ECT No one was "looking forward to the cross"

[Interplanner]

Covenant Theology answers these kinds of arguments; which prove to be predominantly instigated by Dispensationalists.

The answer is simple:

God's promise of a Savior was first presented in the garden, and thereafter to all, and the O.T. saints proved to be those who believed in that promise.

God's promise of a Savior was fulfilled in the Incarnation in the sight of all the world, which the N.T. saints proved to be the ones who believed the miraculous event.

One Promise, One new Covenant, One Savior, One Gospel, One salvation worked by God's grace, One kind of believers.

Why all the discussion and arguing?

The power of God is just his Word. It is not Covenant Theology, no matter what it has correct.

 

[Nang]

The power of God is just his Word. It is not Covenant Theology, no matter what it has correct.

Covenant Theology is the systematic theological study, premised only upon the Word of God, and His promises, from before the creation of the world.

How else could the Word of God be biblically described, but as the Eternal Covenant of Redemption?

 

[Interplanner]

Covenant Theology is the systematic theological study, premised only upon the Word of God, and His promises, from before the creation of the world.

How else could the Word of God be biblically described, but as the Eternal Covenant of Redemption?

Oh, there are other systems people use alright.

But you only have a few verses. my concern is that at those places where the NT is clear about the enthronement, the promise to Israel, the rebuilt tent of David, 2P2P blasts it with muck and conceptions that are all overdone from too few references as well.

 

[Interplanner]

...and the Eternal Covenant does not answer the interesting question here IN THE TEXT I mean. Obviously you think it answers it on principle, but in the pre-confession narrative of the synoptics (John is a total loss to this 2P2P theory), what is the answer to this question about not looking forward to the cross?

 

[Nang]

...and the Eternal Covenant does not answer the interesting question here IN THE TEXT I mean. Obviously you think it answers it on principle, but in the pre-confession narrative of the synoptics (John is a total loss to this 2P2P theory), what is the answer to this question about not looking forward to the cross?

The details of the cross were revealed, as in Psalm 22, but saving faith consisted in belief of the simple truth that God would provide a Just and Righteous Savior Who would remedy sin, death and end the powers of the devil.

IOW's faith is gifted and founded upon the principle of surety of promise, more than upon interpretation of any prophetic detail.

Always has been, and always will . . Otherwise Jesus would not have preached His gospel in parables.

 

[Nihilo]

No one was "looking forward to the cross"

Jesus was, though, Hebrews 12:2 (KJV), He looked forward to "the joy that was set before Him."

And since He knew beforehand, the question is whether or not He was clear with His disciples about what was going to happen, or if He was coy, or downright deceptive?

 

[musterion]

I don't tend to get into these, and I'm not here to argue overtly, but you'd asked once why I'm not MAD and which points I would have, or do disagree with. On this, it is rather that some of the logical demands, 1) I believe are logical, but 2) not demands. Thus If/Then doesn't make the necessity OR I'd have to be MAD with no exception. Why this thread? Specifically, because I've seen comments regarding "Just believe it." Well, I do, but in point of fact, am a partial preterist 'because' I believe it. We are disagreeing on acceptable conclusions. The reason I tend not to get into it with others is simply, that they tend to be overblown imho. Yes, I realize there is stringent disagreement but does my Faith bank on whether David sits on the throne, or that I rather see Christ as that fulfillment? :nono: Therefore, I tend not to get too caught up in these banter sessions because it just isn't that important when other doctrines are. "Bigger fish to fry" so to speak. For a moment (or two) I'll post along just to show perspective from the other guy is always important.

Lon, I think enough of you to always give you an honest reply, as best I can. So forgive me for cutting through all of that because I don't follow what you're saying.

However, you did ask, "Why this thread?"

Fair question. The reason is because if people believe that those before the Cross were indeed "looking forward to the Cross," meaning they knew what was going to happen and why it would happen (the Bible says they didn't yet it's a common misbelief everywhere that they did), then it's a tiny leap to the "only one gospel in the NT" belief that plagues not only TOL but all of Christendom. In fact, their position DEMANDS there be only one gospel. But their position is dead wrong.

That's why this thread.

John 5:39; 8:56 Isaiah 53 etc.

I disagree. Isaiah 53 is soooo clear. Rather, tradition rather than scripture knowledge tended to rule the people. Jesus was constantly referring back to the scriptures over traditions. I do agree the disciples had not clue, but I'm saying that they 'could have.' Martin Luther broke with tradition when he realized scripture was clearer than those traditions. I agree with you the disciples didn't know. Mary was told by an angel: "He will be the Savior from sins." The Lord Jesus Christ had even told His disciples that He would die. They weren't looking forward to it, but He told them they 'should' be. They weren't completely clueless, just didn't like what they were hearing and didn't understand.

