Posted on 02/06/2004 10:38:33 AM PST by sheltonmac
According to Paul, the sinner is saved through faith; that is, he accepts as true what God declares in His word, he receives and rests upon Christ alone for his salvation. In this scheme, the sinner abandons all thought of somehow making himself acceptable to God and relies wholly upon what God provides for the sinner in Christ. But notice that even the faith itself is a gift from God, Paul states. This teaching is in harmony with what the Bible says about man in his fallen conditionhe is spiritually dead and cannot rouse himself or make himself righteous before God.
I don't think you will get any arguments from any Wesleyan on this subject. As Tozer so aptly puts it:
We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit. `No man can come to me,' said our Lord, `except the Father which hath sent me draw him,' and it is by this very prevenient drawing that God takes from us every vestige of credit for he act of coming. The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the outworking of that impulse is our following hard after Him; and all the time we are pursuing Him we are already in His hand: `Thy right hand upholdeth me.' In this divine `upholding' and human `following' there is no contradiction. All is of God, for as von Hugel teaches, God is always previous. I don't know why this was pulled before. If anyone can explain why this is offensive to anyone, please let me know.
This thread was - and will not be - about drstevej. Please hit [abuse] on yourself and pull your post #20 for that reason.
I Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?....nor abusers of themselves..... (KJV) ;^)
Therefore, in spite of the multitude of texts which place the “old covenant” of the law of Moses in direct contrast with the “new covenant” of grace in Christ, showing that the one was a failure and the other superseded it (comp. Jer 31:31–34; Heb 8:7–12, etc), in order to maintain the unbroken continuity of the Covenant of Grace, they are forced to the unscriptural and untenable position of saying that the Law of Moses was a part of the grace covenant.
That, I believe, is a pretty good reason to reject Covenant Theology.
All glory to God.
That and the nation Israel I believe are the two biggest differences between the Covenanters and us Dispys.
I would suggest Covenant Theology does the latter, which explains the "direct contrasts" passages while still allowing for an overarching moral continuity between the two. If the OT saints were saved by grace (in the Unconditional Election sense) as the NT saints are, then the symbol and observance differences between the two covenants are a moot point and we can begin arguing towards continuity. If, instead, the OT saints were saved through some level of adherence to those symbols and observances in the OT (in a Conditional Election sense) and not by grace (Unconditonal Election), then I can see Charles Fred Lincoln's point.
If, instead, the OT saints were saved through some level of adherence to those symbols and observances in the OT (in a Conditional Election sense) and not by grace (Unconditonal Election), then I can see Charles Fred Lincoln's point.
I think it would stand to reason that if the OT saints were indeed saved through an adherence to those observances, then there wouldn't have been a need for Christ's blood sacrifice.
Be careful or you might find yourself excommunicated from the GRPL.
How were people saved in old testament times? I get the distinct impression that they were not actually saved until new testament times. Did any man actually get to heaven before the man, Jesus?
I would suggest Covenant Theology does the latter, which explains the "direct contrasts" passages while still allowing for an overarching moral continuity between the two. If the OT saints were saved by grace (in the Unconditional Election sense) as the NT saints are, then the symbol and observance differences between the two covenants are a moot point and we can begin arguing towards continuity. If, instead, the OT saints were saved through some level of adherence to those symbols and observances in the OT (in a Conditional Election sense) and not by grace (Unconditonal Election), then I can see Charles Fred Lincoln's point.
People in the Old Testament, whether before the Law or after the Law, were all saved by grace through faith. Through faith in what God had revealed to them. Therefore, to take an Israelite after Sinai, if a person believed God then the outworking of that faith would be them following the Law and performing the sacrifices.
Just like today. If someone is saved then there will be an outworking of that faith through good works and the bearing of the Fruit of the Spirit.
As far as the New and Old Covenants go, it is God that makes a distinction between them. He does so in Jer 31:31-32
31 Behold the days come saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD (KJV)
Also in the New Testament there is stark comparison between the two covenant especially in the book of Hebrews.
He 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (KJV)
The same way we are today, through grace by faith. The only difference was the revelation of Christ was not yet complete.
I get the distinct impression that they were not actually saved until new testament times. Did any man actually get to heaven before the man, Jesus?
I think being saved and getting to Heaven are two different things. When we are saved we don't immediately go to Heaven. There is time as we are sanctified through the working of the Holy Spirit.
I believe they were saved, but I'm not sure they went to Heaven until after Christ went there first. I probably shouldn't guess further until I read up some more on it first.
When we are absent from the body, do we not go immediately into the presence of the Lord? And if so, then is not the Lord in Heaven?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.