On 9/23/2016 at 7:29 AM, Raf said:
Has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed? Yeah. First there was none articulated. At some point, early, it was expected of believers (and trusting God as a precondition can be inferred solely on the basis that it makes sense on its face. Evidence of that precondition would be nice, but it doesn't strain the imagination even a little even without an explicit verse reference).
So, none was articulated. Take this as hypothetical (if you can), but why think that the means or path to eternal life would or should be articulated (for our senses mind), if among the first clear (to Adam, but not so much for us) instructions that were given to Adam was, Don't put your trust and belief in your senses? Oh... so you prefer to believe what you can do or know by your senses. Then here's the deal. One will come that will show the way, and overcome death.
Some would say it's been a long and tedious way, God trying to overcome man's trust in and reliance upon his senses. Most will not make the jump.
Most will not believe that the one that God promised would come did, but then died... and was then raised from the dead, to live forevermore.
On 9/23/2016 at 9:03 AM, Raf said:
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but when you say "the gospel whereby a man is saved," YOU are not referring to deliverance from our enemies, are you? If not, then any OT references to salvation that can be defined as "deliverance from our enemies" is off-topic, not relevant to the point YOU were raising.
Actually, I was (from the start of this thread) aware that this has always been at least a part of (if not primarily) Israel's take on salvation... so no, I wouldn't (and don't) regard it as being off topic. And, believe it or not, it is very relevant to the point that Israel was, always has been... and rather likely will be associated with the physical (or sensual) side of salvation. Call it the "gospel of the Kingdom," if you will. Pertinent to Israel? Absolutely. Pertinent to the body of Christ (and the gospel of grace)? Not so much. But these things venture well beyond where the discussion has been up to this point.
On 9/23/2016 at 9:03 AM, Raf said:
"Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness."
In the New Testament, that statement is related to salvation/resurrection/eternal life. In the OT, there is no hint of that. We see no indication that Abraham expected a life after this one, and the BEST we can do is conjecture that if Job expected it, Abraham could too. Fine. I accept that (within the confines of this thread in this forum).
Sorry, but I disagree. The mere fact of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice the life of Isaac is indicative of his belief in life after death. (And I think there's scriptures that put this together better and more beautifully than my simple statement of it, which I haven't the time right now for.)
On 9/23/2016 at 9:03 AM, Raf said:
We seem to have forgotten that I already answered the questions I raised, becoming fixated instead on what my alleged preconceived notions are and the horrible unfairness of not using documents that were written in 100 AD to determine what someone could or should have known in 1600 BC, barring some corroborating, contemporaneous evidence.
It's not in the slightest something I've been fixated on. But if you're done, so be it.
Personally, I think the surface here was barely scratched. (Thanks for at least that much, anyways.)
The ability of God to raise the dead does not equate to a belief in an eternal life after this one, so Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac establishes nothing about a belief in eternal life, IMO.
As I ponder some of these things more carefully, I become more and more convinced that the lack of articulation before it was "time" to spell it out in a particular or certain way (for the senses mind to more easily grasp) was not only very intentional, it serves a specific purpose of drawing the confidence of man away from his own strength and intellect. So, in that sense, I would agree with you, Raf. Short of a greater understanding what God's overall game plan and strategy is, we just aren't going to find much in the way of specifics as to what some of these men of olden days believed, much less a "gospel" for it. Still, I think there's much that can be learned and known about changes/differences in the gospel of the Kingdom (that Jesus Christ and his 12 apostles preached), and the gospel of Christ (aka, the gospel of grace) which Paul preached.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but when you say "the gospel whereby a man is saved," YOU are not referring to deliverance from our enemies, are you?
Actually, I was (from the start of this thread) aware that this has always been at least a part of (if not primarily) Israel's take on salvation... so no, I wouldn't (and don't) regard it as being off topic. And, believe it or not, it is very relevant to the point that Israel was, always has been... and rather likely will be associated with the physical (or sensual) side of salvation. Call it the "gospel of the Kingdom," if you will. Pertinent to Israel? Absolutely. Pertinent to the body of Christ (and the gospel of grace)? Not so much. But these things venture well beyond where the discussion has been up to this point.
Going back to the issue of what a "gospel" is or should refer to, there is a rather clear reference in Hebrews 4:1 and 2 to good news that was likewise presented to the nation of Israel after they came out of Egypt.