Lon...it says it was HIDDEN from them, and later had to have their eyes opened to it. EITHER IT WAS HIDDEN OR IT WAS NOT.

Let's make that our starting point and go from there.

 

[Nang]

But more important: it doesn't say it was hidden until after the outburst by Peter. Ie, God had to protect the Gospel event from them; they might have ruined it, prevented it, thwarted it. This is similar to Jn 6 when they wanted to take him BY FORCE and make him a monarchy king.

It matters because the delusion of 2P2P is that there was another gospel in the first half of the ministry years. (This does not work at all in John but these guys think it works in the synoptics). Jerry, for ex., says it's kingdom offer until the confession of Peter and then the death for sins is hidden because of the outburst of Peter.

I think it is a mistake for us to deny that some O.T. souls were given insight into the sufferings of the promised Savior. Who are we to know?

It is obvious from the N.T. Scriptures that the truth of Christ were hidden from the majority of the Jewish people, but the bible also teaches that God always had a remnant of faithful believers within the nation, who understood the promises and all the significance of the tabernacle/temple ordinances that pointed to the future accomplishments of God's Christ.

Jesus Himself testifies to an elect few to whom the Gospel message was understood and believed. Abraham being one. See John 8:55-58

Yes, there is only one Gospel and it has been proclaimed and made known since first promised to Eve in Genesis 3:15. All throughout O.T. history, God has revealed the remission of sin through a blood offering; Abel believed and grasped why he was to offer blood sacrifices to God, as demonstration of his faith. All the saints listed in Hebrews Chapter 11 were part of this saved remnant called out of all the nations, including the nation of Israel . . even though no entire nation, or even an entire family was ever given full insight into the promises.

Before the Incarnation, souls waited for the fulfillment of the Covenant promise of Messiah. See Matthew 2:9-12; Luke 1:30-38, 67-79, 2:25-38 for a few examples of common folk to whom the reality of the redeeming Christ was revealed.

These believed the same Gospel N.T. Christians believe. All the saints of God have been justified alike, by faith in the Covenant promises and Covenant performance fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

MAD denies this one saving Gospel due to being deluded with false teaching, that tries to confuse Truth . . and they willingly act to propagate and add to this dispensational confusion because they do not possess a love of the Truth.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

MAD denies this one saving Gospel due to being deluded with false teaching, that tries to confuse Truth . .

Were those who heard the "good news" (gospel) preached here by Paul saved when they believed it?:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

Of course those who believed that gospel received life when they were born of God (Jn.20:30-31;1 Jn.5:1-5).

If you knew anything about what was preached during the Acts period you would know that there were TWO saving gospels and not just one.

 

[Nang]

Were those who heard the "good news" (gospel) preached here by Paul saved when they believed it?

Your question is off topic of the OP.

If you knew anything about what was preached during the Acts period you would know that there were TWO saving gospels and not just one.

This is also off topic . . .

You are spamming the thread.

 

[Lon]

Lon, I think enough of you to always give you an honest reply, as best I can. So forgive me for cutting through all of that because I don't follow what you're saying.

However, you did ask, "Why this thread?"

Fair question. The reason is because if people believe that those before the Cross were indeed "looking forward to the Cross," meaning they knew what was going to happen and why it would happen (the Bible says they didn't yet it's a common misbelief everywhere that they did), then it's a tiny leap to the "only one gospel in the NT" belief that plagues not only TOL but all of Christendom. In fact, their position DEMANDS there be only one gospel. But their position is dead wrong.

That's why this thread.



Lon...it says it was HIDDEN from them, and later had to have their eyes opened to it. EITHER IT WAS HIDDEN OR IT WAS NOT.

Let's make that our starting point and go from there.

Thanks. Let me go back to Isaiah 53

Spoiler

Isa 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
Isa 53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Thank you. I always enjoy just being able to chat about what we are both seeing (and seeing differently) in scriptures.

To, me, it 'seems' clear Isaiah was looking forward. As I said, I agree the disciples were clueless, but Isaiah was clear. Matthew 16:21-22 was clear. I agree their vision was veiled. Odd, because He told them straight up, they must have heard what He said, but disbelieved Him or purposefully put it out of their minds.

 

[musterion]

To, me, it 'seems' clear Isaiah was looking forward. As I said, I agree the disciples were clueless, but Isaiah was clear. Matthew 16:21-22 was clear. I agree their vision was veiled. Odd, because He told them straight up, they must have heard what He said, but disbelieved Him or purposefully put it out of their minds.