[1] Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
[2] For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Keeping in mind that "gospel" in and of itself simply presents itself as good news, the question that seems relatively easy to answer is what that good news was. Israel had already been brought out of the bondage of Egypt. So, did they think themselves "saved"? Most certainly not, in any full or complete sense of the word. They were out of Egypt, yes, but... life was no cake walk in the wilderness they sojourned in. In fact, at Kadesh-barnea things looks so bad to them they desired to make themselves a captain and return to Egypt. So, what was "the gospel" that was preached unto them, which they failed to believe? Hebrews sums it up... but is it not plain enough in what Moses wrote?
Can I simply refuse to keep arguing the same point over and over again?
A. Hebrews does not establish that the people of Moses' time knew what Hebrews would later record.
B. Hebrews is discussing a promise of "entering into rest," not of eternal salvation. Hebrews is drawing a parallel, not establishing that the "good news" of eternal life was preached to the people of Moses' time.
By all means, correct me if I'm mistaken. And if you want to use Hebrews to establish what they knew in Moses' time, be my guest. I don't buy it, but that's me.
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
Raf
Its one thing to go backward to look for the progression. It's another to go backward and wedge knowledge into the past based on the future. My opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I'm wondering whether the main reason (at least a big part of it) for your aversion to "working backwards" is evident in the very narrow and limited choice you just presented. Sure, I'm quite aware that the door was left open to think as you did when I spoke of it (i.e., trusting in the Lord) as "evolving" into what we have today. I'm also reasonably familiar with certain things commonly taught or associated with progressive revelation. But, to put it bluntly, I didn't say what is in place today is a "progression" of all that happened or was in effect before it. Furthermore, I took intentional and specific care when I spoke of questioning "what the situation was or might have been prior" (to that which is in effect now.) Things changed. And at times, radically so. As I see it, perhaps the biggest and most universal mistake (if it isn't too politically incorrect to call it that) made in the church of the body is not wedging knowledge (of what is known in the present) into the past, but rather, is of wedging what is known of the past into the belief and practices of the present. Maybe I don't see or think of certain things the way most folk do, but neither do I think my manner and perspectives are super special or totally unique. They just aren't as common or as typical as most of what you find around nowadays.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I really don't get why this is so complicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It's not, from my perspective.
But we're (obviously) looking at it from different angles, and aren't even close to being on the same wavelength.
Though I've tried adjusting the dial, it seems you take that as me only complicating the matter, rather than tuning in to it.
If your dead set on ONLY looking at it from one direction (wherein exists little or no traction), perhaps it'll remain stuck in the mud.
I guess I've always been a bit more tenacious than to leave it at that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
You can't establish a message of salvation that would be known to the people living at the time of Genesis by using documents that were not written until a couple thousand years later. The people living at the time of Genesis could not possibly have known that.
There's nothing complicated about that. At all. Even a little. If you want to know what the people of a certain time knew or believed about salvation, then you have to limit yourself to the information that was available to them at that time. You don't get to say, "Well, the apostle Paul ssid Abraham liked Mallomars" and expect it to just be taken for granted as true unless there's something in Genesis yo indicate that, yeah, Abe liked Mallomars.
Relying on the New Testament to tell what the believers of the Old Testament knew and believed is retconning. It is intellectually dishonest.
To the best of my knoeledge, you can go through the first five books of the Bible, at least, without the slightest indication that there was any such thing as a gospel of salvation. So if you really want to know if it has changed, the most Biblically forthright answer from where I sit is: yeah, it's changed. At first there was none.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Raf, when I have time tonight, do you mind me trying to rephrase your question? I think this is a "language" confusion issue more than anything else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can and I will, but honestly, it has passed the point of being annoying that I constantly have to clarify something that was not unclear in the first place, and that the subject has now become about my being "dead set" on looking at something from a logical perspective.
So here's a different way to ask the same damn question (sorry, but we passed being annoying the third or fourth time I was accused of being stubborn about how I'm handling this topic).
Looking at the Bible chronologically in the order that the stories take place, what is the first inkling that we have that "salvation" or "eternal life" is even a thing? And, following up on that logically, at what point is it clear, Biblically AND chronologically, that there is a "gospel" of salvation that is clearly articulated?
Best answers we have come up with until this point is that there's a reference in Job to the expectation of a life after this one, and there are Psalms that seem to indicate (to my satisfaction at least) that "trusting in the Lord" is what "entitles" (I'm struggling to come up with a better word) a person to eternal life.
I know you can look at certain verses in the New Testament that seem to indicate the people in Genesis knew certain things, but there is nothing in Genesis to reflect that, and the people who lived at the time of Genesis did not have access to the New Testament. Yeah, you can say "God said it, that settles it," but from a historical perspective, that doesn't fly. Answer the question the way a Jew would: They don't accept the New Testament as authoritative the same way Christians don't accept the book of Mormon's claims about Jesus as authoritative or the Koran's claims about Abraham as authoritative.
Where is the gospel of salvation in the OT? If we're going to ask how it's changed, we have to approach it honestly, and that means approaching it chronologically. I'm willing to assume Adam knew the substance of Genesis 3:15 even though he wasn't there to hear that promise (or, at least, there's no indication he was). To deny he knew it would be nitpicking. But Genesis 3:15 says nothing about restoring man to immortality. That promise comes later (at the latest by Job). I'm willing to accept that the people of Genesis had the same expectation as Job even though there's no connection between the stories, again because it fits chronologically and I'm looking at this chronologically. And I say this knowing that Genesis-Deuteronomy were written centuries after the events described and not knowing at all when Job was written. To avoid that argument, I'm taking the timing of the stories AS THEY OCCUR at face value.
What I'm not willing to do is accept that the people of Genesis knew what was written in Hebrews some thousand or two years later. That's ret-conning. It may satisfy the question from a theological standpoint, but it doesn't hold water chronologically.
This should not be difficult. And it's not about ME or my being "dead set" against anything. It's about approaching the material on its own merits and not allowing ANY preconceived notions to take precedence.
Is there a gospel of salvation in Genesis? Where? Exodus? Where? Leviticus? Where? Joshua, Judges, Ruth? Where do we first see the people of God actually believing in something that we can call "salvation" according to how we define it today?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sorry I misunderstood your post, WW. If you can think of a better way to phrase my questions, have at it. I need to pass the point of finding this thread irritating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And by the way, I've already refuted my own preconceived notions by looking at the material honestly and following up on vague suggestions to uncover verses that addressed my questions with less ambiguity. Still willing to see more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Shortening my reply (I had an internet outage at an inconvenient time, as if there's a convenient one).
If we take it as a given that the Bible is accurate, then we accept the verses that state that God kept some information to Himself, and does so as a policy. (That's sensible for any planner, and standard operating procedure for anyone who's studied "the Art of War.") Therefore, some things have not been revealed now, and some things were revealed later than some people might want them revealed. (Let me know if you need the verses, that's what I'm skimping on. I can cite them later.)
So, the question pertaining to this subject is- what did He reveal concerning salvation, to whom did He reveal it, and when did He reveal it?
If we take it as a given that the Bible is inaccurate, then we view the book as an account of what someone believed at the time each book was written. The question then becomes what does it reflect about what was believed at the time, who believed it, and when was it believed?
The questions overlap and take us to the same verses in the OT looking for the answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Agreed. Unbelief is irrelevant to the conversation. Intellectual honesty is the approach we're seeking, believer or skeptic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The only problem with "what did God reveal and when did He reveal it" is, hypothetically, if Hebrews says the people of the OT knew something, then that settles the question from the believer's perspective but not the historical. So we'll see if that becomes an issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Also, let me quibble with the wording of "If we take it as a given that the Bible is inaccurate."
That is not my position and it is not relevant. It would be more correct to say "If we do not take it as a given that the Bible is accurate." That gives the book room to be accurate in some places, inaccurate in others, each piece standing on its own. ALL of it can be accurate and it wouldn't change the outcome.
"We view the book as an account of what someone believed at the time each book was written. The question then becomes what does it reflect about what was believed at the time, who believed it, and when was it believed?"
Edited by RafWhere I come from, we call that "common ground." Whether you believe it or not is not the point. An unbeliever cannot argue that the people of the time could not know that information because it's RIGHT THERE. Even the Shelliak would have to agree. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I guess maybe I don't get why at times you seem to have the inconsistencies that you do.
If you believe what you just said, then why would you possibly be concerned with or bother to refer to what anyone living at the time of Genesis (i.e., anyone before Moses, excepting the Book of Job) might have known or thought? Wouldn't you likewise see whatever Moses wrote as retconning whatever (probably oral) stories or traditions existed before his time?
Or is it that since we plainly have and know nothing prior to what Moses wrote, do you suppose his words should be excluded from any similar labeling?