What did Isaiah know, do you think? Better way to phrase that might be, what do you think Isaiah understood?

 

[Lon]

What did Isaiah know, do you think? Better way to phrase that might be, what do you think Isaiah understood?

I'd suggest he did:
Luke 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Would the Lord Jesus Christ have said they were foolish if it wasn't clear? As I said, I agree the disciples were 'foolish.' -Jesus words

 

[musterion]

I'd suggest he did:
Luke 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Question...was that before or after His resurrection?

 

[Lon]

Question...was that before or after His resurrection?

After, but as I said, He told them before in Matthew 16:21-22 as well (so both, just 'after' in this case)as well (so both, just 'after' in this case)

 

[Nang]

See the conclusion of the report in Luke 24:36-53.

Particularly:

"Then He said to them, 'These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.'"

True understanding of Gospel truth, comes only by the Holy Spirit giving souls ears to hear. I Corinthians 2:10-14

And it is His sovereign call as to whether, or when, He wills to so bless.

John 3:3-8

 

[musterion]

After, but as I said, He told them before in Matthew 16:21-22 as well (so both, just 'after' in this case)as well (so both, just 'after' in this case)

So since the disciples did not/could not see it, could they have been "looking forward to the Cross" as the means of salvation for the whole world, which we know only because it was revealed through Paul?

 

[Lon]

So since the disciples did not/could not see it, could they have been "looking forward to the Cross" as the means of salvation for the whole world, which we know only because it was revealed through Paul?

Paul, I agree, brought the gospel specifically to gentiles.

Your original point was that nobody looked forward to the Cross, but they were plainly told. I guess the question should be: what is at stake doctrinally in your thinking?

I edited a lot as you requested. I was rather, second-guessing you rather than asking up front, no idea why other than trying to figure it out with feedback to questions as if perhaps you yourself didn't know why or what was at stake. I've no idea why I'd think you didn't know, but there it is and I think it will expedite the conversation. Thanks. -Lon
Luke 24:36-53 or Matthew 16:21,22
-Lon

 

[musterion]

Well realize that the essentials of Salvation didn't change between Jew and gentile, in fact Peter brought Cornelius into Judaism by God's direction. Paul, I agree, brought the gospel specifically to gentiles. Your original point was that nobody looked forward to the Cross, but they were plainly told. What blinded them? First, tradition, as it does to Jews today. They literally cannot understand Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Messiah, yet the Lord Jesus Christ, did explain it to them, both in Matthew and as Nang suggested, in Luke 24:36-53. It is clear He had explained it prior. Let's say, for now that I agree they did not know and were not looking forward to the cross. How does that affect a different gospel than the one already preached? I think I understand a bit of this from MAD perspective, but I guess I'm asking if you don't really see the strength of a disagreement from others. IOW, do they, we have valid scrutiny? And in this particular, is Like 24:36-53 or Matthew 16:21,22 sufficient for questioning the veracity? (I know you've been over this many many times, I'm not trying to reinvent the debate or discussion, but give perhaps a better perspective, as well as allow you to show the strength of your position).

In the end, I'd likely be MAD, if not Covenant, because it is the only other cogent explanation BUT it doesn't fit my understanding of the scriptures as well as does Covenant Theology. That said, yes, I agree there are problems pointed out with it too. For me, unless it is wholly unbiblical, I try to find the strength in another's belief system, so again, thank you for conversation (I've also read along more than I've participated in these as well). -Lon

Can you do me a small favor?

I think in bullet points because it's the only way to organize any complex thoughts I happen to have. Would you please try to put the above into bullet point statements or questions so I can respond better? I want to and sorry to ask, but I'm having difficulty following you.

 

[God's Truth]

[Title borrowed from a mid-Acts blog]

If anyone during the Lord's time on earth would have anticipated His death, burial and resurrection for forgiveness and justification of the world, the disciples would have been the ones.

But what does God tell us?

So if you have been taught that people before Calvary were "looking forward to the cross" as their Good News, you have been fooled into placing stupid, lying human traditions that someone handed to you above the revealed Word of God. However, you can always repent [change your mind] about that, and you should do so immediately.

But if you read the above Scripture and still insist that people back then were somehow "looking forward to the cross" as their Good News, you are a literal pharisee because you hate God's Word and love the stupid lies of human traditions (Mark 7:13), which also reveals you to be a stiff-necked stupid liar yourself.

Could you explain these scriptures to me?

1 Peter 1:10Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who foretold the grace that would come to you, searched and investigated carefully, 11trying to determine the time and setting to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they foretold the things now announced by those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.