Then how different is relying on Moses to tell what the believers before him knew and believed any less "intellectually dishonest." (Your words, not mine.)
Would it matter if there was, Raf? Because I think that the "good news of salvation" that Moses delivered to the nation of Israel was perceived at the time (and perhaps is still viewed similarly today for many that call themselves Jews) primarily (if not entirely) as the deliverance from the hand of their enemies. And to view it in any other fashion - regardless of whether it were true or not of anything greater or more "spiritual" - might be deemed as being "intellectually dishonest" (ala retconning). Though, by the same token, the gospel that Moses delivered could likewise be deemed a retconning of what others before him may have thought or believed about salvation. Why bother to value or trust what Moses said about Abraham any more than what Jesus or Paul might have said about him, if you don't believe the source of what is written as being revelation from God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Although in this day and time "salvation" and "eternal life" are commonly regarded as being somewhat one and the same, it appears to me that previously there may be more of a distinction involved. Perhaps this is what is producing some of the confusion that you find so irritating. Looks to me like two different questions (with two different answers.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
First of all, I deliberately limited the scope of my questions because I'm trying to seek common ground. Failure to do so would unnecessarily derail the thread (if I were to, for example, challenge the authorship of Genesis and its date, then we're no longer talking about what the Bible teaches. We would be firmly in "Questioning Faith" territory, and that is not my goal). That might explain what you see as inconsistencies in my position. There's nothing inconsistent. I'm simply yielding points to find common ground.
Word Wolf put it well, I think.
More later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
The phrasing of the first question seems to lock onto "progressive revelation" and doesn't appear to allow any room for whatever is perceived as salvation to change, aside from timing and what was (or is) revealed about it. (However, the second question might, if the meaning of salvation were allowed free course.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC said: "Would it matter if there was, Raf? Because I think that the "good news of salvation" that Moses delivered to the nation of Israel was perceived at the time (and perhaps is still viewed similarly today for many that call themselves Jews) primarily (if not entirely) as the deliverance from the hand of their enemies."
I'm not quite sure I understand the point of asking a question and then immediately answering it. If salvation in the early Old Testament did not refer to eternal life, then it's not what we're talking about on this thread.
There are plenty of references to God imputing righteousness unto people in Genesis, but none that equate that action with eternal life, and the promise of eternal life is what we're talking about, isn't it? Where is there such a "gospel" in the Old Testament? We have, at best, hints of one, and (at this point in our admittedly cursory look at the book), we don't get to a "gospel of salvation" that we can articulate until Psalms, and that one is a tad vague. It's good enough for me. I'm not being picky. But it seems to me that's an awful long time to go without a gospel of salvation.
Assuming Job to take place contemporaneously with Genesis, we have some clue that a restoration to life after death was an expectation. But no how?
Has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed? Yeah. First there was none articulated. At some point, early, it was expected of believers (and trusting God as a precondition can be inferred solely on the basis that it makes sense on its face. Evidence of that precondition would be nice, but it doesn't strain the imagination even a little even without an explicit verse reference).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC wrote: "The phrasing of the first question seems to lock onto "progressive revelation" and doesn't appear to allow any room for whatever is perceived as salvation to change."
But that makes total sense for the purposes of our conversation. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but when you say "the gospel whereby a man is saved," YOU are not referring to deliverance from our enemies, are you? If not, then any OT references to salvation that can be defined as "deliverance from our enemies" is off-topic, not relevant to the point YOU were raising.
So if God says, "Do this and I will save you," and He is NOT talking about eternal life, then that statement would not be relevant to the point you were trying to raise.
"Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness."
In the New Testament, that statement is related to salvation/resurrection/eternal life. In the OT, there is no hint of that. We see no indication that Abraham expected a life after this one, and the BEST we can do is conjecture that if Job expected it, Abraham could too. Fine. I accept that (within the confines of this thread in this forum).
We seem to have forgotten that I already answered the questions I raised, becoming fixated instead on what my alleged preconceived notions are and the horrible unfairness of not using documents that were written in 100 AD to determine what someone could or should have known in 1600 BC, barring some corroborating, contemporaneous evidence. That's what's irritating about this line of discussion. We're done. We were done a WHILE ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, it was my way of looking for more than a yes or no response, which also might account for (or at least take into consideration) the remarkably different way that salvation was presented to or viewed as by the nation of Israel.
Evidently what is written isn't always understood or perceived the same way. What was the reason for the law that was given, and what effect did it have? Clearly not everyone saw or thought of it the same way, as noted in John 5:39. There's some number of scriptures (after Genesis) that refer to a resurrection, involving righteousness and judgment. And it certainly wasn't something new to Martha in John 11:24. Even though there is no clear or definitive indication that righteousness in and of itself equated to living forever (as even Abraham died, of whom it is said that God imputed righteousness to), it does appear to be essential in the judgment that is yet to come (not the only reference by any stretch, but Hebrews 9:27 is simple enough.) Yeah, I know I've moved out of Genesis with some of this, but if the righteousness that is of the law was only seen or thought of in that day and time as something that would simply keep them alive and "status quo" (I.e., breathing) for as long (or as abundantly) as possible on this earth... do you honestly think it would have had as much effect as it did? (Sure, there were undoubtedly those that took the law as being nothing more than that. And they died in the wilderness. But that's beside the point.)
So, none was articulated. Take this as hypothetical (if you can), but why think that the means or path to eternal life would or should be articulated (for our senses mind), if among the first clear (to Adam, but not so much for us) instructions that were given to Adam was, Don't put your trust and belief in your senses? Oh... so you prefer to believe what you can do or know by your senses. Then here's the deal. One will come that will show the way, and overcome death.
Some would say it's been a long and tedious way, God trying to overcome man's trust in and reliance upon his senses. Most will not make the jump.
Most will not believe that the one that God promised would come did, but then died... and was then raised from the dead, to live forevermore.
Actually, I was (from the start of this thread) aware that this has always been at least a part of (if not primarily) Israel's take on salvation... so no, I wouldn't (and don't) regard it as being off topic. And, believe it or not, it is very relevant to the point that Israel was, always has been... and rather likely will be associated with the physical (or sensual) side of salvation. Call it the "gospel of the Kingdom," if you will. Pertinent to Israel? Absolutely. Pertinent to the body of Christ (and the gospel of grace)? Not so much. But these things venture well beyond where the discussion has been up to this point.
Sorry, but I disagree. The mere fact of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice the life of Isaac is indicative of his belief in life after death. (And I think there's scriptures that put this together better and more beautifully than my simple statement of it, which I haven't the time right now for.)
It's not in the slightest something I've been fixated on. But if you're done, so be it.
Edited by TLCPersonally, I think the surface here was barely scratched. (Thanks for at least that much, anyways.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The ability of God to raise the dead does not equate to a belief in an eternal life after this one, so Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac establishes nothing about a belief in eternal life, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
As I ponder some of these things more carefully, I become more and more convinced that the lack of articulation before it was "time" to spell it out in a particular or certain way (for the senses mind to more easily grasp) was not only very intentional, it serves a specific purpose of drawing the confidence of man away from his own strength and intellect. So, in that sense, I would agree with you, Raf. Short of a greater understanding what God's overall game plan and strategy is, we just aren't going to find much in the way of specifics as to what some of these men of olden days believed, much less a "gospel" for it. Still, I think there's much that can be learned and known about changes/differences in the gospel of the Kingdom (that Jesus Christ and his 12 apostles preached), and the gospel of Christ (aka, the gospel of grace) which Paul preached.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Going back to the issue of what a "gospel" is or should refer to, there is a rather clear reference in Hebrews 4:1 and 2 to good news that was likewise presented to the nation of Israel after they came out of Egypt.
[1] Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
[2] For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Keeping in mind that "gospel" in and of itself simply presents itself as good news, the question that seems relatively easy to answer is what that good news was. Israel had already been brought out of the bondage of Egypt. So, did they think themselves "saved"? Most certainly not, in any full or complete sense of the word. They were out of Egypt, yes, but... life was no cake walk in the wilderness they sojourned in. In fact, at Kadesh-barnea things looks so bad to them they desired to make themselves a captain and return to Egypt. So, what was "the gospel" that was preached unto them, which they failed to believe? Hebrews sums it up... but is it not plain enough in what Moses wrote?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can I simply refuse to keep arguing the same point over and over again?
A. Hebrews does not establish that the people of Moses' time knew what Hebrews would later record.
B. Hebrews is discussing a promise of "entering into rest," not of eternal salvation. Hebrews is drawing a parallel, not establishing that the "good news" of eternal life was preached to the people of Moses' time.
By all means, correct me if I'm mistaken. And if you want to use Hebrews to establish what they knew in Moses' time, be my guest. I don't buy it, but that's me.
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.